Caster v. George Brown College, 2009 HRTO 2250

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Cathy Caster

Applicant

-and-

George Brown College

Respondent

reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman

Date: December 23, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2250

Indexed as: Caster v. George Brown College

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 1881, dismissing the Application as abandoned.

2On November 25, 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 that 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 checked off the box “other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions” as her reason for making her Request.

5The applicant had notice of the hearing and of the expectation that she must attend: 2009 HRTO 1515. The applicant did not make disclosure as required by the Tribunal’s Rules and failed to attend the hearing, without prior notice. Before dismissing the applicant’s Application for failure to attend the scheduled hearing or comply with disclosure obligations, the applicant was given an opportunity to make submissions to explain these failures. After considering the applicant’s submissions, I found them inadequate to explain her failure to attend or provide disclosure. In her Request for reconsideration the applicant reiterates the earlier submissions that were previously considered. A Request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or reargue evidence already advanced and considered.

6I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. The Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5. The Request for reconsideration is denied.