Jemila Macanovic v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 930

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jemila Macanovic

Complainant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board

Respondent

-and-

William Blair

Affected Party

-and-

Toronto Police Association

Intervenor

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: June 29, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 930

Indexed as: Macanovic v. Toronto Police Services Board

1In this complaint made under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the Code), the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision on May 15, 2009 (2009 HRTO 642), dealing with a number of preliminary issues raised by the parties.

2By submission dated June 15, 2009, titled “Complainant’s Application of a Review of the Tribunal’s Interim Decision dated May 15, 2009”, the complainant requests reconsideration of that Interim Decision.

3In her submission, the complainant requests that the Tribunal reconsider its decision not to allow the complaint to be amended to include allegations concerning the application of the Mental Health Act, Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7 to detain the complaint. She submits that the Tribunal erred in failing to accept the amendments, that the Tribunal erred in finding that the amendments were not encompassed by the issues raised in the original complaint, that the amendments will not prejudice the respondent, and that she will be prejudiced by not having these issues litigated together with those raised in the original complaint.

4Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with explicit authority to reconsider its decisions. The Tribunal has issued rules governing requests for reconsideration as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration).

5Most relevant here are the following provisions in the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice:

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

99. A request for reconsideration must be made in Form 7 and be delivered to all parties, along with a copy of the “Notice of Request for Reconsideration” (Notice 1) before it is filed with the Tribunal.

100. 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.

6Although the complainant’s request is not made on Form 7, and nor has a copy of the proper Notice been delivered to the parties, she has delivered a copy of her submissions to all parties. In the circumstances, the Tribunal will accept the complainant’s document as a request for reconsideration without requiring that it be re-filed on the proper Form.

7The Tribunal will also assume, without finding, that the ruling the complainant wishes to have reconsidered is a “final decision” within the meaning of Rule 98.

8Having regard to the complainant’s submissions, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a basis for reconsideration of its decision not to permit the complaint to be amended to include allegations of discrimination in the application of the Mental Health Act to detain the complainant.

9There is no suggestion that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. In her submissions the complainant refers to letters she sent to the Commission, which were before the Tribunal at the time of its decision.

10The complainant raises no issues about a lack of notice.

11The submissions do not establish that the Tribunal’s decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure. The complainant relies on certain decisions of the Federal Court in support of her position, in which the Court permitted amendments to be made to complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6. The fact that other decision-makers have come to a different conclusion on the basis of the circumstances before them does not lead to a conclusion that my ruling is in conflict with established jurisprudence. In any event, I do not find that the issue concerns a matter of general or public importance.

12Finally, it has not been shown that other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. Reconsideration is not an appeal, and it is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made its decision, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, barring exceptional circumstances. The applicant has articulated her areas of disagreement with the Tribunal’s decision and I have reviewed them carefully. I am not persuaded, however, that there is a basis for reconsideration of the Interim Decision.

13The request for reconsideration is denied.