Herman von Pagenhardt v. Magna International Inc., 2010 HRTO 1381

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Herman von Pagenhardt

Applicant

-and-

Magna International Inc.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: June 18, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1381

Indexed as: von Pagenhardt v. Magna International

1This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2010 HRTO 1105, dismissing the Application on the basis that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, because it was not a continued complaint within the meaning of section 53 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On May 25, 2010, the applicant submitted a letter to the Tribunal objecting to the Decision. On June 15, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Code. I have considered both the letter and the Request for Reconsideration.

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 applicant made no submissions touching on the criteria outlined above. The thrust of his submissions merely reiterate arguments made to the Tribunal prior to the Decision. It is evident that he disagrees with the outcome. That is not a basis for reconsideration.

5The Request for reconsideration is denied.