Henderson v. Oshawa Public Library, 2010 HRTO 1514

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Beatrice Henderson

Applicant

-and-

Oshawa Public Library

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1514

Indexed as: Henderson v. Oshawa Public Library

1This is an Application filed under section 53(5) of the Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The applicant has made a Request for Reconsideration of my Decision 2010 HRTO 1271 dismissing her Application.

3Section 45.7 of the Code, provides as follows:

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.

4Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides as follows:

25.5 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.

5None of the applicant's submissions addressed any of these points. Instead the applicant in her submissions attempts to re-argue all of the issues dealt with at the hearing in the Decision. Evidently the applicant disagrees with the findings of fact that were made as well as my conclusion with respect to the identity of the proper respondent. However, these are not proper bases for reconsideration.

6The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.