Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Iona Leong Applicant
-and-
Dufferin and Lawrence Dental Office Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: July 7, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1305 Indexed as: Leong v. Dufferin and Lawrence Dental Office
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Iona Leong, Applicant ) Self-Represented
[1] On March 28, 2011, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2011 HRTO 603, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
background
[2] The Tribunal’s Decision found that there was no nexus between the applicant’s allegations in the Application and the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), and that accordingly the Application did not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
[3] The Request for Reconsideration provides the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:
a. There are new facts or evidence that could possibly be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably been obtained earlier.
b. The decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.
c. There are other factors which outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
DECISION
[4] Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure:
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.
[5] The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008). Most relevant to this Reconsideration Decision is Rule 26 which states:
26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision
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.
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.
7As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
[8] I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.
[9] As stated above, the applicant has indicated that she is relying on Rule 26.5 (a) (c) and (d). She submits that the issues are “‘identical’ to Applicant’s complaint to the Royal College of Dental Surgeons (“RCDS”) and the matter is still under investigation at RCDSO.
[10] She also submits that the Application was “dismissed at the initial stage without any hearing”, and though she has not indicated it as a reason for making her reconsideration request, she appears to be attempting to rely upon Rule 26.5(b).
[11] The applicant submits that her Application “involves clear discrimination and violation of patient/Applicant’s (or public) right to safe effective treatment and health care” and she also submits that it deals with an “infringement of right to be treated equally with dignity and respect”.
12In support of her Request, the applicant essentially repeats arguments made previously to the Tribunal, and refers to allegations contained in her Application. She repeats her allegations regarding billing and the quality of service she received from the respondent. She alleges that this was discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, disability, sex and colour. She submits that in its previous Decision, the Tribunal did not consider her allegation regarding the dentist having “wilfully and recklessly ‘digging up’ [sic] the Applicant’s prior ‘silver’ filling”. She alleges “emotional/psychological intimidation, degradation or exploitation” by the dentist and alleges that she has been a victim of physical, emotional, psychological and “economic” abuse. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.