Prudence Simpson-Bowlyn v. Commissionaires (Great Lakes), 2009 HRTO 1612

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Prudence Simpson-Bowlyn Applicant

-and-

Commissionaires (Great Lakes) Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 6, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1612 Indexed as: Simpson-Bowlyn v. Commissionaires (Great Lakes)

1The Tribunal issued a Decision, 2009 HRTO 1362, on August 31, 2009, with respect to this Application and concluded that the respondent contravened section 5 and 9 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). On September 23, 2009, the respondent filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

2Under 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 the Tribunal’s Rules. The Tribunal has issued Rules and 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 provides:

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.

3The respondent submits that the Tribunal made errors of fact in reaching its conclusion and errors regarding the calculation of the award for damages. In particular, the respondent argues that the Tribunal misapprehended the scope of the complainant’s medical benefits coverage.

4The Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to receive submissions from the Applicant with respect to the issue of the proper scope of the Applicant’s medical benefits coverage. As such, the Tribunal directs that, on or before October 30, 2009, the applicant shall deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal her submissions addressing the issue of whether or not the Tribunal misapprehended the scope of the Applicant’s medical benefits coverage.