Denise Sullivan v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, 2015 HRTO 1593

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Denise Sullivan

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, Jean-Paul Desilets, Allison Wallace and Derek Beland

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: November 25, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1593

Indexed as: Sullivan v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Denise Sullivan, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1In a decision dated October 8, 2015, 2015 HRTO 1348 (the “Decision”), the Tribunal dismissed the Application as abandoned when the applicant failed to attend a teleconference summary hearing (the “summary hearing”) that had been scheduled for October 7, 2015, and failed to otherwise communicate with the Tribunal that she was not able to participate in the hearing. The purpose of the summary hearing was to determine if the Application had no reasonable prospect of success.

2On November 4, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration where she submitted: (a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; (b) the applicant did not receive notice of the hearing; (c) the Decision is in conflict with established case law or the proposed Reconsideration involves a matter of public importance; and (d) other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

3Although the applicant cited all of these grounds, the Request for Reconsideration provides the applicant’s explanation as to why she did not attend the summary hearing. The applicant stated that she thought she would be contacted by the Tribunal when she did not connect on the call, and that she did not have the number to call. The applicant stated she had many personal issues and challenges at the time of the summary hearing. She did not indicate what those challenges were or how they impacted her ability to connect on the call. The applicant also stated she has a disability, but did not indicate how the disability affected her ability to attend the summary hearing.

4In her Request for Reconsideration, the applicant attached a copy of an email that she had sent to the Tribunal on October 10, 2015, three days after the summary hearing. In that email, the applicant stated the following:

I absolutely would have liked to attend the teleconference hearing regarding this matter. I remember receiving the notification of summary hearing. However, I was overwhelmed with a number of personal issues and missed the call. When I remembered about the call time, I could not find the number to connect. I was hoping I would have received a phone call to invite me into the conference call….

test for reconsideration

5Under 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.

6The Tribunal has issued Rules governing 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 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

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

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.

7Reconsideration 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.

8The essence of the applicant’s submission is that she missed the call. Although she refers to personal issues and a disability in her Request for Reconsideration, she has provided no information about how they impacted her ability to attend the summary hearing. Further, from the applicant’s own submissions, it is clear that her personal issues did not prevent her from attending the summary hearing because she states the reason that she did not connect to the call is that she could not find the call-in number.

9The applicant has failed to provide sufficient new facts or evidence to reconsider the Decision. In my view, it is apparent from the applicant’s submissions that she forgot about the call. It may well have been because she was busy doing a number of things. In her email of October 10, 2015, the applicant states: “I have two children, a disability, a full time job, I coach, I mark, I plan, I volunteer in the community and arrange and attend many medical appointments to various cities”. However, being busy is not a sufficient reason to reconsider my decision to dismiss the Application because of the applicant’s non-attendance at the summary hearing. As the Tribunal noted in Lacourciere v. Starkman, 2011 HRTO 1921 at para. 9:

In this vein, cancellation of hearing dates because an applicant fails to appear represents a significant waste of resources for the Tribunal and respondent, which is unfortunately not uncommon… The respondent should not be required to commit more time and expense, as well as being again exposed to litigation risk, short of compelling and extraordinary circumstances that do not in my view arise here. Parties must understand that failing to attend hearings will very likely have serious and final consequences for them.

See also Galal v. Lom Nava Co-op, 2014 HRTO 1017.

10For these reasons, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.