Wilk v. St. Stanislaus – St. Casimir’s Polish Credit Union, 2015 HRTO 351

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Krystyna Wilk

Applicant

-and-

St. Stanislaus – St. Casimir’s Polish Credit Union and Andrzej Pitek

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: March 19, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 351

Indexed as: Wilk v. St. Stanislaus – St. Casimir’s Polish Credit Union

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Krystyna Wilk, Applicant ) Self-represented

1On January 15, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2015 HRTO 61 (“the Decision”), dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision.

BACKGROUND

2The Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success because: (1) she had not alleged any act that would constitute differential treatment on the basis of age; and (2) her allegations did not constitute reprisal under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

3The applicant filed the Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) on February 10, 2015. The Request indicates that the applicant believes that the Tribunal ignored or failed to consider the information she presented. The basis for her Request is that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. Although the, the applicant reasserts that she believes she was discriminated against on the basis of age, she does not assert any new facts or allegations.

CONCLUSIONS

4Under 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 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.

5The 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.

7Other than baldly asserting that she believes the Tribunal overlooked information presented to it and that she has been discriminated against, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

DECISION

8The Request for Reconsideration is denied.