Cohen v. Ottawa Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1026

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Joshua Cohen Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: June 7, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1026 Indexed as: Cohen v. Ottawa Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Joshua Cohen, Applicant Self-represented

1The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2013 HRTO 227, pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code R.S.O., c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application was dismissed as a result of the applicant’s failure to attend the scheduled hearing on February 1, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

2Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority and discretion to reconsider its decisions:

45.7(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

3The Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration, as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers.

4Rule 26.5 states 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; 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 and orders.

5The 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.

6Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal confirmed that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to an application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

7The Request for Reconsideration cites Rule 26.5 (a), (c) and (d).

8The applicant does not deny that he received notice of the hearing. The only issue for me to consider is whether his explanation for his failure to attend provides a sufficient basis for exercising my discretion to reconsider the Decision dismissing his application as abandoned.

9The applicant provided the Tribunal with written submissions although they are difficult to understand. For example, I do not understand the applicant’s statement at paragraph (d) of his submissions that “CONTEMPT is at ‘play’ re: the miscarriage and travesty of justice.”

10The applicant appears to be suggesting that he asked for an extension of time on January 23, 2013, because of issues associated with disclosure of the respondent’s documents.

11The Confirmation of Hearing is dated October 26, 2012. Since that notice was issued by the Tribunal, the applicant has sent a significant number of emails to the Tribunal. On January 23, 2013, he sent a series of emails from his “yahoo” account about the hearing process. On January 24 and 25, 2013, the Tribunal received another series of emails from the same account. On January 28, 2013, I issued a Case Assessment Direction with the following instructions to the applicant:

The applicant has recently sent a significant number of emails to the Tribunal. It is not clear how the emails are related to the applicant’s claim against the respondent.

The applicant is directed to refrain from sending any further material to the Tribunal. Any preliminary issues or requests to adjourn this matter will be dealt with on Friday, February 1, 2013, prior to the commencement of the hearing.

12The CAD was sent to the applicant’s “yahoo” account. The Tribunal did not receive any indication that the email was not delivered. The Tribunal received another series of indecipherable emails from the applicant’s “yahoo” account on January 30, 2013. The applicant now states that the Tribunal has been kept “abreast” that his email account was “seized”. He alleges that the Tribunal or the respondent may have played some role in having his email account seized for the purpose of sabotaging his Application. The applicant also states that he was redirecting email to his back-up email address at his “rocketmail” account. The applicant has consistently communicated with the Tribunal from his “yahoo” account.

13Fundamentally, the applicant does not dispute receiving notice of his hearing date, time and location. At no time did the Tribunal indicate that the applicant would not be required to attend the hearing. The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction dated January 28, 2013, clearly advising the applicant that he was required to attend the hearing for the purpose of dealing with any outstanding issues or adjournment requests. Even if the applicant did not receive this Case Assessment Direction, there is no basis for his assumption that he was not required to attend the hearing.

14There is no basis upon which I can exercise my discretion to reconsider the original decision.

Directions

15The Request for Reconsideration is denied.

16The Tribunal’s records will reflect the applicant’s request, which was contained in his Request for Reconsideration, that any further correspondence be sent to his “rocketmail” account.