Jayaraj v. Connan, 2012 HRTO 2127

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Jayaraj

Applicant

-and-

J. Connan

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: November 9, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2127

Indexed as: Jayaraj v. Connan

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

David Jayaraj, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1894, dated October 4, 2012. That Decision dismissed the Application as against two respondents and directed a summary hearing to consider the Application as against the remaining respondent.

2This Application was filed on July 24, 2012, and alleged discrimination because of race, colour and place of origin during an appearance at a court on June 29, 2012.

3The Application named a Justice of the Peace, a public prosecutor and a security guard.

4The Application was not delivered to the respondents.

5After reviewing the Application, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to the applicant because it appeared that the Tribunal might not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application. The applicant was invited to make written submissions. These were received and reviewed.

6In Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1894, the Application as against the Justice of the Peace and the public prosecutor were dismissed because they are protected against civil actions, including an Application to this Tribunal, because of the doctrines of judicial immunity and prosecutorial immunity in respect of things done in the course of their duties.

7The security guard is not protected by such immunity and the Application against the security guard was allowed to proceed. However, the Interim Decision directed that a summary hearing be held to determine if the Application as against the security guard should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

8The Interim Decision was mailed to the security address at the mailing address provided by the applicant. It has been returned to the Tribunal as non-deliverable with the indication that there is no such person at the address.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

9The Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant asks the Tribunal to reconsider the decision to dismiss the Application as against the Justice of the Peace and the public prosecutor. The Request refers to the original Application. The applicant also indicates that the issues raised in the Application would be treated very differently in India and references various media sources from India.

10Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure concerns how the Tribunal will consider requests for reconsideration. Rule 26.5 states:

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.

11The 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.

12The Request for Reconsideration does not identify any new facts or evidence relevant to the issues in the Application. The Request refers only to the submissions the applicant made in the original Application and to legal proceedings in India.

13As discussed in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on requests for reconsideration, a Request for Reconsideration will not generally be granted based on a restatement of submissions that have already been considered. The information about events in India is not relevant to the events giving rise to the Application.

14For these reasons, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.

DELIVERING THE APPLICATION TO THE RESPONDENT

15As noted, the Tribunal has not been able to deliver the Application to the respondent identified by the applicant as J. Connan. The Application that was mailed to the attention of J. Connan at the address provided by the applicant was returned on the basis that no such person was at the address

16Rule 6.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

6.6 An Application accepted by the Tribunal for processing:

a) will be sent by the Tribunal to the Respondent(s), and to any trade union, occupational or professional organization identified in the Application, at the addresses provided in the Application; or

b) will not be dealt with in respect of a Respondent or a trade union, occupational or professional organization that cannot be contacted in accordance with paragraph (a) above, and the Applicant will be so advised…

17If the applicant wishes to continue with the Application as against J. Connan, the applicant must provide a mailing address for J. Connan. If the applicant has not provided this information by November 30, 2012, the Tribunal may determine that the Application has been abandoned and it may be dismissed on that basis.