Udhbirprasaud Joseph Bhikram v. Toronto City Police Force and Sheila Richardson, 2011 HRTO 1338

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Udhbirprasaud Joseph Bhikram

Applicant

-and-

Toronto City Police Force and Sheila Richardson

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: July 15, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1338

Indexed as: Bhikram v. Toronto City Police Force

1This Application was dismissed by way of Decision 2011 HRTO 1014, pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code, because of an on-going civil proceeding with respect to the same allegations and remedies raised in the Application.

2The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration asking the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision. The applicant asserts that the Decision is erroneous because he “gave up” his civil lawsuit against the respondents. The applicant further alleges that it is wrong of the Tribunal to deny his claim because of delay given that his social worker has explained that he suffers from physical and mental disabilities making it difficult for him to function.

RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

3Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Further to its power to make rules, the Tribunal has issued Rules governing Requests for Reconsideration. Rule 26.5 provides that 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;

(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;

(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.

DECISION

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.

5On my review of the Reconsideration Request, I am satisfied that there is no basis to reconsider the Decision of May 27, 2011. Tribunal jurisprudence recognizes the public importance in upholding the finality of decisions subject to certain circumstances as outlined in the Practice Direction. I cannot conclude that, as asserted by the applicant, it is in the public interest to continue to deal with the Application. The applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

6The applicant appears to suggest that the Tribunal should maintain jurisdiction over his Application because he did not proceed with his civil action against the respondents. The applicant has not clarified as to when this development occurred and, as such, it is unclear when the civil lawsuit was abandoned. At the time of the Decision, it appeared based on the information provided by the applicant that section 34(11) applied to the circumstances of the Application. There is no basis for me to conclude that at the time the Application was before the Tribunal there was no concurrent civil proceeding related to the same facts and remedies that were the substance of the Application.

7Additionally, I find that the Application would, in any event, have also been dismissed for untimeliness. The allegations contained in the Application pertain to events from 2005 and the applicant acknowledges that the Application was filed beyond the one year timeline required by the Code. The Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. See, for example, Klein v. Toronto Zionist Council, 2009 HRTO 241.

8The Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they seek to pursue a human rights claim. Based on the voluminous materials in the file, it is clear that the applicant sought recourse through various avenues, including the civil litigation, the media, and government officials. The applicant’s claims of health concerns do not sufficiently explain why the applicant was not able to act in a more timely fashion and file his Application within the required one-year time frame given the extensive efforts he undertook elsewhere to seek redress over a number of years.

9Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied and the applicant’s submissions with respect to the abandoned civil lawsuit and delay are rejected. As a result of the applicant’s failure to deliver a copy of his Request for Reconsideration to the respondents, the Tribunal will provide a copy of the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration along with this Reconsideration Decision.