HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Larena Smith
Applicant
-and-
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Care and Sandra Fisman
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Smith v. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Care
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Larena Smith, Applicant
Self-represented
1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2015 HRTO 886, dismissing her Application.
2I have considerable sympathy for the challenges faced by the applicant. However, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.
The Decision being challenged
3The applicant was referred to the individual respondent to receive treatment for her son in April 2011. The applicant was dissatisfied with the individual respondent’s treatment recommendations and decided to file a complaint against her to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (“College”) as well as with the London Police Service.
4In her Application to this Tribunal, the applicant claimed that the individual respondent was reprising against her by engaging in telepathic stalking or “cyberstalking” through social media and/or through her computer.
5In the Decision, I found that her Application stood no reasonable prospect of success under the Code. I found that, even if I assumed that she is being subjected to cyberstalking, she provided no information that can reasonably establish that this cyberstalking is being carried out by the individual respondent. I also found that she had not provided any information that would support her claim that the individual respondent was carrying out any kind of action against her as a reprisal for claiming or enforcing her rights under the Code.
Applicable Principles relating to reconsideration
6In 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.
7The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) 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.
analysis
In her Request, the applicant claimed that I should reconsider the Decision due to new facts and evidence that would support the allegations in her Application. The applicant attached to her Request various documents relating to her son’s medical condition which is not the subject of this Application. It is clear that the applicant disagrees with the individual respondent’s medical opinion relating to her son’s medical condition. However, that is not the subject of her Application to this Tribunal. The subject of her Application is her allegation that the individual respondent is retaliating against her by cyberstalking her through her computer.
8The applicant also attached to her Request documents she appears to have obtained from the College in relation to her complaint against the individual respondent. Taken at their highest, those documents show that the individual respondent had sought advice from the College as to whether, in light of the complaint against her, she would be able to treat the applicant if she attended at her mental health unit and she was the only physician on call. None of the documents attached to the Request have a reasonable prospect of establishing the applicant’s allegation that the individual respondent is retaliating against her through telepathic stalking or cyberstalking.
ORDER
9I deny the Request for Reconsideration for the reasons set out above.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of August, 2015.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair
CORRECTION
The decision released on August 26, 2015 incorrectly listed the release date on the cover page as “August 26, 2014”. This error has been corrected.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of September, 2015.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair