Ghafourian v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 2134

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Farideh Ghafourian

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, William Blair, B. Steed, M. Nunno and M. Powell

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: October 22, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2134

Indexed as: Ghafourian v. Toronto Police Services Board

1This Reconsideration Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision 2010 HRTO 1620 dated July 29, 2010, which dismissed this Application pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on the basis that the substance of the Application already had appropriately been dealt with in another proceeding, namely a complaint filed by the applicant under the Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 and a review and decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (“OCCPS”) to dismiss the applicant’s complaint.

2On August 27, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

3Section 45.7 of the Code, provides as follows:

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.

4Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. The Tribunal has issued rules governing such requests 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, January 2008 amended June 2008).

5The 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.

6As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to re-open and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

7In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to an Application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

8The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provide that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision in accordance with the Rules. Rule 25.5 of the Rules 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.

9As a result, I need to determine whether the material filed by the applicant in support of her request for reconsideration satisfies any of the criteria set out in Rule 25.5. The applicant relies upon all of the criteria identified in Rule 25.5.

10I have carefully reviewed and considered the extensive submissions filed by the applicant in support of her Request for Reconsideration. Much of this document relates to matters and allegations that are not within the scope of this Application, which pursuant to s. 53(5) of the Code, is based upon the subject-matter of the complaint as filed with the Commission.

11Having reviewed this material thoroughly, I am satisfied that there are no new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the issue I decided under s.45.1 of the Code and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The applicant does raise allegations about the information upon which OCCPS may have based its decision, but these are allegations rather than evidence and there is no material to indicate why these allegations could not have been raised earlier.

12The applicant did receive notice of the preliminary hearing where oral submissions were received from the parties regarding the issue under s. 45.1 of the Code, and she was afforded the opportunity to make and did make oral submissions on her own behalf.

13The applicant has not raised any established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure which is in conflict with my Decision, and in fact my Decision is in line with Tribunal jurisprudence as referenced therein.

14Finally, the applicant’s reconsideration request does not raise any other factors that, in my opinion, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

15For all of the foregoing reasons, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.