Dengru Wu v. City of Cambridge and Angelo Pellegrino, 2011 HRTO 1005

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dengru Wu

Applicant

-and-

City of Cambridge and Angelo Pellegrino

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: May 26, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1005

Indexed as: Wu v. Cambridge (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Dengru Wu, Applicant ) Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision, 2009 HRTO 1422, dismissing this Application on the basis that it was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the applicant had signed a release as part of a settlement with the corporate respondent. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

2The Request for Reconsideration was filed in a timely manner in September of 2009. As a result of the Tribunal’s error, no decision was issued. The Tribunal apologizes to the parties.

3Rule 25.5 sets out the limited circumstances in which reconsideration may be granted:

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 applicant relies upon Rule 25.5 (a). She states that there is “new evidence” that she did not sign and submit a copy of the agreement with her former employer and union by 3:30 pm on February 14, 2007. This, it appears, was a deadline set by the employer at a certain point. She also suggests that the authorized representative of the grievance committee did not sign the settlement.

5The issues the applicant raises are not new evidence that could not reasonably have been obtained before the case resolution conference. Equally important, they do not affect the validity of the agreement which the applicant signed and pursuant to which she accepted monies. In that agreement, she gave up her right to pursue a human rights claim and put an end to this matter. To allow an application to proceed in the face of that Agreement would amount to an abuse of the Tribunal’s process.

6The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.