He v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2014 HRTO 670

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yunhong He

Applicant

-and-

The College of Physicians and Surgeons, The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, and The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: May 12, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 670

Indexed as: He v. College of Physicians and Surgeons

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Yunhong He, Applicant

Self-Represented

Introduction

1This Application filed 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 goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and disability. The Tribunal dismissed all allegations in this Application (2013 HRTO 1888) on November 13, 2013 after a summary hearing because the Tribunal found some allegations had no reasonable prospect of success, and dismissed the others for jurisdictional reasons.

2The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration on November 28, 2013.

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.

8Nothing in the applicant’s submissions demonstrate that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not have been obtained earlier. Instead, the applicant is attempting to reargue the Application, citing generic statements in the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s educational documents on its website about racial discrimination in Ontario generally. The documents attached to the applicant’s submissions are a variety of communications, but none appear to qualify as “new facts or evidence” and no argument is made by the applicant as to why they should appear otherwise.

ORDER

9The Request for Reconsideration is denied.