HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Field

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Respondent

reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: December 2, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2400

Indexed as: Field v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Written Submissions by

Paul Field, Applicant ) Melissa Mark, Counsel

[1] On June 17, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of Tribunal Decision [2010 HRTO 1028](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2010/1028) 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.

[2] Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides 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.

Request for Chair to hear the Reconsideration Request

[3] The applicant requested that this Request for Reconsideration be referred to the Tribunal Chair. This Tribunal has not developed a practice of assigning reconsideration decisions of significance to the Chair. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states that in most cases the member who heard the original matter will be assigned to determine the reconsideration request. The decision whether to assign a different adjudicator rests with the Chair and the Chair assigned this reconsideration request to me.

[4] One basis for the reconsideration request is that the decision is in conflict with established case law and involves a matter of general or public importance.

[5] The issue before me in this case was whether the decisions of various Claims Adjudicators under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Schedule A (“WSIA”) constituted a “service” within the meaning of section 1 of the Code. I concluded that it did not.

[7] In the request for reconsideration, the applicant asserts that I ought to have followed the reasoning in the Zaki and Frankson decisions and the more recent case of Dopelhamer v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, [2010 HRTO 765](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2010/765).

[8] These cases were all before me when I made my original decision. The Request for Reconsideration does not raise any new arguments.

[9] The applicant correctly points out that there is some division of opinion within the Tribunal over its authority to review the decisions of Claims Adjudicators within the WSIB system. However, it is not accurate to say that there is an established jurisprudence on this issue and that I departed from it. Rather, my decision reflects one branch of evolving jurisprudence on this issue. It is not a reason to reconsider a decision merely because the applicant is unhappy with which stream of developing jurisprudence has been adopted in their situation.

Conclusion

[10] The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

Dated at Toronto, this day 2^nd day of December, 2010.

“Signed by”

Kaye Joachim

Member

Field v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2010 HRTO 2400

Case Summary

[1] On June 17, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of Tribunal Decision [2010 HRTO 1028](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2010/1028) 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.

[2] Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides 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.

Request for Chair to hear the Reconsideration Request

[4] One basis for the reconsideration request is that the decision is in conflict with established case law and involves a matter of general or public importance.

[5] The issue before me in this case was whether the decisions of various Claims Adjudicators under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Schedule A (“WSIA”) constituted a “service” within the meaning of section 1 of the Code. I concluded that it did not.

[7] In the request for reconsideration, the applicant asserts that I ought to have followed the reasoning in the Zaki and Frankson decisions and the more recent case of Dopelhamer v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, [2010 HRTO 765](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2010/765).

[8] These cases were all before me when I made my original decision. The Request for Reconsideration does not raise any new arguments.

Conclusion

[10] The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

Dated at Toronto, this day 2^nd day of December, 2010.

[1] On June 17, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of Tribunal Decision [2010 HRTO 1028](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2010/1028) 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.

[2] Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides 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.

Request for Chair to hear the Reconsideration Request

[4] One basis for the reconsideration request is that the decision is in conflict with established case law and involves a matter of general or public importance.

[5] The issue before me in this case was whether the decisions of various Claims Adjudicators under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Schedule A (“WSIA”) constituted a “service” within the meaning of section 1 of the Code. I concluded that it did not.

[7] In the request for reconsideration, the applicant asserts that I ought to have followed the reasoning in the Zaki and Frankson decisions and the more recent case of Dopelhamer v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, [2010 HRTO 765](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2010/765).

[8] These cases were all before me when I made my original decision. The Request for Reconsideration does not raise any new arguments.

Conclusion

[10] The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

Dated at Toronto, this day 2nd day of December, 2010.

Dated at Toronto, this day 2^nd day of December, 2010.