Martin Danaher v. Woodstock General Hospital, 2014 HRTO 1707

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Martin Danaher

Applicant

-and-

Woodstock General Hospital

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: November 26, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1707

Indexed as: Danaher v. Woodstock General Hospital

1On October 17, 2014, the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2014 HRTO 1546, dismissing this Application as abandoned by the applicant.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2In his November 10, 2014 Request for Reconsideration the applicant states that the decision should be reconsidered because through no fault of his own he did not receive notice of the hearing. He states that due to finances he lost contact with the OHRC.

decision

3Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.

45.7(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

4The Tribunal has issued Rules of Procedure, which govern such requests, as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, amended March 2010). Rule 26 states in part:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision.

26.5. A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that

(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 […]

5The 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.

6As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so.

7I find the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

8The June 11, 2014 Notice of Hearing set out the pre-hearing obligations on the applicant with respect to the exchange of documents and witness statements, with which he failed to comply.

9As such, the Tribunal issued an October 3, 2014 Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing the applicant to comply with the pre-hearing obligations by no later than October 10, 2014, failing which his Application may be dismissed as abandoned. The CAD also detailed for the applicant how he could obtain documentation he had requested from the respondent in July, 2014.

10The applicant did not comply with the directions in the CAD. Therefore, on October 17, 2014, the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2014 HRTO 1546, dismissing this Application as abandoned by the applicant.

11The applicant in his Request for Reconsideration checked off as his reason for the reconsideration request that he did not receive the June 11, 2014 Notice of Hearing, but his narrative does not actually claim he did not receive it. He also does not claim he did not receive the CAD. I note the applicant’s address is the same in the Request for Reconsideration as in the Application, and that the CAD and Notice of Hearing were delivered to him at that address.

12With respect to the applicant losing contact with the OHRC [sic], the applicant was self-represented throughout the process, and the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (“HRLSC”) did not represent him at any time.

13I am not satisfied that the applicant through no fault of his own did not receive the Notice of Hearing or CAD. In all of the circumstances I find that it would not be appropriate to reconsider the Decision in these circumstances.

14I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.

ORDER

15The Request for Reconsideration is denied.