Valenzisi v. Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, 2012 HRTO 71

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julia Valenzisi Applicant

-and-

Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: January 12, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 71 Indexed as: Valenzisi v. Maple Leafs Sports & Entertainment

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Julia Valenzisi, Applicant ) Self-Represented )

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on June 29, 2011, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis on sex and sexual solicitation and advances.

2On September 28, 2011, the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2011 HRTO 1771, (the "Final Decision") dismissing the Application for delay.

3On October 12, 2011, the applicant filed with the Tribunal a Request for Reconsideration. The Tribunal did not direct the respondent to file any submissions with respect to this Request.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

4The Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant indicates that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions. The applicant makes arguments that include the following:

a. That she acted in good faith in giving the Union the opportunity to resolve their misrepresentation without filing further applications against them (I note that the Application was not filed against the applicant's union, but against her former employer);

b. She was not mentally able to file an Application until she did and did so without researching the timeliness issue; and

c. There should be no statute of limitation on harassment claims.

DECISION

5Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal's Rules.

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.

6The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests. Most relevant to this Reconsideration Decision is Rule 26, which states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision.

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.

7As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

8I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. In support of her Request, the applicant is essentially repeating arguments made in writing before the Tribunal or which could have been made. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered. The applicant has not identified any factors that, in my opinion, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

9In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal's Final Decision. The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of January, 2012.

"Signed by"

Geneviève Debané Vice-chair