Hasselsjo v. Paramed Home Healthcare, 2016 HRTO 1291

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Songja Hasselsjo Applicant

-and-

Paramed Home Healthcare Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: October 5, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1291 Indexed as: Hasselsjo v. Paramed Home Healthcare

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Songja Hasselsjo, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision 2016 HRTO 1208 dated September 14, 2016 (the “Decision”), which dismissed the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success. In the Decision, the Tribunal held there was nothing in the Application to link the respondent’s decision to change the applicant’s personal support worker in February 2016 with a prohibited ground of discrimination. The change in worker occurred after the applicant questioned the worker about whether she had taken some of the applicant’s belongings.

2On September 26, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Decision. The applicant claims the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of public interest.

Analysis

Test for Reconsideration

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 governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance 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.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states reconsideration is a discretionary remedy: there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. It affirms that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way he or she presented their case.

Grounds for Reconsideration

6In the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states the Tribunal failed to address the denial of home care services in the Decision. The applicant claims that she did not receive home care services for three weekends and asserts the discontinuance of services is discriminatory. The applicant seeks damages from the respondent for the failure to provide services. The applicant states a hearing on this issue is in the public interest.

7In the Decision, I found that the central issue in the Application was the change in the applicant’s personal support worker in February 2016. I held there was nothing in the Application to link the respondent’s decision to change the worker with a prohibited ground of discrimination.

8As a result of the change in the applicant’s personal support worker, the applicant allegedly went for three weekends without homecare services. The discontinuance of a service is not, on its own, discriminatory. There must be a factual basis to establish a link between the denial of services and a prohibited ground of discrimination. There is no such basis set out in the Application. In other words, the applicant has not set out any facts to support her claim that the respondent stopped providing homecare services for three weeks because of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

9The applicant asserts that it is the public interest to have a hearing so that she may obtain compensation for the failure to provide homecare services. I disagree. In the absence of a factual basis to support a link between a ground of discrimination and the alleged denial of services, there is no public interest in hearing this complaint.

10The applicant is using the reconsideration process to re-argue her case and/or to appeal the Decision. The Practice Direction is clear: reconsideration cannot be used for this purpose. The applicant has failed to meet the test for reconsideration and as such, her Request for Reconsideration is denied.

Order

11The Reconsideration Request is denied.