Yonette Reis v. CIBC Mortgages Inc., 2009 HRTO 1589

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yonette Reis

Applicant

-and-

CIBC Mortgages Inc., Michel Cubric, Hong Luu, Stephanie Saslove and Linda Clark

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 1, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1589

Indexed as: Reis v. CIBC Mortgages

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Yonette Reis, Applicant ) Ernest J. Guiste, Counsel

1This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision 2009 HRTO 1350 dismissing the Application as barred by section 34(11) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

2On September 22, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Code.

45.7 (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.

3Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under Section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code provides any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. 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.

4The applicant submitted that the dismissal of the Application, which contained allegations of race-based discrimination, which were not raised in the civil action, deprived the applicant of an opportunity to pursue these allegations. As I stated in my Decision, the fact that the applicant has only raised the disability-related Code infringement in her civil action, and not the alleged race/colour discrimination, does not affect the application of section 34(11). Otherwise, parties would be encouraged to raise some allegations of discrimination in the civil action and other allegations of discrimination in the human rights Application, thus resulting in the very duplication of proceedings the section was designed to prevent.

5The applicant relied upon section 43(2) of the Code which provides that the Tribunal shall not finally dispose of an application that is within its jurisdiction, without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions. However, the statutory bar in section 34(11) deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction to accept the application and therefore, oral submissions are not required.

6The Request for reconsideration is denied.