HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Anthony Hicks
Applicant
-and-
Service de Police de la Ville de Gatineau
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Hicks v. Service de Police de la Ville de Gatineau
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Anthony Hicks, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1On August 20, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision 2015 HRTO 1109 dismissing the Application.
2On September 1, 2015, the applicant filed a Request to reconsider the Application because he asserts that “there are documents which clearly link” this file with another Tribunal file.
THE LAW
3Under 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.
4The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, last amended April 2014). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which 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.
5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes the following statements:
Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the HRTO. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case.
6As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
Decision
7I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. The applicant has not explained on what legal basis the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to impose the requirements of the Code on an agency that does not provide services within the Province of Ontario for events that occurred outside of the Province.
8In these circumstances I am satisfied that there is no basis to reconsider the Tribunal’s Decision that the subject-matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
9The Request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this23rd day of September, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair