Theisen v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2010 HRTO 190

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Richard Theisen

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, Sean Cunningham, Steve Brady and Nicole Holmes

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: January 27, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 190

Indexed as: Theisen v. Ontario (Attorney General)

introduction

1On October 27, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision in which it dismissed the Application because its substance falls beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction: 2009 HRTO 1781. On November 25, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of that decision and submissions in support of his Request. Subsequently, the applicant also filed a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry citing some of the same concerns outlined in his previous materials.

2A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents who had not been served with the original Application.

BACKGROUND

3Richard Theisen filed an Application on May 27, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging that he suffered discrimination in the areas of employment, goods, services and facilities and membership in a vocational association on the basis of disability.

4The narrative included with the Application suggested that several events led the applicant to make the Application, including allegedly abusive behaviour of fellow students at a college program and interactions with the courts and the Crown Attorney’s office on a matter relating to criminal charges. The events were alleged to have taken place between 1995 and 2000.

5The applicant alleged that he was subject to harassment and ill treatment during his time at college and despite his complaints, no investigation took place. He also alleged that he was charged and convicted of an offence relating to events arising out of his troubled relationships with fellow students at the college. He appeared to take issue with the process that led to his conviction and the subsequent dismissal of his criminal appeal. His allegations centred on the actions of a Crown Attorney, the Court of Appeal and fellow college students.

6Submissions were sought and received from the applicant on the issues of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with his Application and on the issue of delay.

7The Application was dismissed on the basis that it did not raise issues that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider.

8Although the Application was filed more than a decade after the events are alleged to have taken place, the issue of delay was not addressed given the Tribunal’s ruling on the issue of jurisdiction.

9The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision to dismiss his Application. He argues that he has new information or evidence concerning the student organization to which he and the personal respondents belonged and has attached emails sent to make inquiries about the organization. He also makes a number of arguments concerning the responsibility of the Crown Attorney’s office and the courts to accommodate the needs of disabled persons.

10This is the Tribunal’s decision on the Request for Reconsideration.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

11Section 45.7 of the Code, allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request that it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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.

12It is also useful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which 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.

13In his Request, the applicant has checked the boxes indicating that the reason for his Request is that there are new facts or evidence potentially determinative of the case that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier and that the decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

14A Request for Reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered. In his Request, the applicant has made no relevant submissions that bear on the identified ground for reconsideration or, indeed, on any of the criteria outlined in either Rule 26 or the Practice Direction on Reconsideration. The thrust of his submissions merely reiterate arguments made earlier in the process. It is evident that the applicant disagrees with the Tribunal’s finding. However, he has presented no basis to reconsider the decision.

15The Request for Reconsideration is denied. Given my decision on the Request for Reconsideration, I will not address the Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry.