Lewis v. Bruce R. Duncan and Associates, 2009 HRTO 1435

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julia Lewis

Applicant

-and-

Bruce R. Duncan and Associates and Joan Perry

Respondents

Reconsideration Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: September 9, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1435

Indexed as: Lewis v. Bruce R. Duncan and Associates

1This is an Application filed on July 30, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2A Case Resolution Conference (hearing) was held on April 1, 2009. At the time and place set for the hearing the applicant was not in attendance. After waiting for approximately 40 minutes the Application was dismissed, with reasons provided in 2009 HRTO 446.

3A Request for Reconsideration (Form 20) was made by the applicant and received by the Tribunal on May 15, 2009. A Case Assessment Direction (CAD) dated May 25, 2009 was sent to the parties directing the applicant to “set out in detail the basis for her claim that she did not receive Notice of the Case Resolution Conference. A copy of the CAD was sent to the applicant but returned as undeliverable. A further copy of the CAD was sent to the applicant by email on August 13, 2009, at her request. The applicant was advised at that time that she would be afforded a further 21 days to respond to the direction in the CAD. No response to the CAD has been received.

4Section 45.7 of the Code provides:

(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

5The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure Governing Transitional Applications provide that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal. Rule 25.5 provides:

A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:

a. there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

b. the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

c. the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or

d. other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

6The only submission that the applicant has made is that she failed to receive Notice of the Case Resolution Conference. Notice was sent to the applicant in November 2008 and there is no indication that it was not received. Although directed to do so and despite being given ample opportunity to comply she has failed to provide the basis for her assertion that she was unaware of the date of the Case Resolution Conference. The applicant’s Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5 and is denied.