Ramnath v. Peel Regional Police, 2010 HRTO 973

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Gloria Ramnath

Applicant

-and-

Peel Regional Police, S. Roberts, D. Elson and L. Burns

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: May 3, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 973

Indexed as: Ramnath v. Peel Regional Police

1This is an Application filed December 18, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). By decision dated March 12, 2010, 2010 HRTO 548, the Tribunal dismissed the Application because of the delay in filing it.

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 her Request, the applicant relies on the factors in Rules 26.5(c) and (d). In providing the reasons and representations in support of her Request, she states her profound dissatisfaction and disagreement with the Tribunal’s Decision. She does not refer to any Tribunal jurisprudence or procedure with which the Decision is in conflict, nor does she provide any reasons why the proposed reconsideration involves matters of general or public importance.

8The applicant has also not cited any factor or circumstance that outweighs the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions and orders.

9The applicant has not satisfied me that any of the factors in Rule 26.5 support reconsideration of the decision in this Application.

10Before concluding, the Tribunal wishes to address two matters raised in the Request. First, the applicant objects to the fact that some of the information she provided in her submissions to the Tribunal was set out in the decision and became known to the respondent. It is a fundamental principle of open justice and fairness that, absent extraordinary circumstances, parties to litigation are entitled to know the information an adjudicator relies on to make a decision. This principle is reflected in many of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, such as Rule 1.12 (requiring parties to deliver communications to the Tribunal to the other parties), and Rule 13.3, which applied here. There is no presumption that information sent by a party to the Tribunal is privileged and in fact the opposite presumption is true. The Tribunal’s Application Form also informs applicants that information about their Application can become public. The inclusion of this information in the Tribunal’s decision was consistent with Tribunal policy and practice and in keeping with the Tribunal’s duty to provide reasons for its decisions.

11Second, the applicant asks the Tribunal not to send decisions about her Application to, the on-line legal reporting service, stating that it “is only representing what I believe to be your self-serving propaganda.” The applicant provides no basis to depart from the Tribunal’s practice of providing its decisions to and the request is denied.

12The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.