[1] The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, [2011 HRTO 884](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2011/884), dismissing his Application alleging a breach of settlement by the respondents. The Decision concluded that the applicant failed to comply with Rule 24.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which requires the applicant to file a copy of the written Settlement alleged to have been contravened, together with his Form 18 (Application for Contravention of Settlement).

[2] Rule 26.5 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

[3] The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed. The applicant did not satisfy the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. First, it is not a proper basis for reconsideration to assert that the insufficient consideration was given to the original claim. Second, the applicant has not identified any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. Lastly, I am not convinced that any findings made in the Decision are in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedures.

[4] The applicant was required to file a copy of written Settlement signed by the parties along with his Form 18 Contravention of Settlement Application. However, instead of appending Minutes of Settlement, the applicant filed a letter from an investigator of the Ontario Human Rights Commission indicating that the parties had engaged in settlement discussions. That letter expressly indicates that it appeared that settlement discussions were at an impasse and that the matter was unlikely to resolve at that stage. While the letter makes reference to a settlement offer, the applicant did not provide any signed minutes of settlement in support of the Contravention of Settlement Application and the respondents maintain that no Settlement exists between the parties.

[5] In the absence of a Settlement signed by the parties, the Tribunal did not err in finding that the Application was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and there is no basis for this Reconsideration Request. Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.

Stopyn v. UAPP Union Local 67, 2011 HRTO 1370

Case Summary

[2] Rule 26.5 sets out the limited circumstances in which reconsideration may be granted:

[5] In the absence of a Settlement signed by the parties, the Tribunal did not err in finding that the Application was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and there is no basis for this Reconsideration Request. Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.

Dated at Toronto, this 20^th^ day of July 2011.

“signed by”

___________________________________

Ena Chadha