Lin v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 1374

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin

Applicant

-and-

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario,

Richard Hennessy and Lisa Ditri

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: October 16, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1374

Indexed as: Lin v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of September 30, 2015 HRTO 1298, dismissing this Application for being outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

2The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

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.

3The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

4The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on October 1, 2015 and relies upon Rule 26.5(c) and (d).

5The applicant submitted that there are no facts or law to support the Tribunal’s decision. The applicant submitted that the Tribunal ignored the facts and evidence that the respondents bullied and harassed the applicant and violated the Tribunal’s rules. The applicant submitted that the Tribunal “talked nonsense”, changed the facts and the “conception of discrimination” regarding the respondents’ behaviour. Finally the applicant submitted that the Tribunal’s decision is “empty” and did not consider the Application on its particular merits.

6As is to be expected, the applicant is unhappy with the Tribunal’s Decision to dismiss her case. The applicant did not, however, indicate how the Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and how the proposed Reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. The applicant also did not describe the other factors that exist that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal’s decision. Consequently, the applicant has not met the criteria for Reconsideration under either Rule 26.5(c) or (d).

7The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.