Darren Thorne

The complainant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it was an abuse of process to relitigate the delisting of sex reassignment surgery (SRS) as an insured service.

The original decision applied the ruling in Hogan, which denied accommodation to individuals who began transitioning after SRS was delisted.

The complainant argued the decision was factually inaccurate, inconsistent with Hogan, and contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the complainant commenced her transition after the delisting and was therefore not entitled to accommodation under Hogan.

The Tribunal also held that relitigating the issue on the same evidence and legal theory was an abuse of process.

The complainants challenged the 1998 delisting of sex reassignment surgery as an insured service under OHIP.

The Tribunal previously ruled on this exact issue in Hogan v. Ontario, finding the delisting was not discriminatory but the grandparenting provision failed to accommodate those already transitioning.

The Commission and complainants sought to relitigate the delisting issue using the same evidence and legal theory as in Hogan.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaints as an abuse of process, holding that attempting to reargue the same case before a different panel to obtain a contrary result violates principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality, and the integrity of the administration of justice.