Eckert v. Waterloo (Region), 2010 HRTO 1446

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Eckert

Applicant

-and-

Region of Waterloo and Doug Campbell

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman

Date: June 30, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1446

Indexed as: Eckert v. Waterloo (Region)

1This Decision addresses 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") of the Tribunal's Decision, 2010 HRTO 1002, dismissing the Application following a Case Resolution Conference.

2Rule 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.

3In her Request, the applicant has checked off reasons "a" and "c" above.

4On my review of the Request, I am not satisfied that any of the criteria supporting reconsideration of the Decision have been established.

Are there new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier?

5The applicant argues that following the Case Resolution Conference she became aware that some of the time sheets recording her absences or late arrivals that were included in the respondents' evidence are in error. The applicant had the opportunity both prior to and during the Case Resolution Conference to question the accuracy of these records. Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In any event, the entries at issue, even if changed as the applicant urges, would not change any determinative findings of fact. This is insufficient reason therefore to reconsider the Decision.

Is the Decision in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and does the proposed reconsideration involve a matter of general or public importance?

6The applicant has not cited any established case law or Tribunal procedure that the Decision conflicts with. The applicant, however, urges that as a result of actions of the personal respondent her early childhood care certificate now has been suspended.

7The status of the applicant's early childhood care certificate was not an issue before the Tribunal in the Case Resolution Conference nor is that status relevant to the issues raised in her Application. The present status of her certificate therefore is not a reason for reconsideration of this Decision.

Evidentiary findings

8The applicant also takes issue with certain aspects of my Decision that she argues are inconsistent with "The Psychologist Act 1991 section 3 Scope of practice." Specifically, her complaint is that the Decision records two respondent witnesses' descriptions of her behavior that the respondents argued formed the basis for the non-discriminatory reason the applicant's placement and participation in the Experience Matters Program were terminated. My findings reflected the respondents' position. I found that her placement was terminated for those non-discriminatory reasons. The applicant argues that I should not have accepted that evidence, as it is not consistent with the legislation she cites.

9The applicant did not object to that testimony when given and essentially she now is attempting to reargue her case. The applicant's disagreement with the conclusions that I drew from the evidence is not a basis for reconsideration.

10Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. The issues raised by the applicant challenging the merits of my Decision are not compelling or extraordinary. They do not raise issues of general importance nor outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5. The Request for Reconsideration is denied.