Sandra Bolyki v. Ontario Nurses’ Association, Local 097, Darlene Barnes, Elrett Lecky and Jennifer Palmer, 2011 HRTO 1395

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sandra Bolyki

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Nurses’ Association, Local 097, Darlene Barnes, Elrett Lecky and Jennifer Palmer

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: July 26, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1395 Indexed as: Bolyki v. Ontario Nurses’ Association

1On July 7, 2011, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of Decision 2011 HRTO 547 under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application was dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with it pursuant to section 53(5) because the Commission had dealt with the merits of the underlying human rights complaint when it issued a decision under s. 36(2) of the former Code.

2Section 45.7 of the Code provides:

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 of Procedure For Transitional Applications Pursuant to Sections 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code provide that any party may request reconsideration of a decision in accordance with Rule 25.5, which states:

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 bearing on any of the factors set out above. The applicant states that she does not understand how the Tribunal could have no jurisdiction because she followed the procedure religiously. The remainder of the applicant’s submissions comprise complaints of what she described as ongoing discrimination and bullying by various persons. Most of the allegations appear to be quite recent. These incidents, as described, appear to be well beyond the time period contemplated by the complaint, which was filed in December 2004, and could not have been considered as part of this s. 53(5) Application in any event.

5The applicant evidently disagrees with my interpretation of the transitional provisions of the Code, in particular the language of section 53(5); however, she has not pointed to any established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure that conflicts with my Decision.

6For all of these reasons the Request is dismissed.