Surh v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 1632

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Doug Surh

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Bradley Verspeeten

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Doug Surh

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Doug Surh

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: December 2, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1632

Indexed as: Surh v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Doug Surh, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto Police Services Board (2010-04964-I), Respondent

Antonella Ceddia, Counsel

Toronto Police Services Board (2010-06416-I), Respondent

David A. Gourlay, Counsel

Toronto Police Services Board (2010-07698-I) and Bradley Verspeeten (2010-04964-I), Respondents

Lisa C. Cabel and Naomi E. Calla, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant filed these three Applications between February and December 2010, alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, reprisal and sex, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). By decision dated October 22, 2015, the Tribunal dismissed these consolidated Applications as an abuse of process (see 2015 HRTO 1410).

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

2The applicant submitted a Request for Reconsideration on the basis that:

a. There are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not have been obtained earlier;

b. The decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general public importance; and

c. Other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

DECISION

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 of Procedure, which govern 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 amended June 2008). Rule 26 states in part:

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.

5Reconsideration 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.

6The Reconsideration Request does not contain any written submissions from the applicant, but the applicant has appended three documents to it. Two of the documents concerning the police practice of “carding” are not relevant to this Request because the decision at issue was not based on the underlying merits of the respective Applications.

7The third document appears to be a newsletter from the law firm of Hicks Morley in which there is a discussion of abuse of process as it relates to s. 45.1 of the Code. The doctrine of abuse of process is wide and covers an array of situations, including those where another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of an application under the Code. However, I did not dismiss these consolidated Applications on that basis, but rather because the conduct of the applicant amounted to an abuse of process.

8The applicant has failed to establish that the Decision under reconsideration is in conflict with established case law, that there are new facts that could potentially be determinative of the case, or that there are other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. Accordingly, I see no basis for exercising my discretion to reconsider my earlier Decision.

order

9The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.