Fulton-Bell v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, 2009 HRTO 2146

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N

Yvonne Fulton-Bell

Applicant

-and-

Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, Hugh Nicholson, Jennifer Smith and Jennifer Hill

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman

Date: December 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2146

Indexed as: Fulton-Bell v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 1769, dismissing the Application as outside its jurisdiction. Specifically the Application alleged that discrimination occurred in the area of services provided by the respondents. The Tribunal’s Decision found that the applicant was not receiving services as alleged in her Application.

2On November 15, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

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.

3Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. Rule 25.5 provides:

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.

4The applicant checked off all of the above reasons in her Request for reconsideration. She states that my Decision reflected only the respondents’ positions, her Complaint was arbitrarily transferred from the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the Tribunal, my Decision is discriminatory as I refer to her as the “applicant” without stating her name, and finally that I failed to understand that her Application was brought on behalf of her children who include four minors and a 16 year-old step-daughter, who I also failed to identify by name.

5With respect to the applicant’s view that my Decision reflects only the respondents’ positions, the applicant essentially repeats the evidence submitted by her and taken into account by me in making my Decision. All parties made written submissions on the jurisdictional issue and all submissions were given equal consideration. While it is understandable that the party who is unsuccessful may feel that their position was not given sufficient weight, a request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or reargue evidence already advanced and considered.

6The applicant states that her Complaint was arbitrarily transferred to the Tribunal. The transition provisions of the Code provide that an individual who had a continued complaint before the Ontario Human Rights Commission on June 30, 2008 may make an application to the Tribunal under the Tribunal’s process for transitional applications. To this end the applicant filed a signed Form TR-1 Application under Section 53(5) of the Code dated June 21, 2009, thereby transferring her Complaint to the Tribunal.

7The applicant asserts that my Decision is discriminatory in that I do not refer to her by name in the Decision. It is common practice for the Tribunal to refer to parties as the “applicant” or the “respondent” instead of by name, The applicant has not demonstrated that this is discriminatory or relevant to a Request for reconsideration.

8With respect to the view that I failed to consider that the Application was brought on behalf of the applicant’s five children, section 53(5) of the Code provides that “a complainant may make an application to the Tribunal with respect to the subject-matter of the complaint” that was before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Complaint forming the basis of this Application deals only with one child: the applicant’s great nephew. This Application was dismissed as not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because although the respondents may have been providing services to this child, I found that they were not providing services to the applicant. The applicant has raised no new facts or evidence regarding her relationship with the respondents vis-à-vis her grand nephew that would change my Decision.

9I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. The Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5. The Request for reconsideration is denied.