Louisa Campbell v. Revera Retirement LP, 2013 HRTO 212

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Louisa Campbell

Applicant

-and-

Revera Retirement LP

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: February 5, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 212

Indexed as: Campbell v. Revera Retirement LP

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Louisa Campbell, Applicant ) On Her Own Behalf

1The applicant, Louisa Campbell, filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in the area of employment on the basis of disability.

2A Decision was issued (2012 HRTO 2410) granting the Application. The applicant has now filed a Request for Reconsideration. The Request does not seek to reverse the Tribunal’s finding on the question of whether there was a breach of the Code. However, it does seek a Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s finding on remedy.

3A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondent.

DECISION

4Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.

5It is also useful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which states in part:

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.

6In the Form 20 submitted in October, 2010, the applicant identified Rule 26.5 (d) as the ground under which she seeks to have the Decision reconsidered. She argues that factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. In particular, the applicant argues that the Tribunal has not made an award for lost wages and, in neglecting to do so, has not made the applicant whole.

7The arguments and relief requested in the present Reconsideration Request are similar to those that were presented by the applicant through counsel at the hearing into this matter. In addition, it is clear from the Tribunal Decision in this matter that among the findings of fact upon which the breach of the Code was established, was the finding that the applicant was unable, even with accommodation, to perform the essential tasks of any of the available unionized positions in the respondent workplace. As such, there was no entitlement to lost wages.

8As stated in a number of Tribunal decisions, a Request for Reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered. The thrust of the submissions made in the January 28, 2013 Request merely reiterate arguments made earlier in the process. It is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s ruling on remedy. However, she has presented no basis to reconsider the decision.

9In the circumstances, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.