Helen Pamula v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2010 HRTO 981

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Helen Pamula

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Provincial Police, Dean Pfaff and Katherine Souillier

Respondents

reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: Dale Hewat

Date: May 4, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 981

Indexed as: Pamula v. Ontario Provincial Police

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2010 HRTO 73, dated January 15, 2010 dismissing the Application on the basis that another proceeding, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (“OCCPS”), has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application within the meaning of Section 45.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Decision addressed the respondents’ preliminary motion that the Application be dismissed without a hearing pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code.

2By letter dated September 10, 2009, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she never requested to make oral submissions on the respondents’ preliminary request and asked that all submissions be made in writing. The Tribunal confirmed the applicant’s request to have the preliminary issue dealt with by written submissions in a letter dated September 15, 2009. On October 1, 2009, the applicant submitted reply submissions on the preliminary issue and asked the Tribunal for a hearing of the facts of her case because she claimed that she did not have a hearing by any independent institution free from police influence.

3On February 14, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Code and provided information which has been considered. Section 45.7 of the Code provides:

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.

4Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional 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.

5The basis of the Request for Reconsideration is under subsection (c) above and relates to the applicant’s objection to the Tribunal’s decision based on section 45.1 and that the Application was dismissed without oral submissions. The applicant relies on the Tribunal’s Guide to Section 53(3) applications to argue that once mediation has been declined then applications move to the next step which is a hearing. The applicant asserts that she has been denied this right.

6The applicant asserts that section 45.1 was used without taking into consideration the merits of her case including her allegations of false information used by the respondents. The applicant questions how the Tribunal could decide her case on the basis of section 45.1 when she did not have an opportunity for a hearing in the original OCCPS process. The applicant also submits that the Tribunal dismissed the Application because, like the respondents, it is under the Ministry of Attorney General’s umbrella and consequently is under police influence.

7The applicant was notified of the respondents’ preliminary request and its basis, received all submissions from the respondents and was given a full opportunity to respond. The applicant also notified the Tribunal that she did not want to make oral submissions on the preliminary issue but only wanted to communicate by written submissions.

8The issue before the Tribunal was whether the OCCPS decision was a proceeding and whether such proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application. Having found that the OCCPS decision met the two-fold test under section 45.1, the Tribunal dismissed the Application.

9Section 45.1 permits the Tribunal to dismiss an Application on a preliminary basis so that an application is not processed on the merits. The Decision in this case solely considered a preliminary issue and was not an opportunity for the applicant to present the merits of her case. In its analysis of whether section 45.1 applied in this instance, the Tribunal, as an independent institution, followed its Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications, the Code and established jurisprudence and fully considered each of the parties’ written submissions. The applicant’s dissatisfaction with OCCPS, the Tribunal process and allegations of police influence does not show how this Request for Reconsideration is a matter of general or public importance.

10In these circumstances I am not satisfied that the applicant has established any basis for reconsideration.

11The Request for Reconsideration is denied.