HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Natalie DiMichele
Applicant
-and-
Lightyear Media Inc.
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: DiMichele v. Lightyear Inc.
Written Submissions
Natalie DiMichele, Applicant
Self-Represented
Lightyear Media Inc., Respondent
K.C. Wysynski, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to employment.
2A Notice of Summary Hearing indicating the time and date of the Summary Hearing and providing information about how to participate in the hearing by telephone was sent to the parties by email and regular mail on June 13, 2016.
3The applicant did not attend on the telephone hearing at 9:30 a.m. on July 28, 2016, and had not advised the Tribunal that she would not be attending.
4As a result the Application was dismissed as abandoned.
5The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”). She indicated that the reason for the Request was that she had just started a new job and the date escaped her.
6The respondent opposes the Request on the basis that the applicant’s reason does not satisfy any of the criteria for granting a Reconsideration Request as set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In addition, the respondent submits that the Tribunal has consistently rejected requests to reconsider decisions in which the application was dismissed when an applicant failed to attend a proceeding but had received notice.
Decision
7The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5.
8A 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.
9I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient reasons to support a conclusion that compelling and extraordinary circumstances exist for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to reconsider the Decision. As the Tribunal has noted in the past, proceedings before the Tribunal are serious legal proceedings and parties are expected to fulfill their obligations, including attending at scheduled hearing dates. See Robinson v. Ethical Solution Providers Inc., 2015 HRTO 1392.
10Failure to diarize a hearing date and time or being distracted by other matters such as a new job, are not the types of extraordinary circumstances that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. See Sullivan v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, 2015 HRTO 1593.
11As the Tribunal noted in Lacourciere v. Starkman, 2011 HRTO 1921 at para. 9:
In this vein, cancellation of hearing dates because an applicant fails to appear represents a significant waste of resources for the Tribunal and respondent, which is unfortunately not uncommon… The respondent should not be required to commit more time and expense, as well as being again exposed to litigation risk, short of compelling and extraordinary circumstances that do not in my view arise here. Parties must understand that failing to attend hearings will very likely have serious and final consequences for them.
12The applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in the Tribunal’s Rule 26.5 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.
ORDER
13The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of December, 2016.
“Signed by”
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair