Kalkat v. William Osler Health System – Etobicoke General Hospital, 2017 HRTO 1133

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ruminder Kalkat Applicant

-and-

William Osler Health System – Etobicoke General Hospital Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana Date: September 1, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1133 Indexed as: Kalkat v. William Osler Health System – Etobicoke General Hospital

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ruminder Kalkat, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1The Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2017 HRTO 751, dismissing the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

BACKGROUND

2In the Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent’s staff mistreated him in a number ways when he was admitted to the hospital in April 2016. Among other things, the applicant alleged that he was restrained, subjected to torture and injected with drugs for no reason. I dismissed the Application following a summary hearing held under Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules. I found that there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant would be able to advance sufficient direct or indirect evidence to establish a link between the respondent’s alleged actions and the protections set out in the Code.

THE LAW

3Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with the 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 circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules:

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.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes the following statements:

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.

6Reconsideration 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. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

7The applicant seeks reconsideration under Rules 26.5(a). In support of his Request he writes that the psychiatrist he saw at the hospital told his sister and mother to give him all of the applicant’s music CD’s and his high school yearbooks for his treatment. He seeks an additional $5,000 in damages for mental anguish.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

8The applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

9The Tribunal’s jurisprudence is clear that a request for reconsideration is not an appeal and is granted only in limited circumstances. There must be more than disagreement with a decision to find that the conditions in Rule 26.5 have been made out. In 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 completed and final, subject to limited exceptions.

10The applicant has not identified any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. While the applicant alleges that the psychiatrist he saw directed his family members to provide some of his property, he does not indicate or explain why these constitute “new” facts that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. Further, even if these records are “new facts” that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, the applicant has not established that these could be potentially determinative of the case.

11While the applicant clearly disagrees with the conclusions of the Tribunal, he has failed to identify any established case law or Tribunal procedure to support his claim under Rule 26.5(a).

ORDER

12For all of the above reasons, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.