Roger Stocco v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2010 HRTO 115

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Roger Stocco

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: January 18, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 115

Indexed as: Stocco v. Ontario Human Rights Commission

1This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision 2009 HRTO 1416, dated September 8, 2009 dismissing the Application on the basis that the applicant had not filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission prior to June 30, 2008.

2On December 10, 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 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 a letter he sent to the Commission on April 8, 2009 advising that he had filed a transition application with the Tribunal. The basis for the reconsideration request was that the Commission had “erred” in his original complaint with the Commission.

5The applicant has clearly misapprehended the basis for my Decision dismissing his Application. The sole basis for dismissing his Application was that he had not formally filed a complaint against the Commisison before June 30, 2008. In my Decision, I specifically stated that nothing in my Decision affected his ability to file an application with the Tribunal pursuant to section 34(1) provided the other requirements of that section have been met.

6The applicant has not raised any basis for me to reconsider my Decision that he had not filed a complaint with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008 and therefore, he may not file a transitional application.

7The Request for reconsideration is denied.