HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Marilyn McMahon-Ayerst
Applicant
-and-
Revera Long Term Care Inc. and Marvin Kalchman
Respondents
Reconsideration DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: McMahon-Ayerst v. Revera Long Term Care
1This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision dismissing the Application.
2On June 19, 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.
3The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provide 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.
4Ms. McMahon-Ayerst made no submissions in respect of paragraphs a. and b. above.
5Ms. McMahon-Ayerst makes a number of submissions that broadly speaking might be said to be captured in paragraph c. She states that in a number of ways the Decision was made in conflict with established Tribunal procedure. For example, Ms. McMahon-Ayerst alleges in this regard that although the hearing of her Application was scheduled for two days, she did not get her two days of hearing. She alleges as well that there was no Order excluding witnesses and states that I ordered her to produce a document over which she claimed a privilege. She further alleges that she was told that she could not object because she was not a lawyer.
6The hearing took two full days to complete. The parties were offered the opportunity to make their final submissions in writing if that was necessary to get all of the evidence in. After the evidence was concluded, I proposed again that the parties might make their final submissions in writing if they wished. Ms. McMahon-Ayerst declined that option and the hearing proceeded to its conclusion with me requiring written submissions from the parties on a legal point.
7There was no Order excluding witnesses because the dispute between the parties was not about the facts but, rather, the consequence of those facts and whether what had occurred between the parties could support a finding that the Code had been violated. My directions with respect to management of witnesses and documents were matters entirely within the discretion of the Tribunal.
8It is also evident from Ms. McMahon-Ayerst’s submissions that she disagrees with a number findings of fact that were made based on the evidence presented. A Request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue the merits of the Application.
9The Request for reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of July, 2009.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair