Buchanan v. San Romanoway Revitalization Association, 2011 HRTO 588

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nadia Buchanan

Applicant

-and-

San Romanoway Revitalization Association and Stephanie Payne

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: March 24, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 588

Indexed as: Buchanan v. San Romanoway Revitalization Association

1This Application was dismissed as abandoned by way of Decision 2011 HRTO 537 because it appeared that the applicant had failed to respond to the Tribunal’s notifications in January and March 2011.

2The applicant’s representative recently advised that the Tribunal’s January 2011 notification was never received and that the applicant did in fact contact the Tribunal in response to the Tribunal’s March 2011 notification. The applicant’s representative provided a copy of the applicant’s March correspondence, which indicates that a copy of that correspondence had also been sent to the respondents’ representative. The applicant’s correspondence provided the applicant’s current address and states that the applicant was seeking another mediation date.

3The Tribunal confirms that the March correspondence was previously received by the Tribunal; however, due to administrative oversight, was not brought to the Vice-chair’s attention.

4Rule 26.9 provides that the Tribunal may reconsider a decision on its own initiative where it considers it advisable and appropriate to do so. As the Decision was not based on accurate information, it is appropriate to reconsider it. I find that, in light of the factors set out above, the Tribunal continues to have jurisdiction over this Application.

5Given the parties’ interest in mediation, the Registrar will schedule this Application for a mediation.

6I am not seized.