HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Brian Lane
Applicant
-and-
Hamilton Police Services Board and Jamie Moore
Respondents
reconsideration
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Lane v. Hamilton Police Services Board
INTRODUCTION
1This Application was filed under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The underlying human rights complaint (the “Complaint”) was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on June 24, 2007 and abandoned upon filing this Application with the Tribunal.
2On June 13, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2011 HRTO 1145, dismissing this Application. The Tribunal accepted a police officer’s evidence that he asked the applicant a question about his mental health only because it came up in the course of the officer’s investigation of the applicant’s complaint to the police, and he was telling the applicant what the other party had said. The Tribunal found that there was no violation of the Code in the investigative technique used by the officer.
3On September 6, 2011, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration dated August 30, 2011, explaining that he did not receive the Decision until the end of August. The applicant filed two further submissions to support his Request: one letter and attachments dated September 6, 2011, and another letter and attachments dated October 3, 2011.
4The Tribunal received confirmation that the Decision was faxed to the applicant’s representative on record on June 13, 2011; however, it appears that the applicant may not have been in communication with his hearing representative at the time the Decision was issued, and I find that it is fair to accept the Request despite the fact that it was not filed within 30 days of the Decision.
5This Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration which includes all three sets of his submissions.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
6Section 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.
7Rule 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.
8The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008). The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states, in part, the following with respect to the Tribunal’s power to grant reconsideration:
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.
9In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant checked two of the boxes indicating:
that the decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; and
other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
10In the text that accompanies the Request, the applicant fails to address either of these criteria. The applicant does not point to any case law, jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure with which he alleges the Decision conflicts. Instead, the applicant makes references to his work with the community in eliminating barriers for people with disabilities generally, and to international and local commitments to ensuring access for people with disabilities. Nor does the applicant articulate what factors exist that outweigh the public interest in finality of decisions. Instead, he generally takes issue with the Tribunal’s failure to include references in its reasons to all of his evidence led at the Hearing, and his Reconsideration submissions attach some of the documents which were exhibits at the Hearing, particularly the medical evidence of his doctor and his notes made soon after the alleged discrimination occurred. It appears that he is challenging the Tribunal’s findings of fact on the basis that he believes the adjudicator should have been persuaded by the exhibits the applicant submitted at the hearing to support his allegations of discrimination.
DECISION
11As stated in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration cited above, reconsideration is not an opportunity for the applicant to appeal the Decision or to repair any deficiencies in the presentation of his case. I find that the applicant’s reasons for seeking reconsideration amount to a request to have his evidence and submissions reheard. His reasons do no meet the Rule 26 factors as set out above. I am not convinced by the applicant’s submissions that any findings made in the Decision are in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedures, nor am I convinced by his submissions that there are other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
12The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of November, 2011.
”signed by”_____________
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair