HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Respondent

Reconsideration decision

Adjudicator: Michael Gottheil

Date: August 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1318

Indexed as: Christianson v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

[1] This is a Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, in respect of a decision, [2009 HRTO 752](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/752), dated June 4, 2009, dismissing the Application in this matter.

[2] The applicant identifies three grounds in support of his Request that the Tribunal should reconsider its decision:

a. There are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative 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 or public importance;

c. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

[3] Sections 45.7 and 45.8 of the Code provide the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions while confirming the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions:

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.

[4] Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (“Practice Direction #4”).

[5] “Practice Direction #4” states, in part:

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 Tribunal. 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 repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

Rule 26 provides, in part:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision.

26.3 A request for reconsideration must include:

(a) reasons for the request, including the basis on which the Tribunal is asked to grant the request for reconsideration;

(b) submissions in support of the request; and

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;

(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;

(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 and orders.

ANALYSIS

[6] In his Request, the applicant alleges a number of deficiencies in the Tribunal’s Decision. First, he identifies two clerical errors, which were later corrected. These are inconsequential to the reasons and the finding, and do not provide a basis for reconsideration.

[7] The applicant then re-argues a number of the assertions he made at the hearing, and argues the Tribunal did not apply or properly consider authorities he had presented. Again, this does not support a reconsideration. A request for reconsideration is not an appeal, or an opportunity to re-argue a case.

[8] Finally, the applicant expresses concern that the effect of the Tribunal’s Decision is to limit its jurisdiction to deal with the allegations of wrongdoing he alleges the respondents, and others, have committed against him. In this regard the applicant states:

The Tribunal seems to believe that it does not have free speech in that it lacks jurisdiction to recognize the discrimination of OCCOPS. Newspapers have more jurisdiction than the Tribunal as they have free speech to print negative comments about anybody.

[9] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is derived from the Code. The applicant appears to be frustrated by the specific jurisdiction granted to the Tribunal, and the scope of claims that fall within the Code. While I appreciate the applicant’s frustration, the Tribunal has no authority to expand its jurisdiction, and this lack of authority is not a basis for reconsideration.

[10] For the above reasons, the request for reconsideration is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 27^th day of August, 2009.

“Signed by”

Michael Gottheil

Chair

Christianson v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2009 HRTO 1318

Case Summary

[1] This is a Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, in respect of a decision, [2009 HRTO 752](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/752), dated June 4, 2009, dismissing the Application in this matter.

[2] The applicant identifies three grounds in support of his Request that the Tribunal should reconsider its decision:

a. There are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative 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 or public importance;

c. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

[3] Sections 45.7 and 45.8 of the Code provide the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions while confirming the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions:

[4] Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (“Practice Direction #4”).

[5] “Practice Direction #4” states, in part:

Rule 26 provides, in part:

[6] In his Request, the applicant alleges a number of deficiencies in the Tribunal’s Decision. First, he identifies two clerical errors, which were later corrected. These are inconsequential to the reasons and the finding, and do not provide a basis for reconsideration.

[8] Finally, the applicant expresses concern that the effect of the Tribunal’s Decision is to limit its jurisdiction to deal with the allegations of wrongdoing he alleges the respondents, and others, have committed against him. In this regard the applicant states:

The Tribunal seems to believe that it does not have free speech in that it lacks jurisdiction to recognize the discrimination of OCCOPS. Newspapers have more jurisdiction than the Tribunal as they have free speech to print negative comments about anybody.

[10] For the above reasons, the request for reconsideration is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 27^th day of August, 2009.

[1] This is a Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, in respect of a decision, [2009 HRTO 752](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/752), dated June 4, 2009, dismissing the Application in this matter.

[2] The applicant identifies three grounds in support of his Request that the Tribunal should reconsider its decision:

a. There are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative 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 or public importance;

c. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

[3] Sections 45.7 and 45.8 of the Code provide the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions while confirming the finality of the Tribunal’s decisions:

[4] Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (“Practice Direction #4”).

[5] “Practice Direction #4” states, in part:

Rule 26 provides, in part:

[6] In his Request, the applicant alleges a number of deficiencies in the Tribunal’s Decision. First, he identifies two clerical errors, which were later corrected. These are inconsequential to the reasons and the finding, and do not provide a basis for reconsideration.

[8] Finally, the applicant expresses concern that the effect of the Tribunal’s Decision is to limit its jurisdiction to deal with the allegations of wrongdoing he alleges the respondents, and others, have committed against him. In this regard the applicant states:

The Tribunal seems to believe that it does not have free speech in that it lacks jurisdiction to recognize the discrimination of OCCOPS. Newspapers have more jurisdiction than the Tribunal as they have free speech to print negative comments about anybody.

[10] For the above reasons, the request for reconsideration is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of August, 2009.

Dated at Toronto, this 27^th day of August, 2009.