Mary Ferrari v. University of Toronto, 2015 HRTO 8

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Ferrari

Applicant

-and-

University of Toronto

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: January 5, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 8

Indexed as: Ferrari v. University of Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mary Ferrari, Applicant

Self-represented

1On November 19, 2014, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2014 HRTO 1672, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision. According to the Request, the reasons for the requested reconsideration are that the applicant would like compensation and because she went through a Court supervised diversion program.

2Section 45.7 of the Code gives the Tribunal the authority to reconsider a decision 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.

3The Tribunal has issued Rules governing requests to reconsider. Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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.

4None of these factors is identified in the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration. I appreciate that the applicant does not agree with the Tribunal’s Decision but this is not in itself a sufficient reason for the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

DECISION

5The Request for Reconsideration is denied.