HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Cesare Pella
Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board and William Osler Health Systems
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Pella v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Cesare Pella, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1On June 1, 2015 the Tribunal issued Decision 2015 HRTO 719, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision.
THE LAW
2Under 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.
3The 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.
4The 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.
5As 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.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
6I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. The majority of the applicant’s submission focuses on his assertion that he suffered from a disability during the course of the relevant events. However, the Decision did not dismiss the Application on the basis that the applicant did not have a disability as alleged, but that the applicant did not have a reasonable prospect of success of establishing that he was subjected to prejudicial and/or discriminatory stereotypes.
7I know that the applicant does not agree with the Decision; however, having reviewed the applicant’s submissions I remain of the view that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
8The Request for reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of October, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair