HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Maria Rots
Applicant
-and-
Toronto City Police 11 Division
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Date: March 7, 2013
Citation: 2013 HRTO 339
Indexed as: Rots v. Toronto City Police 11 Division
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Maria Rots, Applicant ) Self-represented
1This Application was filed on May 18, 2012 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination and reprisal in the area of services, goods and facilities on the basis of race, colour, family status, marital status and receipt of public assistance.
2The Application made various allegations against numerous individuals, including the applicant’s landlord, her ex-boyfriend, the police and others. With respect to the respondent police service, the applicant appeared to allege that the police falsely charged her with public mischief.
3The Application was dismissed by way of Decision 2012 HRTO 1945 on the basis that the applicant’s allegations did not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide and, therefore, the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s concerns in relation to the respondent police were that she was wrongfully charged because she is a low income person. The Tribunal further noted that applicant did not specifically address any other Code-grounds, nor explain the basis upon which she believed her experiences of discrimination or reprisal by the police were in connection to her race, colour, family status or marital status.
4The applicant filed a request for reconsideration on November 15, 2012. The applicant asserts that there are new facts or evidence which were not available before and that she did not receive proper notice, namely that the police ignored information that would exonerate her. The applicant argues that she does not know what evidence was required by the Tribunal. Although the applicant requested an extension of two weeks to provide further evidence, the applicant did not submit any additional documentation or submissions. The applicant also appeared to make allegations of unfair treatment by the Landlord and Tenant Board in a relation to an eviction.
DECISION
5Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority to reconsider its decisions. Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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.
6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states the following:
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.
7I find that the applicant’s reconsideration request simply reiterates many of the same arguments that she advanced in her submissions considered by the Tribunal in its Decision dismissing the Application. The applicant has not pointed to any news facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.
8With respect to the applicant’s argument that she did not receive proper notice, it appears that the applicant is asserting lack of notice on the basis that she was uncertain as to what evidence should be adduced for the Tribunal. The applicant’s lack of knowledge as to what evidence is necessary to substantiate her allegations is not a basis for reconsideration.
9The applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. There are no new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and the applicant’s request does 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, nor did the applicant establish that she failed to receive proper notice in the Tribunal’s processes.
10Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of March, 2013.
”signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair