Akisha McFarlane v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 462

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Akisha McFarlane

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: April 2, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 462

Indexed as: McFarlane v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

APPEARANCES

Akisha McFarlane, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision in McFarlane v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 215, denying the applicant’s request to add Garda Securities (“Garda”) as a respondent to the Application.

2The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

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.

3The 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.

4The Tribunal applied the criteria for adding a party set out in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513 in dismissing the applicant’s request. The Tribunal found that the applicant’s allegations could not support a finding that the proposed respondent violated her Code rights and that it would not be fair to add Garda at this stage of the proceeding. The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on October 19, 2012 and relies upon Rules 26.5(a) and 26.5(c).

5In her submissions, the applicant recounted her view that Garda security officers acted improperly towards the applicant when they responded to an incident involving the applicant at a Bank of Montreal branch. The applicant also submitted that she believed the security officers were employed directly by the OPGI Management Limited Partnership (“OPGI”), the company that managed the mall in which the incident occurred and a former respondent in this matter, which she submitted explains the delay in seeking to add Garda as a respondent.

6To meet the test set out in Rule 26.5(a), the party requesting Reconsideration must establish that there are new facts that could potentially be determinative of the case and establish that these new facts could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The Tribunal has found that the absence of either of these requirements is fatal to a Request for Reconsideration under Rule 26.5(a). See M.K. v. 1217993 Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1362. The applicant essentially reiterated her account of the incident in question and did not in my view provide any new facts that could be determinative of the issue of adding Garda. The fact that Garda is a separate corporate entity from OPGI is certainly not a new fact, as OPGI clearly stated in its Response to the Application, filed in August 2012, that it contracted with Garda to provide security services at the location in question. Consequently the applicant has not met the requirements of Rule 26.5 (a).

7The applicant made no submissions regarding how the Tribunal’s decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure or how the proposed Reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

8The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.