S.D. v. Grand River Hospital, 2012 HRTO 119

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

S.D. Applicant

-and-

Grand River Hospital Respondent

And Between:

S.D. Applicant

-and-

Grand River Hospital, Cathy Beebe and Pauline Potzold Respondents

Reconsideration Decision

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: January 17, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 119 Indexed as: S.D. v. Grand River Hospital

Written Submissions By:

S.D., Applicant (Self-represented)

Reasons for Decision

1On December 5, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2011 HRTO 2165, which dismissed the two Applications following a summary hearing on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.

2On January 4, 2012, the applicant filed two Requests for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

3Section 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

4Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that 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.

5The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the nature of the reconsideration process. The Practice Direction states, in part:

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.

6In her Requests for Reconsideration, the applicant indicated that the Tribunal’s Decision should be reconsidered in accordance with Rule 26.5 a) and d). However, in her submissions in support of her Requests, the applicant did not clearly explain how her Requests fall within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 a) and d). Instead, she repeated some of the same arguments that she made at the summary hearing, and introduced a new issue about the environment (the contamination of water systems by the disposal of drugs) that is not related to the Code.

7Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case or introduce new, non-Code related issues.

8The Requests for Reconsideration are dismissed.