D.D. v. CAS (Nipissing and Parry Sound), 2016 HRTO 1557

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

D.D.

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of the District of Nipissing and Parry Sound; North Bay Regional Health Centre; District of Nipissing Social Services Administrative Board; James W. Stewart Medicine Professional Corporation; B.A. Demers Medicine Professional Corporation; College of Physicians and Surgeons; Legal Department Paralegal; Kelly J. Morgan Psychotherapy/Assessments; Jean-Jacques Primeau; Workplace Safety Insurance Board Head Office

and Kristine Smith

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: December 5, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1557

Indexed as: D.D. v. CAS (Nipissing and Parry Sound)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

D.D., Applicant

Self-represented

Kely Morgan., Respondent

Lisa E. Hamilton, Counsel

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Final Decision, 2016 HRTO 104 (“Decision”), dismissing her Application.

2For the reasons set out below, 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. As a result, I have not found it necessary to deal with any issues associated with the timeliness of the applicant’s request.

3In 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.

4The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration 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.

5The applicant relies on all of the factors in 26.5.

6In the Decision, I dismissed the Application against multiple respondents on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success, no jurisdiction and section 45.1 of the Code. The Decision followed a summary hearing during which the parties made oral submissions on whether the Application should proceed to a hearing on the merits.

7I have reviewed all of the material filed by the applicant in relation to this reconsideration request, the last of which was received November 14, 2016. Although the respondents were not required to file a response to the request, one of the respondents filed written submissions which I have also considered.

8The applicant is unrepresented and as a result, she is not aware of how narrow the grounds are for reconsidering a final decision of the Tribunal. In the request the applicant indicates that she is relying on all of the subsections of Rule 26.5 although she provides little explanation as to how those provisions apply to her request. The applicant’s materials largely repeat the allegations which were the subject of my Decision and she has added a series of new allegations which she describes as ongoing violations of the Code.

9The suggestion by the applicant that she did not receive notice of the summary hearing which lead to the Decision dismissing her Application does not make sense. The applicant received notice, filed materials as she was entitled to do and appeared on the teleconference to make submissions.

10Fundamentally, the applicant disagrees with my Decision and her materials represent an attempt to re-argue her case. She also presents what she describes as new violations of the Code. It would not be appropriate to deal with those new allegations in the context of a reconsideration decision. The Application has been dismissed and therefore none of the interim orders the applicant is seeking can be considered at this time.

ORDER

11The Request for Reconsideration is denied for the reasons set out above.