J.M. v. St. Joseph’s Health Care, 2010 HRTO 1376

1On March 23, 2010, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 633, addressing various preliminary issues including the application of sections 35 (9) and (11) of the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) to the disclosure of medical records in the proceeding. With respect to the latter issue, the Tribunal found that the respondent was not prohibited from disclosing certain medical records because of section 35(11) of the MHA. On April 23, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of this aspect of the Tribunal’s Interim Decision. In the accompanying submissions, the applicant reiterates arguments made earlier in connection with the initial objection to disclosure including referring to case law already submitted.

2The request for reconsideration is denied. Under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules, reconsideration is only available from a final decision. A final decision is “one that disposes of some or all of the central issues in the complaint as between the parties”. See Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34 at para. 41. The previous Interim Decision was not final. In fact, while the Tribunal addressed the application of the MHA, the Tribunal also stated that its finding should not be interpreted as providing any indication as to whether the contested documents are relevant to the issues in the Application or whether measures should be taken to address the applicant’s privacy interests. Further, and in any event, the applicant’s request for reconsideration reiterates submissions already made and considered in the Interim Decision.