Katherine Lin Lin v. William Rock Medicine Professional Corporation, 2015 HRTO 38

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin Lin

Applicant

-and-

William Rock Medicine Professional Corporation and William Rock

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: January 12, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 38
Indexed as: Lin Lin v. William Rock Medicine Professional Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Katherine Lin Lin, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Decision explains why the Tribunal will not reconsider its Decision in 2014 HRTO 1682 of November 20, 2014. That Decision dismissed the applicant’s Application on the ground that she had filed a civil action that seeks remedies with respect to the alleged infringement of her rights under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), that arise out of the same facts and issues as in the Application before this Tribunal. I concluded that s. 34(11) of the Code operates to bar her Application and dismissed it for that reason.

2The applicant seeks reconsideration of that Decision. The ground she bases her reconsideration request on is that the Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. She provides the following reasons in support of her request: “Vice chair who dismissed the case self-conflicted. The facts showed in Interim Decisions.”

3In the absence of any more details from the applicant, I am going to assume that she is saying that I was biased in my decision-making and that this bias is evident in the rulings I had made in Interim Decisions 2014 HRTO 1277 and 2014 HRTO 1380, both of which denied her requests to change the place at which her Application would be heard. The latter Interim Decision also rejected her assertions that I am unprofessional and unqualified to deal with her request, and that the Tribunal’s process is corrupt.

4Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that 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;

(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;

(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 and orders.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states the following:

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.

6In her reconsideration request the applicant has not set out facts that would support a finding of bias and that would in turn justify granting her request. Her simple assertion of bias is insufficient and I treat it simply as an expression of her dissatisfaction of a result which is mandated by the Code. The fact that a party does not agree with the outcome of a decision is not a basis for a reconsideration of that decision. The request is denied.