HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Regis Jogendra
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General, Michael Bryant, Brian Lennox and Donald Ebbs
Respondents
AND B E T W E E N:
Regis Jogendra
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General and Kenneth Campbell
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Jogendra v. Ontario (Attorney General)
1This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 322, dismissing these Applications.
2On April 15, 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 applicant requested an opportunity to make oral submissions on the reconsideration request. Rule 25.7 provides that a request for reconsideration will be conducted by written submissions unless the Tribunal decides otherwise. I am not satisfied there is any reason to depart from this practice in the circumstances of this Request.
5The criteria set out above are the only ones I am entitled to consider when dealing with a request for reconsideration. None of the applicant’s submissions touch on the matters outlined in paragraphs a, b, or c. In essence, the applicant seeks to re-argue issues heard at the Case Resolution Conference. It is evident that the applicant does not agree with the outcome of that hearing.
6The applicant argues I was in a conflict of interest being an “ex-Crown Attorney/Counsel with the Ministry of the Attorney General” presiding in a matter involving a Crown Attorney represented by another Crown Counsel. This might possibly fall within the ambit of Rule 25.5(d). This information came to the applicant’s attention during the Case Resolution Conference. The applicant did not raise any concerns about it at that time and, as such, might be said to have waived his right to do so.
7In any event, although I was employed as a Crown Counsel over a decade ago I have never been a Crown Attorney and have had no relationship with the Ministry of the Attorney-General since 1992. The assertion that these facts put in me in a conflict of interest is entirely without merit.
8The Request for reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th of May, 2009.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair