The Request for Reconsideration

[4] The applicant makes a number of submissions in support of her Request for Reconsideration. In summary, the applicant submits that I misunderstood, misinterpreted and did not listen to key pieces of evidence that were presented and that some information relied upon in the Decision was not presented at the hearing or found in the documentation provided by the respondents. Throughout her submissions the applicant reviews a number of statements and conclusions reached in the Decision with which she disagrees and claims to be false. The applicant also states that I gave preference to the respondents’ evidence in the Decision.

[5] In addition, the applicant submits that the Decision does not properly reflect the correct corporate respondent’s name against which the original complaint to the Human Rights Commission was filed and as a result suggests that the Decision seeks to conceal the identity of the true corporate respondent. The applicant argues that it is in the public interest that the name of the corporate respondent on the Tribunal’s records be changed to Lawrence Heights Community Health Centre, which was the name of the Centre during her period of employment.

DECISION

[6] 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.

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.

[7] The Tribunal’s Rule 25 provides:

25.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

25.5. 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.

[8] The 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.

[9] In this case, the applicant’s submissions do not support her Request. A Request for Reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered by the Tribunal. During the hearing the applicant was given a full opportunity to advance her position, both by way of the presentation of the evidence, including cross-examining the respondent’s witness and making submissions. Advancing new characterizations or interpretations of evidence and making arguments regarding what testimony or submissions were before the Tribunal does not constitute a ground for reconsideration. The applicant has not pointed to any new facts or evidence that could have been determinative of the case such that her request would fall within Rule 25.5.(a).

[10] The question before me in the Decision was whether discrimination was a factor in the termination of her employment. While the Decision did not list verbatim all of the reasons concerning the applicant’s unsuitability noted in the respondent’s documents, Ms. Cohen’s evidence regarding her reasons to dismiss the applicant was summarized. The Decision concluded that discrimination was not a factor in the decision to terminate the applicant’s employment based on an evaluation of credibility of the applicant’s and Ms. Cohen’s testimony. While the applicant claims that I preferred the respondent’s evidence throughout the Decision, such preference was made based on my assessment of credibility and determination that Ms. Cohen’s testimony was more believable by applying the standard tests for credibility found in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.

[11] In terms of the applicant’s request to have the corporate respondent’s name changed to Lawrence Heights Community Health Centre, I have reviewed the original human rights complaint to the Commission, filed on April 11, 2005. The applicant is correct that the original Complaint listed the corporate respondent as Lawrence Heights Community Health Centre. However, by the time the Complaint was transferred to the Human Rights Tribunal in 2009, the name of the Centre had changed to New Heights Community Health Centre and was listed as the respondent on all Tribunal correspondence. Even the applicant’s legal counsel, in his correspondence as late as April 13, 2010, listed the corporate respondent as New Heights Community Health Centre. While the applicant is concerned that the original name of the corporate respondent is not reflected in the Decision, the original name Lawrence Heights Community Health Centre, was noted in paragraph 6 of the Decision confirming that was the corporate name of the Centre during the applicant’s period of employment. In these circumstances, I do not see how changing the corporate name back to Lawrence Heights Community Health Centre now serves any public interest.

[12] The applicant has not satisfied the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 25 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. Accordingly, the Request is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 10^th^ day of July, 2012.

“Signed by”

Dale Hewat

Member

Thompson v. New Heights Community Health Centre, 2012 HRTO 1361

Case Summary