Christianson v. Lai Estate, 2011 HRTO 564

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

The Estate of Michael Lai

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: March 21, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 564

Indexed as: Christianson v. Lai Estate

1On January 28, 2011, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2011 HRTO 207, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2Michael Lai was the applicant’s family doctor. Dr. Lai passed away in October 2009. The applicant alleged that Dr. Lai discriminated against him on the grounds of disability or perceived disability and also subjected him to reprisal when Dr. Lai terminated the doctor patient relationship in November 2007.

3The Decision found that Dr. Lai did not discriminate against the applicant and found that there was no evidence to suggest that the doctor’s decision to terminate the doctor patient relationship was in any way influenced by the applicant’s disability or perceived disability.

4In the Request, the applicant takes particular exception to the finding [at paragraph 17] of the Decision that the decision to end the doctor patient relationship was based on Dr. Lai’s conclusion that the applicant had lost faith in his medical care. The applicant cites dictionary definitions of “faith” and asserts that the use of the term “lack of faith” is “legal hyperbole”.

5The applicant alleges that the Decision improperly relied on a decision of the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, contrary to section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18. That section provides as follows:

No record of a proceeding under this Act, a health profession Act or the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, no report, document or thing prepared for or statement given at such a proceeding and no order or decision made in such a proceeding is admissible in a civil proceeding other than a proceeding under this Act, a health profession Act or the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act or a proceeding relating to an order under section 11.1 or 11.2 of the Ontario Drug Benefit Act.

6The Decision of the Tribunal noted that the Complaints Committee had made a decision in respect of a complaint made by the applicant but did not otherwise consider the decision of the Complaints Committee. No documents or any kind related to the Complaints Committee proceeding were admitted into evidence or considered.

7The Request outlines the applicant’s general lack of satisfaction with the Tribunal, related to the Decision and other Decisions made in respect of other Applications he has filed.

DECISION

8Under 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.

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.

9The 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 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.

10The 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.

11In this case, the Request essentially repeats arguments made orally before the Tribunal. The applicant has not established any reason to reconsider the Decision other than the fact that he disagrees with. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered. The Request is denied.