Sprague v. Sinai Health System, 2017 HRTO 1654

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Sprague Applicant

-and-

Sinai Health System Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: December 14, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1654 Indexed as: Sprague v. Sinai Health System

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Andrew Sprague, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On May 30, 2017, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this matter, 2017 HRTO 596, dismissing the Applications.

2The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision to dismiss his Applications.

THE LAW

3Under 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.

4The 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.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes 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 HRTO. 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 change the way it presented its case.

6As 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

7In his Request the applicant indicated that the reason for his Request was the factor identified in Rule 26.5(c).

8This criterion for reconsideration requires that there both be a conflict with established Tribunal jurisprudence or procedure and that the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. In his submissions, the applicant does not identify any conflict with the Tribunal’s case law or established procedure. Rather, his submissions assert that the Tribunal “committed fundamental errors of law which require the HRTO to over-turn the Decision…”, that the Tribunal misinterpreted or misunderstood key facts and came to conclusions that were wrong. I understand that the applicant does not agree with the Decision, but the purpose of the reconsideration process is not for parties to reargue their case, which is what the applicant is doing.

9In terms of Rule 26.3, an itemization of alleged errors of law does not amount to a setting out of the “reasons for the request” and “the basis on which the Tribunal is being asked” to reconsider its Decision. The reconsideration process is not an appeal in the usual sense of the word and the requirements of Rule 26.3 are not met by the recitation of grounds of appeal.

10As to the issue of the proposed reconsideration involving a matter of general importance, the applicant argues that “because there is not an abundance of case law pertaining to alleged settlements, especially in the context of proceedings before the HRTO”, “[t]he legal community, and broader community, would benefit from the HRTO reconsidering the Decision.”

11There may be some merit to this observation; however, the applicant has not pointed to anything in the Decision itself that raises an issue of general or public importance and therefore needs correction through reconsideration. This criterion for reconsideration is not met.

order

12The request for reconsideration is denied.