Delma Bhatnagar v. Radical Design Ltd. and Carmen Escanden (Attard), 2010 HRTO 900

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Delma Bhatnagar

Applicant

-and-

Radical Design Ltd. and Carmen Escanden (Attard)

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: April 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 900

Indexed as: Bhatnagar v. Radical Design

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 2140, dated December 9, 2009 dismissing the Application on the basis that the applicant had not established that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her religion or disability.

2On January 9, 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”). She provided further information on February 12, 2010 which has also been considered. Section 45.7 of the Code provides:

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 under Section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code 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 basis of the Request for reconsideration is under subsection (a) above.

5The alleged new evidence, that a person allegedly continued to perform pattern making after the applicant was laid off, is evidence that could reasonably have been obtained earlier. The applicant also alleged that she felt intimidated during the hearing. I note that the applicant was represented by counsel at the hearing, which indicates to me both that the evidence could have been obtained earlier and that the allegation of feeling intimidated is unfounded.

6In these circumstances I am not satisfied that the applicant has established any basis for reconsideration.

7The Request for Reconsideration is denied.