Herman v. Ottawa Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 1806

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rivka Herman

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board and Debbie Palmer

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: October 7, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1806

Indexed as: Herman v. Ottawa Police Services Board

Written Submissions

Rivka Herman, Applicant ) On her own behalf

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, Herman vs. Ottawa Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 391, pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2Section 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.

3Further 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.

4Rule 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.

5The 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.

6The issues raised in the Request are the same issues which were dealt with in detail by the Tribunal at the hearing or in previous Interim Decisions including the interpretation of section 45.1 of the Code and a request to reinstate an individual respondent who was removed by an Interim Decision of the Tribunal prior to the commencement of the hearing.

7With respect to the applicant’s concerns about the participation of her representative, Mr. Cohen was given ample opportunity to make submissions on her behalf and those submissions are reflected in the Decision. The matter was set down to be heard by conference call rather than in writing pursuant to the Interim Decision of the Tribunal (2009 HRTO 1262). In addition, the matter was ultimately held in person rather than by conference call to accommodate the needs of both the applicant and her representative.

8In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal confirmed that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to an application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

9At its core, this Request for Reconsideration is an attempt to appeal to the Tribunal to change the Decision by re-arguing the case. The applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the factors set out in Rule 26.5. The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.