HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tanya Sampson
Applicant
-and-
Johnson Controls Inc., Gail Murphy, Darlene Snowball and Diane Huxter-Mercer
Respondents
reconsideration DECISION
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Indexed as: Sampson v. Johnson Controls
1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 1742, dismissing the Application on the basis that it was abandoned.
2On November 20, 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.
4A Case Resolution Conference (“hearing”) in this matter was scheduled for October 21 and 22, 2009. By Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1684, dated October 15, 2009, the Tribunal refused the applicant’s request for an adjournment.
5The applicant was directed by letter from the Registrar-Transition to confirm her intention to attend by October 19, 2009 or the Tribunal would consider that she had abandoned her Application and it would be dismissed.
6The applicant did not confirm that she would be attending although on October 20, 2009, the applicant sent documents to the Tribunal by email.
7On October 22, 2009, the Tribunal cancelled the hearing scheduled for October 21 and 22, 2009 and dismissed the Application as abandoned. In that Decision, 2009 HRTO 1742, I noted that the applicant had not filed a statement of additional facts and remedy as by June 29, 2009 as required by the Tribunal’s Notice of Case Resolution Conference and Required Preparation, nor did she seek an extension or offer an explanation for her failure to do so. She did not file the documents she intended to rely upon or a list of witnesses and their will says by October 8, 2009, as required. Part of the reason she sought an adjournment was that she had not had time to deal with this case as she was dealing with “other matters.” She also sought to reschedule the hearing on the basis that she was not financially capable of travelling from Newfoundland and also had medical appointments scheduled that week.
8The applicant now asserts that she was too ill to travel to the hearing. The medical note submitted by the applicant states that the applicant was diagnosed with otis media and a lower respiratory tract infection on October 15, 2009 and was treated with an antibiotic for a 10 day period. It does not state that the applicant was unable to travel. Nor does it explain why the applicant did not advise the Tribunal of her illness and inability to travel.
9I am not satisfied that the applicant has established any basis to reconsider my Decision. The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 17^th^ day of December, 2009.
“Signed by”
Kaye Joachim
Alternate Chair