Kalkat v. Health Canada, 2014 HRTO 1485

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ruminder Singh Kalkat

Applicant

-and-

Health Canada, Q Residential Country Club Towers

and Ashak Jairath

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: October 7, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1485

Indexed as: Kalkat v. Health Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ruminder Singh Kalkat, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2014 HRTO 1321, 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

3In the Decision, I found that the applicant’s claim against Health Canada falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because Health Canada is a federal government department. I also found that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over his Application against the other respondents as his allegations have no connection to any protected ground under 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 states that the Tribunal should reconsider its decision. The reason set out in his Request for Reconsideration is that he wishes to be free of bugging and harassment. The applicant attached to his Request a letter he wrote to the Director of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director in which he sets out the same allegations that were contained in his Application to the Tribunal. The applicant claims that he is experiencing various breaches of privacy and surveillance including his computer, cable box, fax machine and telephone being hacked. He also alleges that his microwave heats things randomly, his lights have a random time delay and people regularly enter his apartment. He claims to have purchased a camera to record when people enter his apartment but he states that the equipment has some kind of remote communication capacity as it has not recorded the intruders to his apartment. All of these allegations, even if proven, are allegations of breaches of privacy, harassment or surveillance that are not connected to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).

ANALYSIS

7I have the utmost sympathy for the challenges faced by the applicant. However, I find that the applicant has not provided any information that would cause me to reconsider my Decision. As noted in the Decision, the Tribunal does not have the power to address general allegations of unfairness, alleged harassment or breaches of privacy that are unrelated to the Code.

ORDER

8I deny the Request for Reconsideration for the reasons set out above.