Weekes v. Coast Mental Health, 2017 HRTO 1579

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sharon Weekes Applicant

-and-

COAST Mental Health, The Regional Municipality of Halton Police Services Board, Jason Barr, Staff Sgt. Andrews, Officer Proulx, Sgt. Brown and Sgt. Crawford Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: November 29, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1579 Indexed as: Weekes v. Coast Mental Health

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sharon Weekes, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1On October 11, 2017, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2017 HRTO 1337, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

2In the Decision the Application was dismissed as abandoned when the applicant did not attend on the conference call.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3The Request for Reconsideration provides the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:

a. There are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinate of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

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

4The respondent was not called upon to respond to the applicant's Request.

THE LAW

5Under 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.

6The Tribunal has issued Rules governing 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). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which states:

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.

7The 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.

8As 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. 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.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

9I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

10As indicated above, the applicant relies on Rule 26.5 (a) and (a).

11As indicated above the Application was dismissed as abandoned when the applicant did not attend on the conference call. The applicant asserts that she was unable to attend because she was called away to retrieve a package allegedly sent by the respondent.

12I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided a reasonable excuse for not attending the hearing. I also note that the application's assertions in this Request are inconsistent with her communication with the Tribunal the day of the hearing that she did not intend to participate in the hearing.

13As the applicant has not established a reasonable excuse for not attending the hearing which resulted in its dismissal there is no need to address the other issues the applicant has raised in this Request.

14For these reasons the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.