HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Anthony Hicks
Applicant
-and-
Ottawa Police Services
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Hicks v. Ottawa Police Services
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Anthony Hicks, Applicant ) Self-represented
[1] On November 27, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2015 HRTO 1606, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
background
[2] The Tribunal’s Decision found that the Application should be dismissed because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
[3] The Request for Reconsideration provides the following reasons as to why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:
(a) The decision does not correlate with the facts admitted
(b) The respondent was not called on to respond to the Request.
DECISION
[4] Under 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.
[5] The 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 amended June 2008). 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.
6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:
Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.
Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.
7As 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.
[8] I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.
[9] The applicant relies on Rule 26.5(c) and as indicated argues that the “decision does not correlate to the admitted facts”. The applicant does not state what facts he is referring to. Although I assume that the applicant does not agree with the Decision, his disagreement without any reference to any of the criteria outlined in the Rules is not a reason to reconsider a final Decision.
[10] The request is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of December, 2015.
“Signed By”
David Muir
Vice-chair