Daugherty v. The Ottawa Hospital, 2017 HRTO 977

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brenda Daugherty Applicant

-and-

The Ottawa Hospital Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: July 31, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 977 Indexed as: Daugherty v. The Ottawa Hospital

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Brenda Daugherty, Applicant Self-represented

1This Application was filed on May 20, 2016, and alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2The respondents made Requests for Order During Proceedings ("Requests"). One of the Requests made was as follows:

i. That the Application be dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the Application because it was filed more than one year after the date of the alleged incidents of discrimination and the allegations do not form a series of incidents.

3The Tribunal held a preliminary/summary hearing by teleconference to determine these issues.

4During this teleconference hearing the applicant and the respondents made oral submissions. I also reviewed the submissions and documents that were filed in advance of the hearing.

5On June 1, 2017, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2017 HRTO 609 (the "Decision"). In the Decision, the Tribunal ordered part of the Application dismissed on the basis that certain incidents that formed allegations in the Application had occurred more than one year prior to the date of filing the Application; therefore, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear those allegations.

6On July 1, 2017, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration ("Request") of the Decision. She states that she is requesting the Reconsideration because the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

7In her Request, the applicant did not explain how the Decision was in conflict with established case law.

8The Tribunal based the Decision on findings that the Application had been filed more than one year after the incidents that she alleges occurred in April 2015 and up to May 15, 2015. The Tribunal also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the delay was incurred in good faith. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations that occurred prior to May 20, 2015.

9The Tribunal's reasons in the Decision are consistent with a large volume of the Tribunal's case law that addresses issues of delay in filing applications.

DECISION

10The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules.

11A 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.

12The 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.

13In her Request, the applicant gives an explanation about the state of her health and its impact on her confusion over dates for filing. The applicant's submissions are simply a restatement of the arguments made during the teleconference hearing with a couple of details that she did not provide during the teleconference. There is no indication that these details could not have been provided during the teleconference. In any event, these details would not be determinative of the issue of delay.

14It is apparent that the reason the applicant has filed the Request for Reconsideration is that she disagrees with the Decision. As the Tribunal stated in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, 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 closed, subject to limited exceptions.

ORDER

15The Request for Reconsideration is denied.