Kranz v. Ottawa Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1168

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jason Kranz

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Service and Tracy Turpin

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: May 25, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1168

Indexed as: Kranz v. Ottawa Police Service

1This is an Application filed on March 10, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). On May 3, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Decision dismissing the Application on the basis that it is untimely: Kranz v. Ottawa Police Service, 2010 HRTO 968.

2The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of that Decision.

3Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with explicit authority to reconsider its 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.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

4Further to its power to make rules, 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.

5Rule 26 reads, in part, as follows:

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; 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 and orders.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

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.

7In his Request, the applicant relies on the factor in Rule 26.5(a). In providing the reasons and representations in support of his Request, he states that the Tribunal made a “premature decision”. He states that there has not been a finding of guilt on his criminal matter, and that at the conference call, the Tribunal “specifically asked” “it would definitely help to know a ruling on these criminal charges in relation to the Ottawa Police Service”.

8The applicant has not satisfied me that any of the factors in Rule 26.5 support reconsideration of the decision in this Application. With respect to the matter of the criminal trial, the fact that there has not been a final disposition on the charges against the applicant was known to the parties and to the Tribunal at the time of the conference call. This is referred to in the Tribunal’s Decision. These circumstances therefore do not qualify as “new facts or evidence.”

9During the conference call, a number of issues were canvassed, including the timeliness of the Application, and whether it raises allegations establishing a prima facie case of a violation of the Code. During the course of submissions, the parties addressed the question of what impact the eventual verdict might have on the Application. The applicant and the respondents disagreed on the relevance of that verdict on the Tribunal’s disposition of the issues in the Application.

10As the Tribunal found the Application to be untimely, it was unnecessary to consider whether to defer any consideration of the merits of the Application until a decision has been reached on the criminal charges. To the extent that the applicant suggests that the eventual verdict will constitute “new evidence” that could potentially be determinative of the case, that verdict will have no bearing on the Tribunal’s decision that the Application is untimely.

11I am satisfied that the applicant has not established a basis for granting reconsideration of the decision. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.