Ahmed v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre, 2011 HRTO 660

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lina Ahmed

Applicant

-and-

St. Joseph’s Health Centre and Rachel Morrison

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: April 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 660

Indexed as: Ahmed v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre

1This Application was dismissed by way of Decision 2011 HRTO 418, pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code, because of an on-going civil proceeding with respect to the same allegations and remedies raised in the Application.

2The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration asking the Tribunal to “re-evaluate” its Decision because she has decided to “cancel” the civil claim against the respondents and, instead, seeks to proceed with the Application against the respondents for her human rights issues. While the Reconsideration request indicates that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions, the applicant has provided no submissions in that regard.

RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

3Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued Rules governing Requests for Reconsideration. Rule 26.5 provides that 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;

(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;

(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.

DECISION

4The 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.

5On my review of the Reconsideration Request, I am satisfied that there is no basis to reconsider the Decision of February 25, 2011. The applicant appears to suggest that the Tribunal should maintain jurisdiction over her Application because she has changed her mind with respect to proceeding with a civil action against the respondents. This recent change in the applicant’s litigation strategy does not negate the fact that, at the time of the Decision, section 34(11) applied to the circumstances of the Application.

6Tribunal jurisprudence recognizes the public importance in upholding the finality of decisions subject to certain circumstances as outlined in the Practice Direction. I cannot conclude that, as asserted by the applicant, it is in the public interest to continue to deal with the Application. The applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. Although the section 34(11) concerns addressed in the Decision may not be applicable once the civil claim is “cancelled”, the applicant’s recent decision to revoke her civil suit does not alter the fact that there was a concurrent civil proceeding related to the same facts and remedies that were the substance of the Application before the Tribunal.

7Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.