M.D. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 HRTO 1733

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

M.D.

Applicant

-and-

Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society and Rebecca Ross

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: October 15, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1733

Indexed as: M.D. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

M.D., Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2013 HRTO 1444, dismissing her Application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

2For the reasons set out below, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunals Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.

The Decision being challenged

3The Decision was rendered following a summary hearing held under Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules. Based on the written material filed by the parties and their submissions at the summary hearing, I dismissed the Application. I found that, even if I were to accept the applicant’s allegations as true, there was no reasonable prospect that the she would be able to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that any of the grounds of discrimination alleged in her application were a factor in the way the respondents treated her.

Applicable Principles

4In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

5The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules:

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.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

6The applicant seeks reconsideration under Rule 26.5(d). In her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant repeats much of the information contained in her Application against the respondents. Among other things, she states that she believes that the respondents discriminated against her by lying to the police, referring to her as mentally unstable and telling her children that she was mentally unfit. She also repeats that, when she asked the respondent Rebecca Ross why Ms. Ross thought she was mentally unstable, Ms. Ross replied “because of your presentation”. The applicant believes that this was a reference to her race. The applicant requests the opportunity to lead evidence and make oral submissions in a full hearing on the merits.

7The applicant also claims that the circumstances of the summary hearing did not permit her to fully present her case since she was rushing to work at the time of the hearing.

Analysis

8I deny the Request for Reconsideration 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.

9All of the arguments made by the applicant are arguments she made in her Application and in the summary hearing. I understand that the applicant wishes to proceed to a full hearing on the merits. However, the Tribunal has the power to dismiss Applications if it determines that based on the applicant’s representations at the summary hearing, there is no reasonable prospect that they will be able to bring forward evidence to establish a connection between a respondent’s actions and the grounds protected under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. H. c. 19, as amended (the “Code”).

10Although the circumstances of the hearing may not have been optimal for the applicant, I note that the applicant was advised of the date and time of the summary hearing over two months before it took place. The Notice of Summary Hearing also contained information for rescheduling a summary hearing if the date and time of the hearing were not convenient for the applicant. The applicant did not request a rescheduling of the hearing due to a conflict with her work. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that reconsideration is justified. Although the applicant was on her way to work during the last part of the telephone hearing, she had a full opportunity to make submissions and respond to the Tribunal’s questions in relation to the allegations contained in her Application. She has not put forward any information in her Request for Reconsideration that she did not already present either in the summary hearing or in her Application. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that she had a full opportunity to present any relevant submissions at the summary hearing.

11As stated in my initial Decision, I have considerable sympathy for the challenges faced by the applicant. I understand that she believes the respondents treated her inappropriately and that this inappropriate treatment amounted to discrimination under the Code. However, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that she will be able to advance sufficient direct or indirect evidence to establish a link between the respondents’ alleged actions and a ground protected under the Code.