Deslauriers v. Providence Care, 2017 HRTO 925

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Claude Deslauriers

Applicant

-and-

Providence Care and Dale Kenney

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana

Date: July 21, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 925

Indexed as: Deslauriers v. Providence Care

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Claude Deslauriers, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2017 HRTO 688, dismissing the Application as untimely. I found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable good faith explanation for his failure to file the Application within the one-year time frame set out in s.34(1) of the Code. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant filed his application on January 28, 2016, and the last incident of alleged discrimination was listed as being February 20, 2014. The applicant worked as a shift engineer in the corporate respondent’s power plant until he retired on May 11, 2015. The Application relates to alleged incidents of sabotage that covered the period of 2008 to 2014.

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 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) and (c). Together with his Request, he attaches over 160 pages of additional documents which he submits will prove a cover-up by doctors employed by the organisational respondent such that the applicant had no reason to look to the Tribunal or its process at the relevant time. The information largely relates to his medical treatment and to medications he was prescribed. Among other things, the applicant alleges that the organisational respondent, a physician, and a pharmacist omitted some of his medications from his records as a way to cover up the real reason for the prescription.

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 provides considerable medical records including medication lists, 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, and particularly, the need to establish that the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith. As I found in the Decision, the Tribunal has consistently ruled that where an applicant claims that his or her health was a factor in the delay, the Tribunal requires medical evidence that the medical condition was so debilitating that it prevented the applicant from pursuing his or her legal rights under the Code.

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(c).

ORDER

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