Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Katie Connor Applicant
-and-
Eazy Express Inc. Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: April 30, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 953 Indexed as: Connor v. Eazy Express
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY Katie Connor, Applicant ) On her own behalf
Decision
1On March 26, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2010 HRTO 673, which dismissed the Application on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Application.
2The Tribunal provided the following reasons for dismissing the Application:
5Under Rule 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may dismiss an application that is outside its jurisdiction. Pursuant to subsection 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of the province are within federal jurisdiction. The respondent’s submissions and the Decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board that it attached to its submissions indicate that the respondent is a national courier service that engages in transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the borders of Ontario. The applicant did not present any evidence to suggest the contrary.
6Furthermore, in cases involving other national courier services, the Tribunal has decided that it does not have jurisdiction over the Application: see Kennedy v. Purolator Courier, 2009 HRTO 2003, Escudero v. United Parcel Service, 2009 HRTO 811, and Shaikh v. United Parcel Service Canada, 2008 HRTO 279.
3On April 21, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.
4Section 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its Decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
5Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules states that 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.
6These four circumstances are also set out in section 2 of the Request for Reconsideration Form, which states: “Please check the reasons why you are making this Request for Reconsideration. Check all that apply.” The applicant checked off the box for a).
7The applicant submits that the Decision should be reconsidered because after she received it she obtained a Corporation Profile Report, which proves that the respondent is provincially incorporated. She attached a copy of the Report to her Request.
8The fact that the respondent is provincially incorporated is not a new fact. It was before me and considered when I made my Decision.
9If the applicant is unsure where to file her claim, she should refer to the Applicant’s Guide and/or contact the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.
10The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 30^th^ day of April, 2010.
“Signed By”
__________________________________
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair