Popat v. London Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1430

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karim Popat

Applicant

-and-

London Police Services Board

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: September 25, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1430
Indexed as: Popat v. London Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Karim Popat, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Decision explains why the Tribunal will not reconsider its Decision, 2014 HRTO 1239, dated August 21, 2014, which dismissed the applicant’s Application because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

2The Application alleged discrimination with respect to police services because of race, colour, ancestry and gender identity contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

3The applicant maintained that his arrest by officers of the respondent was discriminatory because the officers failed to take the time to properly investigate the circumstances of an altercation he had with his spouse. Another person witnessed the altercation and called the police. Charges were laid against the applicant and then withdrawn. Had the officers done a better job of investigating, says the applicant, they would have found out that he is a law-abiding member of society and would not have arrested him. The fact that the applicant is a member of a visible minority community made the officers think that they could conduct an improper investigation and act with impunity in ignoring his right to be treated like any other citizen.

4A summary hearing was held to determine whether the Application had no reasonable prospect of success. I determined that it did because the applicant could not establish an evidentiary link between the conduct of the police officers and the grounds he was relying on under the Code to establish discrimination.

5In the present request the applicant argues that the Decision to dismiss his Application should be reconsidered because other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The submissions provided by the applicant in support of his request do not address this ground for reconsideration. Rather they provide the applicant’s analysis of the Decision and set out why he thinks it was wrongly decided. The applicant argues that I misinterpreted the details of his allegations, he maintains that there was evidence to support a link to the grounds of discrimination he cited under the Code, and that I failed to appreciate the impact this incident has had on his life.

6Section 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.

7The 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.

8The applicant has not shown how the Decision dismissing his Application meets any of the criteria for reconsideration. Instead, he is trying to reargue the issues that he originally put forward during the summary hearing. Those issues were addressed in the Decision dismissing his Application. A request for reconsideration is not intended to give the requesting party an opportunity to reargue issues already considered and decided.

order

9The request for reconsideration is denied.