Tomasz Raba v. Toronto Police 11 Division and David Griffiths, 2014 HRTO 1648

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tomasz Raba Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police 11 Division and David Griffiths Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: November 13, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1648 Indexed as: Raba v. Toronto Police 11 Division

1On August 19, 2014, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2014 HRTO 1228 (“the Decision”) The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision because he does not agree with it.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2For the most part, the Request for Reconsideration re-states points made by the applicant in the Application and in his communications with the Tribunal before the hearing, and during the hearing on August 8, 2014.

3The hearing was held by telephone conference call hearing, as directed in Case Assessment Directions dated June 3, 2014, July 4, 2013, and July 24, 2013. As directed in those Case Assessment Directions, the issues for the hearing were as follows:

• Was the delay in filing the original Application incurred in good faith and would the respondents be prejudiced by the delay?
• Should the applicant be permitted to amend the original Application to include the alleged event in February 2014, or should he be required to file a new Application about that alleged event?
• Did the decisions of the Criminal Injuries Board appropriately deal with the substance of the Application?

4The Decision found that there was a delay in filing the original Application and that there was not a good faith explanation for the delay. It did not permit the applicant to amend the Application to include allegations about an event in February 2014. It found that decisions of the Criminal Injuries Board did not appropriately deal with the substance of the Application.

5The applicant does not agree that the Application should have been dismissed on the basis of delay. He also objects to various statements in the Decision that he does not agree with.

DECISION

6Under 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.

7Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

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.

8In this case, while it is clear that the applicant does not agree with the Decision, he had not identified a factor that would permit the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision.

DECISION

9The Request to Reconsider is denied.