HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Xynnis

Applicant

-and-

1196197 Ontario Limited (cob Fran’s Restaurant), Stan Jeong, Ryan Ferrando, Brian Morris and Agata Grobys

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: March 17, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 335

Indexed as: Xynnis v. 1196197 Ontario Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Elizabeth Xynnis, Applicant ) Efstathia Xynnis-Hall,

) Representative

[1] On February 4, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, [2015 HRTO 163](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2015/163) (“the Decision), dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision.

BACKGROUND

[2] The Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that the applicant was barred from filing the Application with this Tribunal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In addition to filing this Application, the applicant also filed a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice based on the same facts and issues as the Application

[3] The applicant filed the Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) on February 26, 2015. The Request asserts that the applicant should be permitted to pursue both proceedings, but that this Application should be deferred.

CONCLUSIONS

[4] Under 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 the 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.

[5] The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests to reconsider Decisions of the Tribunal. Rule 26 states:

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.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states in part:

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.

[7] In her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states that the Tribunal is “the only organization equipped to judge the serious human rights violations” alleged. This is not a basis for the Tribunal to assume jurisdiction over a matter where the Code specifically removes it. The applicant has not raised circumstances which outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions, or otherwise established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Decision.

DECISION

[8] The Request for Reconsideration is denied.