Ramon Suarez Cadena v. e-health Ontario, 2012 HRTO 1463

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ramon Suarez Cadena

Applicant

-and-

e-health Ontario

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: July 26, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1463

Indexed as: Suarez Cadena v. e-health Ontario

1On April 18, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s March 8, 2012 decision, 2012 HRTO 494, dismissing this Application on the basis that it was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because of delay.

2Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure sets out the limited circumstances in which reconsideration may be granted by the Tribunal.

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.

3The applicant submits that he is seeking reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision on the basis that there are new facts and evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier (Rule 26.5(a)); and that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions (Rule 26.5(d)).

4The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

5First of all, the Request for Reconsideration is untimely. Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the decision. Although the applicant was specifically advised in a March 16, 2012 email from the Registrar that he was required to file his Request for Reconsideration within 30 days of the date of the March 8, 2012 decision, he did not file his Request for Reconsideration until April 18, 2012. Pursuant to Rule 26.5.1, the Tribunal will not grant a Request for Reconsideration that is made more than 30 days following the Decision, unless the Tribunal determines that the delay in filing the Request was incurred in good faith and that no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

6The applicant has not given any explanation as to why his Request for Reconsideration was not filed within 30 days of the date of the Tribunal’s decision and so there is no basis upon which I might conclude that the delay in filing the Request was incurred in good faith. Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration may be denied on the basis of delay alone. See der von Felix v. International Financial Data Services (Canada), 2010 HRTO 362, and Hardman v. Grey County Housing, 2012 HRTO 1142.

7Even if the Request for Reconsideration had been made in a timely manner, I would still deny it because the applicant has failed to establish the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 that might lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision.

8Specifically, the applicant has not raised any new facts or evidence in his Request that could potentially be determinative of the case that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The applicant indicates in his Request that he has been diagnosed with ADHD. However, the applicant does not indicate or explain why this is a “new” fact that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. Even if the applicant’s diagnosis with ADHD is a new fact that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, it is not a new fact that could be potentially determinative of the case. The mere fact that the applicant has been diagnosed with ADHD is not sufficient to establish that the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith, in the absence of any cogent explanation and/or medical documentation substantiating that the applicant’s ADHD prevented the applicant from filing a timely Application. (See paras. 18 to 19 of the March 8, 2012 decision.)

9Nor has the applicant identified any other factors in his Request for Reconsideration that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

10Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.