Kenneth Baldwin v. Thames Valley District School Board and Carolyn May, 2010 HRTO 1841

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kenneth Baldwin

Applicant

-and-

Thames Valley District School Board and Carolyn May

Respondents

Reconsideration decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: September 8, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1841

Indexed as: Baldwin v. Thames Valley District School Board

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Case Resolution Conference Decision, 2010 HRTO 1784, dismissing the Application.

2On September 1, 2010 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 procedures 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 has not provided any submissions that bear on the factors outlined in Rule 25. He participated fully and actively in the Case Resolution Conference (hearing) and presented his evidence. The tendered evidence was admitted and considered. Although he states that the “greater public interest is served by allowing the Application to proceed”, he does not allege any factor that outweighs the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The essence of the applicant’s submission is that he disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision. This is not a proper basis for reconsideration.

5The Request for Reconsideration is denied.