Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Mary Dopelhamer Applicant
-and-
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: November 24, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2333 Indexed as: Dopelhamer v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
[1] Following an oral hearing on the merits of the Application, the Tribunal issued a Decision in this matter on October 29, 2010, dismissing the Application: [2010 HRTO 2169](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2010/2169). The Tribunal concluded that the respondent did not breach the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
[2] On November 9, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) and submissions in support of the Request. A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondent.
[3] Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.
[4] Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In this regard, it is helpful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which states in part:
Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.
[5] The applicant argues that the Decision ought to be reconsidered because there are new facts and evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The applicant refers to x-rays taken in 2008, which she says establish that she does not have arthritis. The applicant does not explain why this evidence was not available earlier or why she feels it could be determinative of the case.
[6] The x-ray does not provide a basis for reconsidering the Decision. The fact that the applicant does not have arthritis was never at issue and evidence in this regard could have no bearing on the case. At the hearing, the parties agreed that the applicant does not have arthritis and that there is no information in her file suggesting otherwise. (See paragraph 12 of the Decision.)
[7] The thrust of the applicant’s other submissions essentially reiterates arguments she made at the hearing. While it is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s findings, she has presented no basis to reconsider the Decision.
[8] The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of November, 2010.
“Signed by”
Michelle Flaherty Vice-chair