Lin v. Soo Wong, 2015 HRTO 1359

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin

Applicant

-and-

Soo Wong

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: October 9, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1359

Indexed as: Lin v. Soo Wong

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Katherine Lin, Applicant ) Self-represented

1On September 23, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s September 18, 2015, Decision, 2015 HRTO 1249, dismissing the Application as abandoned based on the applicant’s failure to attend a summary hearing convened by the Tribunal to determine whether the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

2The applicant’s Request is filed pursuant to s. 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

3Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules states that 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;

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;

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.

4These four circumstances are also set out in section 2 of the Request for Reconsideration Form, which states: “Please check the reasons why you are making this Request for Reconsideration. Check all that apply.” In her Request, the applicant checked off the boxes for c) and d).

5The applicant’s Request does not identify any conflict between the Decision and established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure. Nor does the applicant put forward any other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions.

6As noted above, the Application was dismissed as abandoned because the applicant failed to attend the hearing. However, there is nothing in the reconsideration request that addresses the applicant’s failure to attend the hearing.

7Rather, in her reconsideration request, the applicant repeats allegations in her Application against the respondent. She submits that her Application was “sufficient” and that the Tribunal had “strong evidence” that the respondent violated her rights under the Code. The applicant further indicates her disagreement with the Tribunal’s decision to convene a summary hearing in respect of the Application. Indeed, after another Vice-chair issued the May 8, 2015 Case Assessment Direction directing that a summary hearing be convened in this matter, the applicant filed a Form 10 (Request for an Order during Proceedings) requesting “reassessment” and seeking to have the Vice-Chair “changed” based on an alleged “judicial conflict” (linked to his having decided that a summary hearing should be held). In her reconsideration request, the applicant suggests that she is “still waiting” for the Tribunal to process her Form 10. However, in a letter dated August 12, 2015, the Tribunal advised the applicant that her request would be addressed at the summary hearing scheduled for September 18, 2015, which she did not attend.

8The fact that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision to convene a summary hearing is not a basis for Reconsideration of the decision dismissing the Application. The applicant has failed to establish compelling and extraordinary circumstances that outweigh the public interest in finality of decisions.

9The Request for Reconsideration is denied accordingly.