Bell v. William Osler Health System, 2016 HRTO 937

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jacqueline Bell

Applicant

-and-

William Osler Health System and

G4S Security Solutions (Canada) Ltd.

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: July 15, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 937

Indexed as: Bell v. William Osler Health System

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2016 HRTO 311. This Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that the applicant had abandoned her Application.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on September 14, 2015. With its Response to the Application, William Osler Health System (“William Osler”) filed a Request for Order During Proceeding requesting the early dismissal of the Application pursuant to section 34(11) and/or section 45.1 of the Code because the applicant has commenced a civil suit in relation to some or all of the issues raised in the Application.

3On November 25, 2015, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, delivering the respondent’s Response (Form 2) in which the respondent William Osler sought the early dismissal of the Application for the reasons set out above. In the letter the applicant was directed to respond to the dismissal issue raised by the respondent by December 9, 2015.

4On December 9, the applicant requested a two-week extension to respond to these issues. The extension request was granted. The applicant did not file a Reply and on March 9, 2016, the Tribunal issued the above-noted Decision dismissing her Application as abandoned.

5On April 12, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision on the basis that she had been hospitalized for two weeks and unable to attend to her affairs. I issued a Case Assessment Direction on May 2, 2016 directing the applicant as follows:

The applicant does not specify which two weeks she was hospitalized or why, during that period, she did not have access to her documents or unable to attend to her affairs. The applicant is directed to provide that information, with supporting documentation from the health facility in question to the Tribunal by May 16, 2016, failing which the Request will be decided in the absence of this information.

6The applicant did not provide the information as directed and has not further communicated with the Tribunal.

aNALYSIS

7Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

8Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that 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.

9The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the nature of the reconsideration process. The Practice Direction states, in part:

Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the HRTO. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case.

10As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the power to reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the consideration of the rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

11In the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration, she states that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. However, other than indicating she was hospitalized for two unspecified weeks, she makes no submissions about what factors these might be.

12A two-week hospitalization – even assuming it took place during the relevant period in question and had the effect of rendering the applicant unable to address the paperwork related to her Application – does not explain why the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal for a period of three months.

13The applicant has not met the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 that must be satisfied in order for the Tribunal to grant a reconsideration request.

ORDER

14The Request for Reconsideration is denied.