Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Michael Christianson Applicant
- and -
Windsor Police Service and Charles Sasso Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: April 26, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 815 Indexed as: Christianson v. Windsor Police Service
1The applicant filed an Application on December 23, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination and reprisal in the area of services, goods and facilities on the basis of disability and association with a person identified by a Code protected ground.
2In a Decision, 2011 HRTO 168, the Tribunal dismissed the Application because it determined that the Application was barred by virtue of section 53(8) of the Code as constituting the same or substantially the same subject-matter of a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission under the old Code.
3The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration ("Request") and submissions in support of the Request.
RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
4Section 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
5In his submissions in support of his Reconsideration Request, the applicant seeks to reargue certain facts and disputes what the Tribunal understands of this Application and his other human rights cases. However, he makes no submissions in his Request that bear on any of the factors set out in Rule 26.
6A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to reframe or reargue a case, yet this is what the applicant is trying to do with respect to the Decision in this Application, as well as attempting to challenge another Tribunal Decision. There is no evidentiary or legal basis in the applicant's submissions to reconsider my finding that this Application is substantially the same in subject matter as the applicant's previous human rights complaint.
7Accordingly, the reconsideration Request is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 26^th^ day of April, 2011.
"signed by"____________
Ena Chadha Vice-chair