Runnalls v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2012 HRTO 1717

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nelson Runnalls

Applicant

-and-

Attorney General of Ontario

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: September 11, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1717

Indexed as: Runnalls v. Ontario (Attorney General)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Nelson Runnalls, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on February 12, 2012, alleging disability discrimination in the areas of goods, services and facilities and contracts.

2This Reconsideration Decision addresses the applicant’s request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision dismissing his Application as out of time.

BACKGROUND

3The Application alleged that the applicant was discriminatorily denied disclosure of a transcript of his criminal trial that took place in Gore Bay on February 12, 2001. The applicant’s allegations against the respondent Attorney General pertained to various requests that he has made over the years since the trial demanding that court authorities provide him with a fresh and complete copy of the transcript. The applicant indicated in response to question 7 of the Application that the discrimination “continues” because he has not received a copy of the transcript that he believes is an accurate and complete reflection of the trial. In his narrative, the applicant alleged that the discrimination is “an outrageous chain of events” since his trial in February 2001 when he was allegedly wrongfully convicted. The Application was filed in February 2012, almost 11 years after the criminal trial.

4On May 15, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) stating that, pursuant to section 34(1) of the Code, the Application may be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

5On June 13, 2012, the applicant filed submissions opposing dismissal and provided copies of numerous legal documents.

6By way of Decision, 2012 HRTO 1349, the Tribunal dismissed this Application for lack of jurisdiction under section 34(1) of the Code as filed beyond the Code’s one year time limitation.

DECISION

7Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedures (“Rules”) 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’s jurisprudence establishes that reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case, nor is it available simply because a party disagrees with the decision: see Dwyer v. Chrysler Canada, 2009 HRTO 385.

9The applicant alleges that there is fresh evidence in the form of a July 26, 2012 Ontario Review Board disposition to continue his detention at the General Forensic Unit of the North Bay Regional Health Centre having been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The applicant asserts that this recent Ontario Review Board disposition is the direct effect of the manipulation of his original trial and on this basis he perceives the discrimination continues until current day.

10The applicant presented the same line of argument in his written submissions in response to the Tribunal’s May 15, 2012 Notice and this argument was fully considered in reaching the original dismissal decision. The applicant claimed that he continued to suffer extreme hardship because of the alleged discriminatory acts that took place in his trial and afterwards. At paragraphs 14 and 15, the Tribunal held that the fact that the alleged discrimination has continuing effects does not extend the time limit for filing an application under the Code: see Mafinezam v. University of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1495. As such, I do not find that the Ontario Review Board’s disposition constitutes new facts or evidence.

11As previously noted, a request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate submissions already advanced and considered: see Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34.

12The applicant further argues that he did not receive notice of the fact that the Tribunal would be proceeding to determine his matter. The applicant does not deny that he received advance notification that the Tribunal was considering possible dismissal of his Application on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. The May 15, 2012 Notice directed the applicant to provide written submissions responding to the issue of delay, and stated that the Tribunal would consider his submissions and could decide to dismiss the Application or provide further directions regarding next steps. The Notice stated that the Tribunal would either send a copy of its decision or directions regarding the next steps. The applicant filed written submissions in response to the Notice on June 13, 2012. As such, contrary to his claim, I find that the applicant did receive proper notice of the Tribunal’s intent to dismiss.

13It appears that the applicant may be operating under a misapprehension that the Tribunal was required to convene a hearing to consider the issue of jurisdiction. This position is not supported by the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules. Pursuant to section 43(2), the Code provides that where an application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the Tribunal must accord parties with an opportunity to make oral submissions before making a final determination. However, as stated in the Notice, when the Tribunal is considering whether or not it has jurisdiction over an application, the Tribunal may determine that matter based on written submissions, or it may issue further directions. Consequently, the Tribunal may deal with jurisdictional issues solely in writing and does not in the regular course convene oral hearings. Accordingly, I find that the applicant did receive proper notice of the Tribunal’s process with respect to the jurisdictional issue raised in his case.

14On my review of the reconsideration request, I am not satisfied that any of the criteria supporting reconsideration of the decision have been established. In his request the applicant recites several points raised in his original submissions and indicates that he disagrees with my findings because those findings do not recognize he continues to suffer great prejudice.

15The applicant’s disagreement with the conclusions that I drew from the materials before me is not a basis for reconsideration. There are no new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and the applicant’s submissions do not raise issues of general importance nor outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The applicant has not cited any point where the Decision conflicts with established case law or Tribunal procedure.

16In sum, the applicant’s suggestion that he continues to experience the effects of the trial does not meet the reconsideration criteria set out in the Tribunal’s Rules. To allow an applicant to revive an out of time claim by simply restating old concerns or demands would not only undermine the purpose of section 34 of the Code, but also runs contrary to the principles underlying the Tribunal’s approach to reconsideration: see Seetharam v. Iogen, 2010 HRTO 1811 and 2010 HRTO 1900.

17Accordingly, the applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.