Marija Milkovic v. Lowe's Companies Canada, ULC, 2013 HRTO 493

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marija Milkovic Applicant

-and-

Lowe's Companies Canada, ULC Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: March 25, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 493 Indexed as: Milkovic v. Lowe's Companies Canada, ULC

Introduction

1The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Decision (2013 HRTO 255), dated February 12, 2013. That Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that the applicant, having failed to comply with her pre-hearing disclosure obligations, was deemed to have abandoned it.

2The Request for Reconsideration was apparently delivered to the respondent on March 5, 2013, the same date it was filed with the Tribunal. The respondent was not required to file submissions

3Section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request to reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.

4Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure indicates that a Request for Reconsideration must be made within 30 days from the date of the decision.

5The applicant has marked the box on the form that corresponds to factor (d) as listed above. However, she has given no information and made no submissions that indicate why she feels that this or any of the other factors listed above apply in her case. She indicates that she has retained counsel and appears to assume that her file has in fact been re-opened, which is not the case.

6In view of the absence at this point of any submissions of fact or law that correspond to the grounds for reconsideration, the Request for reconsideration is dismissed.