Ehamparam v. Doyle, 2013 HRTO 1973

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Praveenkumar Ehamparam

Applicant

-and-

Roxanne Doyle

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: November 28, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1973

Indexed as: Ehamparam v. Doyle

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Praveenkumar Ehamparam, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of Decision 2013 HRTO 1588 (“the Decision”). The Decision dismissed the applicant's Application against Police Officer Roxanne Doyle because the Application was not filed in the time required by section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2Section 34 reads as follows:

34(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

3The Application was filed in December 2012. It related to events that were alleged to have occurred in the period approximately from November 2006 to January 2007. The Application was therefore not filed within one year of the incidents to which the Application relates.

4The applicant said that the Application should be allowed to proceed because he felt that there was a good faith explanation for the delay. Under section 34(2) an Application that is not filed within one year of the last incident of alleged discrimination may be allowed to proceed if there is a good faith explanation for the delay.

5In this case the applicant said that the main reason for the delay in filing the Application is that he suffers from a substantial disability. In the Application he noted that he receives a disability benefit from the Ontario Disability Support Program. He also mentioned that he has been involved in ongoing litigation since 2003 and that this has required energy in terms of legal proceedings. He also indicated that he was wrongly incarcerated for a period of about four months of 2007.

6In the Decision, I found that it was clear that the applicant has a substantial disability but that I was not convinced that this provides a sufficient good faith explanation for the delay in filing the Application. I noted that the applicant had confirmed that his disability has remained the same for many years and that nothing significant changed in 2012 when he was able to file his Application. I accepted that the applicant had been involved in ongoing litigation but indicated that I was not clear how that would provide a good faith explanation for the delay in filing the Application. I accepted that being incarcerated might have made it difficult to file the Application but that would not provide a good faith explanation for the delay after 2007 to 2012.

7The Request for Reconsideration that the applicant has filed expresses the applicant’s belief that he has been subject to discrimination on various grounds and on various occasions. The applicant has included many copies of medical reports which show that he has a disability and has been involved in litigation in respect of various injuries. He has also referred to documents that indicate that there have been proceedings before the courts in regard to the same issues as are mentioned in the Application. It appears that some of these proceedings are still ongoing.

8The applicant mentions that he cannot file income tax returns from 2006 to 2013 and that Revenue Canada accepted his retroactive tax returns without question. He suggests that the Tribunal should therefore accept his Application which involves a similar delay.

9Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure concerns requests for reconsideration. It provides as follows:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision…

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) he 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.

10It is clear that the applicant continues to believe very strongly that he was not treated fairly or legally by the respondent and had his Code-protected rights were infringed by the respondent.

11While the applicant has now provided many more documents than at the time of the original Application, it does not appear to me that any of these new documents provide any substantially different information than was before the Tribunal at the time of the original Application.

12The fact that Revenue Canada accepted the applicant's tax returns does not appear to me to be a basis for reconsidering the Decision since Revenue Canada operates under completely different legislation.

13The Request for Reconsideration indicates that the applicant feels that the Tribunal was biased against him because the Application was not decided by a racialized person. Apart from the fact that the applicant does not agree with the Decision he has provided no basis for his allegation of bias.

14Having reviewed the applicant's Request for Reconsideration I cannot identify any of the circumstances set out in Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, noted above, that could be a basis to reconsider the Decision.

DECISION

15The applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.