HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
________________________________________________________________________________
B E T W E E N:
Nancy Arcuri
Applicant
-and-
Cambridge Memorial Hospital
Respondent
________________________________________________________________________________
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
________________________________________________________________________________
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: Arcuri v. Cambridge Memorial Hospital
________________________________________________________________________________
1This is an Application filed December 17, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). By Decision 2010 HRTO 578 dated March 17, 2010, the Tribunal dismissed the Application because of the delay in filing it.
2The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of that Decision.
3Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with explicit authority to reconsider its decisions:
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.
4Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers.
5Rule 26 reads, in part, as follows:
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 and orders.
6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:
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.
Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.
7In her Request, the applicant relies on the factors in Rules 26.5(a) and (d). In providing the reasons and representations in support of her Request, she states simply:
I was living with depression, therefore I was incapable of making sound and rational decisions.
8In this Application, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, advising her that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination described in her Application. The applicant was directed to file submissions explaining how the delay was incurred in good faith and why she believes no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. In response, the applicant sent a letter dated March 11, 2010.
9As described in the Decision, the reason the applicant gave for filing her Application in December 2009, more than a year and a half after the events, was that she was not aware of any rights she had. She states that she was not told about her rights until her psychiatrist mentioned it to her upon one of her visits and after that she proceeded to take action. She also mentions that she was not aware of “this service,” which appears to refer to the Tribunal, until her doctor told her about it.
10On the basis of the material before it, including the applicant’s letter of March 11, the Tribunal dismissed the Application for delay. It found that the applicant had not provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the Application.
11The applicant has now provided a further reason to explain her delay. This is not a basis for reconsideration. There is no indication that applicant could not have provided this information earlier. As stated in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, a Request for Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of a case. The applicant has not satisfied me that any of the factors in Rule 26.5 support reconsideration of the decision in this Application.
12The Request is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 16th day of April, 2010.
“Signed by”
_______________________________
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair