Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Mirjana Georgievska
Applicant
-and-
Kingdom Hotels Limited o/a Four Seasons Hotel Toronto
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Georgievska v. Kingdom Hotels Limited
Introduction
1The applicant has filed a Request to Reconsider Decision 2013 HRTO 818 (“the Decision”). The Decision dismissed the Application because another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.
2As discussed in the Decision, the applicant was a long-term employee of a hotel and was not selected as an employee by the respondent when a new hotel was opened and the hotel where she was employed was closed. The respondent and the applicant's union had agreed to a process for resolving any dispute that arose in respect of the transition between the old and the new hotel. The process included the appointment of a Reviewer who held the power to make a binding decision and who was given the authority to “understand the process and criteria for the job selection of the individual and ensure that the criteria used by the Hotel was applied equally as against the person posting for that position.”
3The applicant grieved the fact that she was not selected as an employee of the new hotel and the Reviewer held a hearing to consider her case and the cases of two other employees who were also not selected. The Reviewer understood that the applicant felt that she was not selected in part because of a disability. However, he concluded that there was “no evidence of discrimination on the basis of age, nationality or disability.”
4In her Application to this Tribunal, the applicant maintained that the process before the Reviewer was not fair and that all of her circumstances were not taken into account.
5Section 45.1 of the Code provides:
The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
6For the reasons detailed in the Decision, I concluded that the process before the Reviewer was a proceeding for the purpose of section 45.1 and that the proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.
7I noted that the applicant felt that the process before the Reviewer was not fair but also noted that the Tribunal is not intended to sit as an appeal body over other decision-makers. In this case, the Reviewer understood the applicant’s position and her allegations that she had not been selected because of discriminatory factors. The applicant did not agree with the Reviewer’s findings but that is not a basis for the Tribunal to find it has jurisdiction to deal with a matter that has already been dealt with in another proceeding.
8In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant has again explained the reasons why she feels that the process before the Reviewer was not fair and expresses her disappointment that she will not have the chance to fully explain her allegations to this Tribunal.
DECISION
9Under 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.
10Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure deals with requests for reconsiderations:
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.
11I appreciate that the applicant does not agree that the process before the Reviewer appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application and that she believes that her Application should not have been dismissed. I also appreciate that she firmly believes that she was not hired by the new hotel for discriminatory reasons. However, the applicant has not identified any of the factors set out above in the Tribunal’s Rule 26 that would allow the Tribunal to grant the applicant's Request for Reconsideration. For this reason, the Request for Reconsideration must be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 12^th^ day of July, 2013.
“Signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair