Isidoro Mayta v. Canada Lands Company, CLC Limited et al., 2009 HRTO 2040

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N

Isidoro Mayta

Applicant

-and-

Canada Lands Company, CLC Limited and Doris Bradley

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Isidoro Mayta

Applicant

-and-

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW Canada), Local 4271

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: November 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2040

Indexed as: Mayta v. Canada Lands

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 1613, dismissing the Application after a Case Resolution Conference.

2On November 19, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (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 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 basis of the reconsideration request is that the Vice-chair improperly limited the applicant’s Application against the Union, improperly refused to recuse herself in response to an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias, improperly refused the applicant’s requests for production, failed to consider relevant evidence and improperly relied upon hearsay evidence.

5The arguments raised by the applicant were all addressed during the course of the hearing. I see no basis for reconsidering my rulings or my final decision.

6The Request for reconsideration is denied.