Anthony Hicks v. The Ottawa Hospital – Riverside Campus, 2016 HRTO 650

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anthony Hicks

Applicant

-and-

The Ottawa Hospital – Riverside Campus

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: May 13, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 650

Indexed as: Hicks v. The Ottawa Hospital – Riverside Campus

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Anthony Hicks, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On April 26, 2016, the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2016 HRTO 546, dismissing the Application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. On May 2, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the decision (“request”).

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2The applicant’s reasons for the request are:

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

b. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

3The applicant submits there clearly is enough evidence for the Application to proceed, and the failure to give the applicant his medical records is a reprisal. With respect to the remedy sought, the applicant requests whatever relief is best for public safety concerns.

the law

4Under 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.

5The 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, last amended April 2014). 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.

6The 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.

7As 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.

8The 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.

decision

9The applicant relies on Rule 26.5(c) and (d). The applicant has provided no further reasons for his request other than what is set out in paragraph 3, above.

10With respect to Rule 26.5(c), the applicant does not explain how my decision conflicts with established case law or Tribunal procedure, or how his request involves a matter of general or public importance.

11With respect to Rule 26.5(d), the applicant again provides no reasons other than what is set out in paragraph 3, above. He attaches to his request a number of documents from 2013 to 2015 consisting of e-mails between him and his prior lawyer in a civil proceeding, e-mails to the Attorney General and letters between him and the Law Society of Upper Canada, none of which are directly relevant to this Application, and many of which were already included in the material I had before me when I made the decision.

12While the applicant disagrees with my decision, it appears he is simply attempting to re-argue his case by enclosing documents I already had before me, or to argue his case again by providing documents that he could have included in his submissions for the summary hearing, but which in any event are not directly relevant to the decision I made.

13The applicant’s request clearly is an attempt to appeal this decision, which is not the purpose of a reconsideration request, as is set out in the Tribunal’s Practice Decision on Reconsideration.

14In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any factors as set out in Rule 26.5(c) and (d) that would lead to a reconsideration of my decision. The Request is denied.