Craig v. Sarnia Marriott Reservation Centre, 2014 HRTO 869

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Margaret Craig

Applicant

-and-

Sarnia Marriott Reservation Centre and Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Carol Kameka, Marie Frew, John Johnson, Marianne Gibbs, and Linda Ryan

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: June 12, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 869

Indexed as: Craig v. Sarnia Marriott Reservation Centre

APPEARANCES

Margaret Craig, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2013 HRTO 2025, dismissing her Application.

2For the reasons set out below, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.

The Decision being challenged

3The Application was dismissed following a summary hearing during which the parties made oral submissions by teleconference. In the Decision, I dismissed the allegations against the employer and individual respondents on the basis of delay. With respect to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”), I found that the applicant was dissatisfied with the decisions of the WSIB and that the Tribunal is not a mechanism for appealing those decisions.

Applicable Principles

4In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

5The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules:

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.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

6In her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant repeats the same arguments she made in the hearing. She indicates that the basis of her Request is that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal Decisions. The applicant argues that the summary hearing was too short and that she filed a considerable number of documents which she believes support her allegations of discrimination. However, my Decision was not based on whether the applicant was likely to be successful but on the basis of her delay in filing the Application. In addition, the allegations against the WSIB were dismissed because the Tribunal does not have the power to review the decisions of other adjudicators.

Analysis

7I deny the Request for Reconsideration because the applicant has failed to establish the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 that might lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.