I.K. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2015 HRTO 1040

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

I.K.

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: August 6, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1040

Indexed as: I.K. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

I.K., Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2015 HRTO 293, dismissing his Application on the basis that the substance of the Application had been appropriately dealt with in a child protection proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice.

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 request to proceed with his allegations before this Tribunal would be tantamount to permitting him to appeal the Judgment of Justice Waldman of the Ontario Court of Justice dated October 15, 2014, making the child a ward of the Crown. The issues associated with the apprehension of the applicant’s child, the ongoing placement of the child in care, and the ultimate decision to make the child a ward of the Crown were central to the Judgment. In order to consider the applicant’s allegations, the Tribunal would be required to hear the same evidence and reconsider the same issues which were dealt with in the court proceeding. The applicant indicated that he has initiated an appeal of the Judgment, which will be the appropriate forum for addressing the applicant’s disagreement with the outcome of the proceeding.

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.

Analysis of the ReQuest for Reconsideration

6In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant states that the Tribunal should reconsider its decision. The applicant cites all four grounds in Rule 26.5 in support of his request. The applicant describes the Decision as unfair and states that it contains a substantial number of errors.

7I have carefully reviewed the applicant’s submissions and can find no basis for granting the Reconsideration Request on the basis of any of the grounds in Rule 26.5. Fundamentally the applicant disagrees with the Decision. As I have indicated above, the Tribunal’s reconsideration power is discretionary and does not represent an opportunity for the applicant to reargue his case.

ORDER

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