Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Tracy Zimmerman
Applicant
-and-
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and Darren McLarty
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Zimmerman v. Ontario (Natural Resources & Forestry)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Tracy Zimmerman, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1The applicant filed an Application on June 24, 2016, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry and age, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2On August 31, 2016, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay. The applicant filed submissions in response and on January 31, 2017, the Tribunal dismissed the Application on the basis of delay.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
3The applicant submitted a Request for Reconsideration on the basis that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
DECISION
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 of Procedure, which govern such requests, as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008). Rule 26 states in part:
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.
6Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so.
7In her reconsideration submissions, the applicant re-asserts that the interview process used by the respondent was not fair, that she has valid concerns and deserves an answer with respect to the process. Her submissions do not address the issue of delay on which the Decision under reconsideration was based.
8The applicant has failed to establish that there are other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. Accordingly, I see no basis for exercising my discretion to reconsider my earlier Decision.
order
9The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 6^th^ day of September, 2017.
“Signed by”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair