Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Sandra MacDonald
Applicant
-and-
Anishnawbe Health Toronto, Jane Harrison and Joseph Hester
Respondents
reconsideration DECISION
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Indexed as: MacDonald v. Anishnawbe Health Toronto
1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2010 HRTO 329, dated February 12, 2010 dismissing the Application on the basis that the applicant had not established that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her religion or disability.
2On February 24, 2010, the applicant filed 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”). She provided further information on March 4, 2010 which has also been considered. Section 45.7 of the Code provides:
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.
3Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional 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.
4The basis of the Request for Reconsideration is under subsections (a) and (d) above.
New Evidence
5The new evidence relates to five witnesses that the applicant would like to call. The applicant offered no explanation why any of the proposed witnesses could not be located and called as witnesses for the hearing. The applicant was represented by counsel at the hearing and the decision about whether to call the witnesses should have been made prior to the hearing.
Other Factors
6The applicant alleges that on January 18, 2010 she was taking medication and that may have impaired her ability to concentrate at the hearing. This vague assertion is insufficient to justify reconsideration.
7The applicant alleges that counsel for the respondents made a comment “she has a record” which may have led me to believe that she had a criminal record and that would have given me a prejudiced view of her. I was under no impression whatsoever that the applicant had a criminal record.
8The applicant alleges that her counsel did not advise her of the respondents’ evidence and she was therefore unprepared for the cross examination. That is a matter between the applicant and her counsel and is not a basis for reconsideration.
9In these circumstances I am not satisfied that the applicant has established any basis for reconsideration.
10The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of April, 2010.
“Signed by”
Kaye Joachim
Alternate Chair