Mary Naguib v. City of Toronto (Works and Emergency Services), Maria Mlakar, Bill Forest and Barry Gutteridge, 2010 HRTO 839

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Naguib

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto (Works and Emergency Services), Maria Mlakar, Bill Forest and Barry Gutteridge

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: April 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 839

Indexed as: Naguib v. Toronto (City)

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision 2010 HRTO 621 dated March 23, 2010 dismissing the Application on the basis that the applicant, having failed to attend the hearing scheduled for March 12, 2010, was deemed to have abandoned the Application.

2On April 8, 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 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.

4On her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant ticked off the boxes indicating that the basis of her request was under Rule 25.5 (b) (c) and (d). She submitted no other documents or information in support of her request for reconsideration.

5By letter dated March 25, 2010 the applicant was directed to file any further submissions in support of her request for reconsideration within 10 days. The applicant did not file anything further.

6With respect to the applicant’s bald allegation that she did not receive notice of the hearing, I note the Tribunal received an email from the applicant on October 7, 2009 confirming her availability for the March 12, 2010 hearing and confirming her mailing address. The Notice of Confirmation dated October 28, 2008 confirming the date of the hearing as March 12, 2010 was sent to the address as confirmed by the applicant. I remain satisfied that the applicant received notice of the Hearing. The Request for Reconsideration on the basis that the applicant did not receive notice of the Hearing is dismissed.

7The applicant did not file any supporting submissions in respect of her request for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 (c) or (d) and therefore the Request for Reconsideration on these bases is also dismissed.