HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Monojit Datta
Applicant
-and-
Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service, Robert Ermacora, Nilo Espino, Thomas Leney, Nick Janjanin
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Datta v. Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service
1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on November 6, 2011, which requested reconsideration of my Decision, 2011 HRTO 1920, issued on October 24, 2011 (the “Decision”). In the Decision, I dismissed the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success following a summary hearing.
2A respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this Request, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents, and they have not responded to the Request.
3Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, ch. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. Rule 26.5 provides:
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.
[4] In his Request, the applicant relies on the criterion identified in Rule 26.5(d).
5When considering a request for reconsideration, it is useful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration which states in part:
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.
6It is my view that the applicant’s Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26.5. The applicant takes the position in his submissions that my Decision dismissing the Application is wrong, but the applicant’s Request does not explain what factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The majority of the applicant’s submissions describe what he considers to be flaws in the police investigation of his ex-wife’s allegations of assault against the applicant and in the resulting criminal charge against him. His reconsideration submissions claim, as did the Application, that the applicant’s arrest was racially motivated on the basis of evidence, which the Decision already considered.
7Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with a decision by the Tribunal. It is also not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case, which is what the applicant appears to be doing in his reconsideration submissions.
[6] The Request is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of January, 2012.
”signed by”________
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair