Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Deborah Nazareth
Applicant
-and-
Burnac Produce Limited and Doreen Ng
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: Nazareth v Burnac Produce Limited and Doreen Ng
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Deborah Nazareth, Applicant
Self-represented
1On March 22, 2016, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 364 in which the Tribunal deferred this Application until the completion of the review of the Employment Standards Officer’s decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
2The applicant filed a Form 20 Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) on April 8, 2016.
3The respondent has not filed a Response to the Request and the time for doing so has now passed.
4In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.
5The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5.
6A 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.
7The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes the following statements:
Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the HRTO. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case.
8The applicant did not provide any reasons why the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to reconsider the Interim Decision to defer the Application.
9Instead, she has requested that the Tribunal address the Request for Production that she made in February 23, 2016.
10As this Application is deferred, the Tribunal can address the Request for Production if it is re-activated.
Order
11The applicant’s Request to Reconsider Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 364 is denied.
12The applicant’s Request for Production will be addressed by the Tribunal if the Application is re-activated.
13I am not seized of this Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of June, 2016.
“Signed By”
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair