HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joachim Richter

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, Brigett Queensborough, The Regional Municipality of Peel (Ontario Works) and Joan McEwan

Respondents

Joachim Richter

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services, City of Toronto, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, Alex Mihajlovic, and Michael Bryant

Respondents

Joachim Richter

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Liberal Party

Respondent

Joachim Richter

Applicant

-and-

Legal Aid Ontario and Danielle Fuochi

Respondents

Joachim Richter

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services and Brigett Queensborough

Respondents

Joachim Richter

Applicant

-and-

Peel Regional Police and Kamie Persane

Respondents

Joachim Richter

Applicant

-and-

Bramalea Community Health Centre and Azhar Toma

Respondents

Joachim Richter

Applicant

-and-

Office of the Independent Police Review Director

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: September 30, 2014

2014-16921-I; 2014-16922-I; 2014-16923-I; 2014-16924-I

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1458

Indexed as: Richter v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Joachim Richter, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2014 HRTO 970, dismissing his Application.

2For the reasons set out below, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.

The Decision being challenged

3The applicant filed eight Applications against sixteen respondents in which he alleged discrimination and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant claimed that he has been the victim of systemic abuse by various governmental and private entities for the past 19 years. The grounds of alleged discrimination listed in each of his Applications varied but included disability, sex, gender identity and ethnic origin. In each of the Applications, the applicant also alleged reprisal. In the Decision, I found that there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant would be able to establish a link between the alleged actions of the respondents to his Applications and the grounds of discrimination alleged in his Applications. I also found that there was no reasonable prospect that he would be able to establish that any of the respondents reprised against him within the meaning of the Code.

Applicable Principles relating to reconsideration

4In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

5The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules:

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.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

6In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant seeks to re-argue the merits of his case. He restates the reasons he provided in his initial submissions as to why he believes his human rights were violated. In particular, he argues that he has been subject to cruel and inhumane treatment and that this violates his right to safety under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

ANALYSIS

7I do not accept the applicant’s submissions in which he attempts to re-argue his case. As noted above, a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue one’s case. I do not agree with the applicant that the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure or that factors exist in this case that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. In my view, the Decision is consistent with the case law relied upon at the hearing and cited in the Decision.

8As noted in the Decision, the Tribunal does not have the power to address allegations of unfairness that are unrelated to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). What applicants often do not fully understand is that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is very specific to applying the non-discrimination provisions in Code. The Tribunal does not have a broader power over more general conceptions of “human rights” and it also does not have the power to enforce the rights to security of the person found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

9I understand that the applicant believes that the respondents treated him harshly and that he was the subject of cruel and unusual punishment. However, for the reasons set out in my Decision, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant would be able to establish a link between the alleged actions of the respondents to his Applications and the grounds of discrimination alleged in his Applications

ORDER

10I deny the Request for Reconsideration for the reasons set out above.