Preddie v. Saint Elizabeth Health Care, 2012 HRTO 288

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gloria Preddie

Applicant

-and-

Saint Elizabeth Health Care, Jean Piccinato, Kathy Craddock, Rachel McAuley, Lori Ranchik, Susan Donison, Mary Beth Lucas and Shirlee Sharkey

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: February 9, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 288

Indexed as: Preddie v. Saint Elizabeth Health Care

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration (the "Request") filed by the applicant in respect to a Tribunal decision dated November 22, 2011, 2011 HRTO 2098, dismissing the Application.

2The applicant filed her Request for reconsideration on January 30, 2012 under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the "Code"). Under section 45.7 of the Code the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

3Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the Decision. Rule 26.5 provides that:

26.5 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 and orders.

4The applicant's request is made 80 days after the date of the Decision dismissing her Application. The applicant has not given any explanation why this Request for reconsideration was not filed within 30 days of the date of the Decision as required by Rule 26(1). On this basis alone, I would deny the Request for reconsideration.

5Even if the Request had been made in a timely manner, the reasons the applicant has provided for why her Application should be reconsidered do not meet the factors set out in Rule 26(5). The applicant's Request does briefly refer to several additional incidents that the applicant states occurred while she was employed with the institutional respondent. The applicant submits she has evidence to support that these incidents occurred, as described. However, the applicant makes no allegations that these incidents involved a violation of her rights under the Code. Moreover, there is no explanation for why the applicant could not have referred to these incidents prior to or at the time of her hearing. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the requirements for reconsideration under Rule 26(5)(a) have been met, namely, that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The applicant's Request does not meet any of the other reasons to reconsider her Application that are set out in Rule 26(5).

6Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.