Isabelle Duroche v. City of Ottawa, City of Toronto, Government of Ontario, and CAMH, 2012 HRTO 2301

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Isabelle Duroche

Applicant

-and-

City of Ottawa, City of Toronto, Government of Ontario, and CAMH

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: December 6, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2301 Indexed as: Duroche v. Ottawa (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Isabelle Duroche, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on April 12, 2012. The Application was dismissed in Decision 2012 HRTO 1404, dated July 18, 2012, on the grounds that the applicant had not identified any event or action that has happened that might involve her Code-protected rights. The Application was not delivered to any of the respondents or potential respondents mentioned in the Application prior to the Tribunal’s final Decision.

2The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration. Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires that a Request for Reconsideration be made within 30 days of a final decision of the Tribunal and delivered to all parties. Failure to deliver and file a Request for Reconsideration in the proper form and within the 30 day time limit is a sufficient basis on which to dismiss such a Request. However, in the specific circumstances of this case, I have determined it is appropriate to waive the time limit and I have considered the substance of the applicant’s Request. It indicates that the applicant wishes to focus on specific problems that she has encountered. She states that she is in receipt of benefits from Ontario Works and that she receives less than she would receive if she were in receipt of benefits from the Ontario Disability Support Program. She also states that she has not been able to obtain a library card in Toronto and Ottawa because she is homeless. She also refers to general difficulties she has experienced in relation to being homeless and false medical diagnoses.

3The original Application and the supplemental information the applicant provided referred to the difficulties that the applicant has experienced in relation to being homeless. It did not specifically identify an allegation of discrimination in relation to benefits under the Ontario Works program. It mentioned a problem with library services but provided no specifics. The Application was dismissed because the applicant had not identified any specific action or event that had happened that might involve her Code-protected rights.

4The Tribunal’s Rules provide 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; 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.

5While the Request for Reconsideration indicates that the applicant may wish to focus on allegations about the Ontario Works program and about problems obtaining a library card, this does not provide a basis for reconsidering the Decision. The Request for Reconsideration does not identify any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. Nor does it identify any of the other factors which might cause the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision.

6For these reasons, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.

7This Reconsideration Decision does not prevent the applicant from filing a new Application if she can identify specific events or actions that have occurred that she believes involved her Code-protected rights. Any such Application should clearly identify what organization or person was involved, what happened, and when it happened.