C.G. v. Timmins Police Services, 2013 HRTO 1665

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

C.G.

Applicant

-and-

Timmins Police Service, Kapuskasing Ontario Provincial Police, Timmins and District Hospital, North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: October 3, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1665

Indexed as: C.G. v. Timmins Police Services

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

C.G., Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of July 22, 2013 2013 HRTO 1268, dismissing this Application because it had no reasonable prospect of success following a summary hearing held on April 26, 2013.

2The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

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.

3The 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.

4The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on April 26, 2012 and relies upon Rules 26.5(a), (c) and (d).

5As noted in the Decision, the central incidents in the Application were two occasions in which the respondent North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services (“NEOFACS”) apprehended one of the applicant’s children with the assistance of either the Timmins Police Service or the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”), pursuant to Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O 1990, c. C.11 (the “CFSA”). The applicant alleged that the apprehension of her children amounted to discrimination under the Code and that both the Timmins Police and OPP committed discriminatory acts while assisting the NEOFACS in these apprehensions. The applicant alleged that a doctor in the emergency department of the Timmins and District Hospital denied treatment to the applicant’s daughter because he perceived the applicant to suffer from a mental health problem. The applicant alleged that the same doctor reported her to NEOFACS because of a perceived mental health problem and because he alleged that the applicant denied care to her daughter. The applicant also alleged when she tried to obtain information about the apprehension of her daughter, NEOFACS personnel called the police because they perceived her to be suffering from a mental health problem and the Timmins Police responded to the call based on the same perception. During the hearing the applicant raised issues not contained in the Application regarding her interactions with members of the Timmins Police regarding an incident that occurred in Court, which the applicant alleged amounted to discrimination.

6In the Decision, I found that the allegations regarding the apprehension of the applicant’s children do not amount to discrimination in light of the provisions of the CFSA and that the applicant failed to point to evidence that would establish a link between the respondents’ alleged actions and a prohibited ground of discrimination. Accordingly, I dismissed the Application because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

Analysis and Decision:

7For the reasons that follow, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.

8Although the applicant cited Rules 26.5(a), (c) and (d), she made no submissions addressing the criteria required under these Rules. The applicant did not identify any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and merely alluded to “the potential disclosure of additional evidence to which was previously obtainable”, which does not in my view meet the requirements of Rule 26.5(a). The applicant submitted that “The summary hearing was not held fairly in accordance with the practices, rules, and procedures of the Tribunal”. The applicant, however, did not indicate how the conduct of the hearing was unfair or in what manner the summary hearing was at odds with the practices, rules and procedures of the Tribunal. Similarly, while the applicant submitted that the Decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and the proposed Reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance, she pointed to no jurisprudence that may be in conflict with the Decision or explain why the proposed Reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance, as is required under Rule 26.5(c). The applicant made no submissions regarding other factors that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions, pursuant to Rule 26.5(d).

9The applicant’s submissions focussed almost entirely on her arguments supporting her belief the Decision was wrong in a variety of respects. As is clearly enunciated in the Practice Direction on Reconsideration and in the Tribunal's jurisprudence, Reconsideration is not an appeal or evaluation of alleged errors in a Decision. See Latronico v. York Region District School Board, 2012 HRTO 637 and 4137566 Canada Ltd. v. Clements, 2011 HRTO 1008. Therefore, the applicant’s submissions that the Tribunal erred in its Decision do not establish grounds for Reconsideration. I note, however, that the applicant submitted that I weighed evidence improperly and made unsupportable inferences based on the evidence presented. In fact, no evidence is adduced at a summary hearing and I neither weighed evidence nor made any inferences from evidence. Rather, I assumed the facts alleged by the applicant to be true, as is clearly stated in the Decision, and concluded that these facts do not amount to violations of the Code. The applicant also submitted that I failed to address the allegation that an OPP officer made discriminatory comments about her while assisting NEOFACS. This allegation is squarely addressed at paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Decision. Finally, the applicant noted that the Decision contained clerical errors, including misnaming a hospital to which she brought her daughter and misspelling counsel for NEOFACS’ name. Such errors are regrettable, but are not material and do not change the outcome of the Decision.

10I also find it appropriate to address the applicant’s submission that the Tribunal’s decision refusing her requests for deferral of the Application and for production of documents was unfair. In an earlier Interim Decision in this matter, 2013 HRTO 521 the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request for production of documents because it was premature under the Tribunal’s Rules and her request for deferral of the Application because she did not provide an adequate basis for concluding that deferral was appropriate. Accordingly, the applicant effectively seeks Reconsideration of this Interim Decision. First, Reconsideration is only available with respect to final decisions of the Tribunal, pursuant to Rule 26.1. The denial of the applicant’s requests was not final, as she could have revisited these issues had the Application continued. Second, the applicant’s submissions amount to an attempt to re-argue her requests and repair the deficiencies in her presentation of her requests. The Tribunal's jurisprudence and the Practice Direction on Reconsideration make clear that this is not the purpose of Reconsideration. See Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board et al., 2008 HRTO 34.

11In my view, the applicant provided no reason to conclude that compelling and extraordinary circumstances exist that would call for Reconsideration of the Decision to dismiss the Application.

12The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.