Jayaraj v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2013 HRTO 466

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Jayaraj

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Attorney General and Susan Garossino

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: March 19, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 466

Indexed as: Jayaraj v. Ontario (Attorney General)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

David Jayaraj, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Decision (2012 HRTO 2013), dated October 23, 2012. That Decision dismissed the Application after a summary hearing, on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

2The Request was filed on December 1, 2012. In the space on the form that asks for an explanation if the request is filed more than 30 days after the date of the decision, the applicant wrote “did not receive the order earlier” without further explanation.

3The Request asks the Tribunal to reconsider the decision to dismiss the Application on the basis that the decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. In the request, the applicant states that “the Adjudicator has not bothered to analyse/investigate why the Ministry of the Attorney General has issued a secret directives that the court recordings should not be released since this is also part of the evidence”. 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.

4Rule 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.

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.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

6Although the Request has been filed late and without sufficient explanation, I note that the applicant is unrepresented. In view of this, I have considered all of the possible reasons for reconsideration listed in Rule 26.5.

7The 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.

8As 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. For this reason, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.