HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jennifer Zu
Applicant
-and-
City of Hamilton and Lorraine Paddon
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty
Indexed as: Zu v. Hamilton (City)
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).
2On December 13, 2010, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 2215, in which it dismissed the Application in part. The Tribunal concluded that, in light of a settlement agreement between the parties, it would be an abuse of process for certain parts of the Application to proceed.
3On December 20, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration and submissions in support of the Request. A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondent:
Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.
4Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In this regard, it is helpful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which states in part:
Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.
5The applicant argues that the Interim Decision dismissing portions of her Application ought to be reconsidered because there are factors in this case that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions. She advances three arguments in this regard:
a. She reiterates her argument that the respondent did not comply with the settlement;
b. She argues that the Application is not related to the grievances and that it would be unfair to dismiss the Application on that basis. In this regard, she points out that, while the Application raises allegations of reprisal, the grievances do not; and
c. She takes issue with the wording of the Interim Decision, at paragraph 50, and argues that her understanding of what could be raised in the grievances was based on advice received from a “human rights specialist” she consulted with and at the recommendation of the Union.
6The thrust of the applicant’s submissions essentially reiterate arguments she has already made and which were addressed in the Interim Decision.
7While it is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Interim Decision and is troubled by the Tribunal’s finding, she has presented no basis to reconsider the Inteirm Decision.
8The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of January, 2011.
”signed by”____________
Michelle Flaherty
Vice-chair