Sylvia Hsieh v. York University, 2009 HRTO 988

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sylvia Hsieh

Applicant

-and-

York University, Sean Martin, Mary O’Regan, Amy Rossiter and Renita Wong

Respondents

Reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 988

Indexed As: Hseih v. York University

1This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision dismissing the Application.

2On June 11, 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.

4Ms. Hsieh made no submissions that bear on any of the above factors. It is evident from her submissions that she disagrees with a number findings of fact that were made based on the evidence presented. She also presented what was described as additional evidence that was not presented at the Case Resolution Conference. Although not admissible a review of the material provided indicates that it would not have altered the result.

5The Request for reconsideration is denied.