Chapman v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2014 HRTO 373

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Chapman

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by Ministry of Attorney General, Facilities Branch, Corporate Services Management Division

Respondent

-and-

Association of Management and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario

Intervenor

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: March 17, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 373

Indexed as: Chapman v. Ontario (Attorney General)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mary Chapman, Applicant

Self-Represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on March 1, 2013 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleged reprisal and discrimination with respect to employment because of age, family status, gender identity. The Tribunal dismissed the Application (2014 HRTO 134) on January 30, 2014 as an abuse of process because the same issues were raised in grievances at the Grievance Settlement Board where they were settled pursuant to Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) which contained a release prohibiting the applicant from making further claims, including claims under the Code.

2The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration on February 28, 2014 which states, “Today the MOS has been breached…”, and which argues that the release is no longer applicable.

RECONSIDERATION ANALYSIS

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 the Tribunal’s 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. Rule 26 states in part:

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.

5The applicant has indicated on her Request for Reconsideration that the reason for making the Request is “(a)” because “there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.”

6The 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.

7As stated above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. In other words, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so.

8I do not agree with the applicant’s characterization of the alleged breach of the Minutes of Settlement as constituting new facts or evidence relevant to the decision the Tribunal made in dismissing the Application. Any breach would not constitute new facts or evidence which would affect my analysis which led to my finding that the Application should be dismissed as an abuse of process. The MOS states that the arbitrator (Christopher Albertyn) from the Grievance Settlement Board will remain seized “with respect to the application, administration, implementation or interpretation of this Settlement.” The remedy for any breach of the MOS since the dismissal of the Application lies with the GSB process.

ORDER

9The Request for Reconsideration is denied.