Phipps v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 53

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ronald Phipps

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Michael Shaw and William Blair

Respondents

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Intervenor

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: January 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 53

Indexed as: Phipps v. Toronto Police Services Board

1This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision 2009 HRTO 2256 refusing the respondents’ request for a stay of the Tribunal’s decisions on liability, 2009 HRTO 877, and remedies, 2009 HRTO 1604, issued in this matter pending an application for judicial review initiated by the respondents.

2On December 30, 2009, the respondents William Blair, Chief of Police and Michael Shaw filed a Request for reconsideration of my stay decision 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.

4Due to an administrative error the submissions of the respondents Blair and Shaw were not before me when I decided the request for stay and accordingly, it is fair, just and expeditious for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to reconsider.

5I have reviewed the submissions. Essentially the respondents Blair and Shaw, submit that if the award of monetary compensation is paid out to the applicant, they may not be able to recover it. They also assert that there is no harm to the applicant in waiting for the award. They also note that a factor in my earlier Decision was that the judicial review applications have not been perfected. They pointed out that as the Tribunal has not yet filed its record, the respondents cannot perfect their applications. I note that the certificate of perfection required by Rule 68.05 speaks only to “all material required by the applicant to be filed”. This includes their application record and their factum and any affidavits of service.

6I do not accept that refusing to stay the payment of the award of monetary compensation would cause the respondents irreparable harm. I find that the balance of convenience does not weigh in favour of a stay.

7The request for a stay of the Decisions is denied. It may be that the parties can reach some agreement among themselves about enforcement of my orders pending the outcome of the judicial review.