Chamberlain v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2015 HRTO 320

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mildred Chamberlain Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, Income Maintenance Windsor Local Office Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: March 13, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 320 Indexed as: Chamberlain v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mildred Chamberlain, Applicant

Eric Letts, Counsel

Introduction

1On January 9, 2015 the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2015 HRTO 31, dismissing this Application on the basis that the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, Sch. B (the “ODSPA”), and O. Reg. 222/97 (the “Regulation”) made under the ODSPA, did not discriminate against the applicant on the basis of marital status and creed in violation of her rights under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2In her Request for Reconsideration the applicant identifies the following main reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:

The decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

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

(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 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.

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.

7The Tribunal also has stated in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to an Application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

8I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. The applicant has not shown that the decision is in conflict with established case law. In fact the applicant takes issue with the fact that, quite the contrary, the Tribunal relied on a similar case determined by the Social Benefits Tribunal. While the applicant submitted the Social Benefits Tribunal is not specialized in applying and interpreting the Code like this Tribunal, even if this were the case, it does not follow that I should not have had regard to the decision of another Tribunal. Such a suggestion is without merit for many reasons, not the least of which is that since Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program), 2006 SCC 14, [2006] 1 SCR 513, there has been no doubt of the Social Benefits Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider and apply the Code.

9The applicant also has not provided any basis to support the Decision being in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure. She has not pointed to any case law with which she alleges the Decision in this matter is in conflict, nor has she identified any Tribunal procedure which she alleges was not followed. She also has not provided any other factors that would outweigh the public’s interest in the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions.

10The applicant has attempted to re-argue her case, this time including arguments not made by her representative at the hearing, although given the opportunity to present evidence and make both oral and written submissions at the hearing.

11The applicant generally disagrees with my decision, but this does not meet the threshold for granting a reconsideration request.

12In sum, I 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.