Kendrick Kim v. Global Payments of Canada GP and Persila Vachon, 2011 HRTO 2082

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kendrick Kim

Applicant

-and-

Global Payments of Canada GP and Persila Vachon

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: November 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2082

Indexed as: Kim v. Global Payments of Canada GP

1On October 18, 2011 the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (Form 20) of the Tribunal’s Decision 2011 HRTO 1716 (the “Decision”) under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

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.

2The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that any party may request reconsideration of a decision in accordance with Rule 26, which provides as follows:

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.

3This Application was dismissed as abandoned when the applicant failed to attend a summary hearing convened pursuant to Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

4On the Request for Reconsideration (Form 20) the applicant checked off the boxes that correspond to paragraphs a, c and d of Rule 26 above, but none of the applicant’s submissions in support of his reconsideration request engages the fact that the applicant chose not to attend the summary hearing. The applicant made no submissions that suggested new facts or evidence related to his failure to attend the hearing. He did not suggest that he had not received notice of the hearing and, as indicated in the Decision, it is clear that he had adequate notice of it. Nor do his submissions establish that the Tribunal’s decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure, or show other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. Given the absence of any submissions bearing on the criteria above the Request for Reconsideration must be denied.

5For all of these reasons the Request is dismissed.