Melo v. Barrie Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 820

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Melo

Applicant

-and-

Barrie Police Services Board

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 15, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 820

Indexed as: Melo v. Barrie Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Paul Melo, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On January 10, 2013, the Tribunal issued its Decision, 2013 HRTO 47, dismissing the Application on the basis of prosecutorial immunity against the Ministry of the Attorney General, and on the basis of delay against the Barrie Police Services Board. The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration with respect to the Decision concerning the Barrie Police Services Baord

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2The applicant submitted a Request for Reconsideration on the basis that:

a. There are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier

b. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

DECISION

3Under section 45.7 of 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.

4The Tribunal has issued Rules of Procedure, which govern such requests, as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008). Rule 26 states in part:

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) 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.

6As 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.

7The applicant argues that his Application, which was filed on October 2, 2012, was not filed outside the one-year time limit because there were ongoing events involving the respondent Police Services Board that were both discriminatory and within the one-year time frame. Specifically, he now argues that the Barrie Police were working with the Crown counsel during the period between July and December 14, 2011. He theorizes that the police were supplying Crown counsel with information that was based on investigations and reports that “were not done fairly” and flawed by stereotypical assumptions.

8As noted above, reconsideration is neither an appeal nor an opportunity to repair any deficiencies in the party’s case. The applicant’s new theory of the case amounts to an attempt to repair what was submitted to the Tribunal in his Reply to the respondent’s Response. Moeover, it appears to be based on speculation that it was the discriminatory police information that led to the Crown withdrawing the applicant’s private charges against his ex-girlfriend.

9The applicant also submits that after he filed his Application he learned that the woman he wished to have charged with assault was subject to a restraining order with respect to a separate domestic assault charge. The applicant does not say when he learned this information (i.e., before he filed his Reply or after), and does not specify why he could not have discovered this allegedly new information in a timely manner.

10More importantly, although this information may have been relevant to the merits of the allegations in the Application, it is not relevant to the delay issue, which is the sole reason I dismissed the Application against the Barrie Police Services Board. Given my determination that this Application was untimely, and the delay was not incurred in good faith, it was neither necessary nor appropriate for me to address the relative merits of the Application in the Decision now under reconsideration.

11In light of the above, the applicant has failed to provide compelling or extraordinary circumstances on which the Tribunal might exercise its discretion to reconsider this Application.

order

12The Request for Reconsideration is, accordingly, dismissed.