HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Michael Christianson
Applicant
-and-
Windsor Police Service and Michael Langlois
Respondents
Reconsideration DECISION
Adjudicator: Andrew M. Diamond
Indexed as: Christianson v. Windsor Police Service
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Michael Christianson, Applicant ) On his own behalf
[1] This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2010 HRTO 229, dated February 1, 2010, dismissing the Application.
[2] On February 26, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for reconsideration 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.
3Under 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).
4The 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.
5As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen 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.
6The complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on December 17, 2007 and abandoned upon filing the present Application, alleges that the respondents discriminated against him in the provision of police services on the basis of a perceived disability. The basis of this complaint is that on November 1, 2007 the respondents denied the applicant services by refusing to investigate an allegation made by the applicant.
ANALYSIS
7The applicant submitted that I intentionally failed to arrive at a correct decision as a reprisal for his previously complaining about other Vice-chairs and Tribunal staff. The applicant further submits that my decision does not reflect the evidence and submissions made to the Tribunal. The applicant references in his request for reconsideration tape recordings of the proceedings. If such recordings exist, they were not made at the request of the Tribunal, nor have I had the benefit of a copy of any transcript of the proceedings. As is usual in these matters, I have relied upon my notes of the evidence.
8I have now reviewed the exhibits, my notes of the oral evidence given at the hearing, and my original decision. I find that there is no inconsistency between the evidence tendered on the subject of the complaint and the decision rendered. The Reconsideration Request is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of April, 2010.
“Signed by”
Andrew M. Diamond
Member