HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Carolle Chrétien
Applicant
-and-
Day Care St. Mathieu
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Chrétien v. Day Care St. Mathieu
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Day Care St. Mathieu, Respondent
Sébastien Huard, Counsel
1This Application alleges reprisal with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2On February 17, 2015 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application and invited the applicant to make submissions by March 19, 2015, failing which the Application would be dismissed as abandoned.
3On March 31, 2015, the Tribunal issued Decision 2015 HRTO 425 which dismissed the Application as abandoned because the applicant had not filed any submissions.
4After the Decision was issued the Tribunal discovered that the applicant had indeed filed submissions on March 11, 2015 in response to the NOID. Due to an administrative error these submissions were not before the adjudicator that issued the Decision.
5On April 1, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Registrar’s letter advising the parties that it was considering reconsidering the Decision on its own initiative and invited the respondent to make submissions on the issue.
6On April 21, 2015, the respondent advised that it did not oppose the Tribunal reopening the file.
DECISION
7Under 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.
8In the circumstances before me, I find that it is appropriate that the Decision be reconsidered. Through inadvertence, the applicant’s submissions were not before the adjudicator who issued the Decision. The failure to consider those submissions is a factor which outweighs the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions. Therefore, I order that the Decision be set aside.
The applicant’s submissions
9The applicant’s submissions in response to the NOID, made allegations that the respondent discriminated when it failed to return her to work after surgery. Having reviewed these submissions, it is therefore not plain and obvious that the Application falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and I decline to dismiss it at this stage. This is not a final decision in respect of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over this matter.
ORDERS
10The Tribunal orders:
a. Decision 2015 HRTO 425 is set aside and the Tribunal will continue to process the Application; and
b. The respondent must file a Response to the Application within 35 days of the date of this Reconsideration Decision. I am aware that the respondent takes the position that it is improperly named in the Application, however, I have decided that it is appropriate that the style of cause in the Reconsideration Decision be the same as the one used in the Decision. The respondent can clarify its proper name in its Response and this issue can be addressed, if necessary, by the Tribunal at a later time.
11I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 29^th^ day of April, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair