HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Yeta-Yall Samba
Applicant
-and-
Ottawa Police Service and James Irving
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Indexed as: Samba v. Ottawa Police Service
1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 1694, dismissing the Application on the basis that it was not a continued complaint at the time the transitional Application was made.
2On November 4, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).
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.
3Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under Section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code provides any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. Rule 25.5 provides:
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.
4The basis of the reconsideration request is that the applicant’s submissions were not considered and the Tribunal did not communicate with the applicant in French. The applicant also challenges the correctness of the Commission’s decision.
5The applicant’s submissions were sent by mistake to the attention of Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner and not to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not consider the submissions before issuing the Decision.
6I have now considered the applicant’s submissions and find no basis to alter my decision. The applicant’s submissions did not address the issue whether the complaint was continued at the time the transitional Application was filed.
7With respect to the Tribunal’s failure to communicate with the applicant in French, the Tribunal notes that the applicant used the English Form A to file the transitional Application. The Tribunal responded in English and the applicant replied in English.
8Until the Tribunal received the applicant’s submission filed by his representative in French asking that all written communication be conducted in French, the Tribunal was not aware of the applicant’s desire to communicate in French. Since that date, the Tribunal has communicated in writing in both English and French.
9The failure to communicate with the applicant in French prior to the request is not a basis for reconsideration.
10The Request for reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of December, 2009.
“Signed by”
Kaye Joachim
Alternate Chair