Hall v. Royal Victoria Hospital, 2010 HRTO 1373

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Clifford Hall

Applicant

-and-

Royal Victoria Hospital and Janice Skot

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: June 21, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1373

Indexed as: Hall v. Royal Victoria Hospital

1On May 21, 2010, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2010 HRTO 1165, dismissing the Application on the grounds that the Application was filed more than two years after the incident to which the Application relates. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision, arguing that the last incident to which the Application relates occurred in October 2009 and that the Application was accordingly filed within one year as required by section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents have not been asked to file a Response to the Request for Reconsideration.

2Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may 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.

3Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

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.

4As noted in the Decision, the Application alleges that a doctor, employed by the corporate respondent, made a discriminatory remark about the applicant’s wife in November 2007. The applicant sought a meeting with the personal respondent, who is the CEO of the hospital. This meeting took place in October 2009. The applicant was not satisfied with the response and filed the Application. He has also pursued a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

5The applicant does not allege that his late wife experienced discrimination on the part of the personal respondent in the October 2009 meeting, but rather that she failed to properly deal with the alleged discrimination by the doctor in November 2007.

6Section 34(1) and (2) provide:

34. (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

7In this case, it seems clear that there was one alleged discriminatory incident, which was the remark by the doctor in November 2007. Although the applicant was dissatisfied with the result, the meeting with the hospital CEO was not part of a series of alleged discriminatory incidents.

8The Decision explained why subsection 34(2) does not apply to this case.

9I conclude that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.