HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Veena Dass
Applicant
-and-
Extendicare Laurier Manor Nursing Home
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Dass v. Extendicare Laurier Manor Nursing Home
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Veena Dass, Applicant
Self-represented
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of record of offences and reprisal.
2On June 20, 2012 the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of 2012 HRTO 995 (the “Decision”) where I dismissed the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success.
3Section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) provides as follows:
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.
[3] The Tribunal’s Rules provide that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal. Rule 26.5 of the Rules provides:
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.
[5] In her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant indicates that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. She states that she wants to know why she was fired after missing a day of work because of sickness. The applicant also stated that she wanted to know about her entitlements to termination and severance pay and a settlement made between her union and the respondent employer. These new facts are not new, but are reiterations of allegations that were included in the Application and which were considered in the context of the summary hearing and subsequent Decision.
4The applicant evidently disagrees with the conclusions reached in the Decision, however that is not an appropriate basis for Reconsideration of a final Decision. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of July, 2012.
”signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair