HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christina Lane

Applicant

-and-

Corine McGill

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION Decision

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: April 8, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 681

Indexed as: Lane v. McGill

[1] The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of January 20, 2011, 2011 HRTO 146, dismissing this Application as abandoned.

[2] The Decision reads as follows

This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant has not communicated with the Tribunal since August of 2010, when she requested an extension to file materials. She did not file those materials.

By letter dated October 29, 2010, the applicant was directed to file a Reply to the Response which responded, in particular to the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 of the Code. The Reply was to be filed by November 12, 2010. The letter advised the applicant that if she did not file a Reply, the Tribunal may consider the failure an abandonment of the Application and dismiss the Application for that reason.

The applicant did not file a Reply. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

[3] The circumstances in which reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

26.5 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.

[4] The applicant relies upon Rule 26.5(d). She states that she was not able to deal with this matter due to a court matter of greater urgency and her health has limited her ability to do paperwork. She filed various materials with the Tribunal relating to appeals of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision involving the respondent to the Divisional Court and then to the Court of Appeal.

[5] The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed. The applicant filed no medical information indicating an inability to even communicate with the Tribunal, even to the limited extent of requesting an extension of a relevant timeline. The fact that she may have been dealing with other matters cannot justify a failure to respond to Tribunal communications about this matter which is the responsibility of participants in the Tribunal’s process: see Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335. Finally, the documents submitted by the applicant about the court proceedings are from 2009, and do not address the applicant’s failure to respond to Tribunal directions given in late 2010. There are no circumstances that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

Dated at Toronto, this 8^th^ day of April, 2011.

“signed by”

David A. Wright

Associate Chair