Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Nohemy Cunningham
Applicant
-and-
CUPE 4400, Anna Hutchison, Ann Cowan and Yolanda McLean
Respondents
Reconsideration DECision
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Cunningham v. CUPE 4400
1This is an Application filed on December 31, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). In 2011 HRTO 658, I dismissed this Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code because its substance has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding and because it disclosed no prima facie case of discrimination. The applicant has made a Request for Reconsideration.
2Section 45.7 of the Code provides as follows:
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.
3The Tribunal's Rules for Transitional Applications provide that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal. Rule 25.5 of the Rules for Transitional Applications 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 applicant made no submissions which bear on any of the factors that I am entitled to consider as set out above. The applicant states that the reconsideration should be granted because the respondents discriminated against her. The applicant filed a number of documents, most of them related to an ongoing grievance arbitration in which she is involved. The applicant also filed a recording of a telephone message from her doctor's office concerning a document or documents that have gone missing.
5The applicant is evidently unhappy with the manner in which the grievance is being handled by her trade union. She also appears to believe that this reconsideration should be granted because she believes that the respondents have discriminated against her. Neither of these considerations, even if correct, is a proper basis for reconsideration.
6For these reasons the applicant's Request is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of June, 2011.
"signed by"_____________
David Muir
Vice-chair