HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nancy Polsinelli Applicant

-and-

Elaine Dray Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: July 21, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1374

Indexed as: Polsinelli v. Dray

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Nancy Polsinelli, Applicant ) Self-represented

[1] The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision, [2011 HRTO 1171](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2011/1171), dismissing this Application on the basis that it was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was untimely. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

[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 applicant relies upon Rule 26.5 (a), that there is new evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The applicant appends a doctor’s report dated June 30, 2011, to her Request which she submits constitutes the “new” evidence.

[4] The applicant filed her Application outside of the prescribed one year time limit. She was asked to provide submissions on whether her delay was incurred in good faith. As part of her submissions, the applicant indicated that the delay was the result of advice from her doctor who suggested she take the time to “work through the diagnosed Work related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder”.

[5] The applicant was directed in a Case Assessment Direction, dated May 6, 2011, to provide medical evidence in support of this contention that the delay was occasioned on advice from her doctor. The applicant was directed to provide the medical evidence by May 30, 2011. She did not provide the medical evidence by that date and did not communicate with the Tribunal to ask for an extension of time or otherwise communicate that she was having difficulty getting the medical evidence. On June 16, 2011, having heard nothing from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed her Application.

[6] In her Request for Reconsideration the applicant does not explain why she could not have reasonably have obtained the doctor’s letter earlier and there is nothing on the face of the letter that would indicate that it was being provided at the earliest possible opportunity. Moreover, there is nothing in the doctor’s letter that supports the applicant’s contention that the delay in filing this Application was the result of advice from her doctor.

[7] The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration fails to set out any basis for review of the Decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 21^st^ day of July, 2011.

“Signed by”

Naomi Overend

Vice-chair