Gayathri Seetharam v. Iogen Corporation, 2010 HRTO 1900

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gayathri Seetharam

Applicant

-and-

Iogen Corporation

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: September 20, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1900

Indexed as: Seetharam v. Iogen

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Gayathri Seetharam, Applicant ) On her own behalf

ii

1The applicant requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision (“Decision”) dismissing this Application on the basis of a delay of over seven years: Seetharam v. Iogen, 2010 HRTO 1811. The Application alleged discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin. The Application was filed on June 30, 2010. The allegations in the Application concerned the applicant’s employment and the termination of that employment on November 11, 2002.

2Rule 26.5 of the Rules of Procedure reads as follows:

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.

3The Tribunal’s jurisprudence establishes that reconsideration is not an opportunity to for a party to reargue the case, nor is it available simply because a party disagrees with the decision. See Dwyer v. Chrysler Canada, 2009 HRTO 385. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate submissions already advanced and considered: Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34.

4On my review of the Request, I am not satisfied that any of the criteria supporting reconsideration of the decision have been established. In her Request the applicant recites several points raised in her original submissions and indicates that she disagrees with my findings because these findings were inconsistent with her perception of the issues. For example, the applicant reargues that that she “was in a state of shock” because of the wrongful dismissal and was unaware of the human rights process. As previously noted, the Tribunal has stated that although ignorance of one’s rights may in some circumstances amount to good faith, the applicant must also establish that he or she had no reason to make inquiries about his or her rights. See Stewart v. Mitten Vinyl, 2010 HRTO 1628.

5The applicant’s disagreement with the conclusions that I drew from the materials before me is not a basis for reconsideration. There are no new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and the applicant’s submissions do not raise issues of general importance nor outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The applicant has not cited any point where the Decision conflicts with established case law or Tribunal procedure.

6The Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26.5. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.