HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Janet Blommesteyn
Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Blommesteyn v. Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Janet Blommesteyn, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1On June 5, 2013, the Tribunal issued its Decision 2013 HRTO 997 (the “Final Decision”), dismissing the Application.
2On July 11, 2013, the applicant filed with the Tribunal a Request for Reconsideration. The Tribunal did not direct the respondent to file any submissions with respect to this Request.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
3The Request for Reconsideration filed by the applicant indicates that the Final Decision is in conflict with established case law and involves a matter of general or public importance. The applicant also asserts that I did not ensure that she was treated fairly and that I refused to let her present evidence in support of her case and that when she tried to present me with evidence I said she should get away from me. The applicant also states, that the Final Decision reflects my bias against the applicant.
Bias
4The legal principles related to reasonable apprehension of bias were set out by De Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, at p. 394:
. . . the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal, that test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.
5The applicant makes a number of strange allegations in her Request with respect to my conduct during the hearing, including that I said at some point that she should “get away from me” and that at another I told her husband to “shut up”. Since these are fabrications, I cannot find they ground any reasonable apprehension of bias. The applicant provides no actual details or particulars to support her allegation of bias. At best, the applicant appears to rely on the general fact that I ordered a Summary hearing and that she disagrees with the Final Decision I issued; neither of which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Accommodation
6The applicant also states that “I asked for accommodation in an email and I received none”. To the extent this could be construed as an allegation of some type of procedural unfairness it was not particularized and no evidence was offered in support of the allegation. I do not know what email the applicant is referring to nor did the applicant request any accommodation at the hearing.
Reconsideration
7Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.
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.
8The Tribunal has issued Rules outlining how the Tribunal will exercise its discretion in deciding such requests and Rule 26 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.
9As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
10The applicant also asserts that I did not permit her to tender any evidence at the Summary Hearing. I note that at summary hearings that applicants are not required to present evidence but are instructed to point to the evidence they would seek to rely on in establishing a respondent’s breach of the Code. At the Summary hearing I did advise the applicant that I had reviewed the file in its entirety and asked her to specifically indicate which evidence she would rely upon if the Application were to proceed on its merits. She did identify the material upon which she would rely and her submissions in this regard were considered in the Final Decision.
11At the Summary Hearing, the applicant had the opportunity to make fulsome submissions on whether the Application had no reasonable prospect of success. During the Summary Hearing I advised the applicant that her neighbours were not parties to the Application and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction of allegations of unfairness that are unrelated to the Code. I repeatedly reminded the applicant that she should focus her submissions on the conduct of the respondent and how this conduct breached her Code rights. It is appropriate for the Tribunal to give guidance to the parties with respect to the relevant issues.
12I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. Though I understand that the applicant is dissatisfied with the Final Decision she has provided no basis or any support for her assertion that the Final Decision should be reconsidered.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of October, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair