<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
**B E T W E E N:**
De-Ann Sheppard
Applicant
-and-
Weeneebayko Area Health Authority
Respondent
______________________________________________________________________
**RECONSIDERATION DECISION**
______________________________________________________________________
**Adjudicator:** Douglas Sanderson
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
**Date:** January 15, 2016
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
**Citation:** 2016 HRTO 66
**Indexed as:** Sheppard v. Weeneebayko Area Health Authority
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
De-Ann Sheppard, Applicant
Self-represented
---
[1] The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of October 23, 2015, [2015 HRTO 1516](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2015/1516), dismissing this Application pursuant to the mandatory bar in [section 34(11)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html) of the [Human Rights Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
[2] The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:
> 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.
[3] The 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.
[4] The applicant relies upon Rules 26.5(c), and 26.5(d). The applicant’s submissions, however, did not address the requirements of either of these sub-rules. Rather, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal should have deferred the Application pending the conclusion of her civil claim against the respondent. The applicant submitted that the respondent continues inappropriate practices with respect to mental health issues and does not orient staff properly. The applicant did not indicate how the Decision dismissing her Application is inconsistent with Tribunal jurisprudence or procedure. I appreciate that the applicant is concerned about how the respondent operates, but this is not in my view a factor that outweighs the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. In any event, the deferral of the Application is not possible, since the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application, as is explained in the Decision.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, this 15<sup>th</sup>day of January, 2016.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel