Muntaha Hannona v. Barrie Police, 2011 HRTO 1083

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Muntaha Hannona

Applicant

-and-

Barrie Police

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: June 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1083

Indexed as: Hannona v. Barrie Police

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Muntaha Hannona, Applicant ) Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision, 2011 HRTO 538, dismissing this Application on the basis that it was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was untimely. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

2Rule 26.5 sets out the limited circumstances in which reconsideration may be granted:

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.

3The applicant relies upon Rule 26.5 (a), (c) and (d). The applicant’s reconsideration request contains the following information in response to the request for detailed reasons and representations:

I was only able to see the police disclosure through my personal injury lawyer on Oct. 2010, that’s why I knew I had evidence against Const. Duncan Way, based on what he wrote on his report. I knew all along he discriminated, but I did not have any prove at the time of my accident except he charged me without investigating the matter because of my name and ethnicity. There is a news articles one of their own who also filed a complaint against Barrie Police at the same time I did and her name is Christian Farrell her facts are based on 2001 to 2008 when she left detachement [sic].

4The applicant’s submissions concerning the fact that she obtained “evidence” in the police disclosure was thoroughly canvassed in the Decision under reconsideration. Although the applicant may be of the view that the Decision is incorrect, reconsideration under Rule 26.5 (c) is not an appeal or an evaluation of alleged errors in the decision.

5The article about another human rights case against the Barrie Police does not constitute new “evidence” or “facts” inasmuch as the applicant has failed to specify why this might be relevant to her case. On its face, the fact that there may be another unrelated case against the same respondent has no bearing on the Application at issue.

6The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration fails to set out any basis for review of the Decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.