Roy v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2014 HRTO 623

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Clive Roy

Applicant

-and-

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: May 1, 2014

2013-16000-I; 2013-16001-I; 2013-16094-I; 2013-16095-I; 2013-16096-I; 2013-16097-I; 2013-16098-I; 2013-16099-I; 2013-16100-I; 2013-16169-I; 2013-16170-I; 2013-16171-I; 2013-16172-I; 2013-16173-I; 2013-16174-I; 2013-16175-I; 2013-16176-I; 2013-16177-I

Citation: 2014 HRTO 623

Indexed as: Roy v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Clive Roy, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant sought reconsideration of the Decision, 2014 HRTO 423, dismissing 22 Applications he filed against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The 22 Applications challenged various steps taken by the Tribunal in processing the applicant’s previous 58 Applications. His Applications also challenged various determinations the Tribunal made with respect to these previous Applications which were ultimately dismissed by Decision, 2014 HRTO 214, dated February 14, 2014.

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 Tribunals Rules of Procedure that would cause a reconsideration of the Decision.

The Decision being challenged

3In the Decision, I found that it was plain and obvious that all of the applicant’s Applications were outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as they failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination or reprisal within the meaning of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). I also found that 15 of the Applications were outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction due to the application of the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

Applicable Principles

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 of Procedure:

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 advanced a number of claims. In particular, he took issue with the following aspects of the Decision:

a. my review of the facts with respect to the processing of his previous 58 Applications;

b. my finding that it was plain and obvious that the impugned actions of the Tribunal had no connection to the ground of creed;

c. my finding that it was plain and obvious that the Applications fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction due to a failure to identify any specific acts of discrimination or reprisal within the meaning of the Code;

d. my finding that fifteen of the Applications fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction due to the application of the doctrine of adjudicative immunity; and

e. my finding that his claims in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the duty of procedural fairness and reasonable apprehension of bias, even if true, would not provide the Tribunal with jurisdiction over Applications which are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

analysis

7I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 that would lead to a reconsideration of the Decision. The applicant has not advanced any new facts or evidence within the meaning of Rule 26.5 (a) that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. He has not raised any issues regarding the failure to receive proper notice of proceedings as set out in Rule 26.5 (b).

8The applicant claimed that my decision was in conflict with established jurisprudence with respect to the definition of creed. However, he provided no case law that has accepted that a belief in standing up for one’s rights falls within the definition of creed in the Code.

9The applicant also claimed that my finding on the issue of adjudicative immunity was inconsistent with established case law. Most of his submissions on this point are an attempt to reiterate arguments he made in his written submissions that I considered prior to issuing the Decision. They are an attempt by the applicant to reargue his case. Therefore, these submissions do not provide a basis for reconsideration.

10In any event, I do not agree that my finding with respect to adjudicative immunity is in conflict with established jurisprudence as set out in Taucar v. University of Western Ontario, 2013 HRTO 597, upheld 2014 ONSC 1818 (Div. Ct.) (“Taucar”) and Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered, 2009 HRTO 2180 (“Hazel”). All of the actions complained of in the 15 Applications to which I found the doctrine of judicial immunity applied were actions taken by a Vice-chair in the exercise of his duties as a quasi-judicial decision-maker. Therefore, they were covered by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity as that doctrine has been applied in Decisions such as Taucar and Hazel, above.

11For these reasons, I do not agree that the Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and that the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance within the meaning of Rule 26.5(c).

12The applicant has not advanced any other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions within the meaning of Rule 26.5(d).

Order

13For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.