HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Allen Rosario
Applicant
-and-
Thunder Bay Police Services Board
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Allen Rosario, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Reconsideration Decision addresses two Requests for Reconsideration the applicant filed on December 26, 2014 and December 30, 2014, respectively. Both request Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Interim Decision in this matter dated December 18, 2014, 2014 HRTO 1799 (the “Interim Decision”). In the first request, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s ruling in the Interim Decision declining to order production of a chapter in the respondent’s policy manual that was current at the time of his arrests in March and April 2012. The Tribunal dismissed this request because the respondent confirmed that the chapter in question has not been amended since these arrests. In second request, the applicant requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s ruling and requests that the Tribunal “include torture, cruelty, inhuman treatment or punishment in the upcoming hearing”.
2Both Requests for Reconsideration are dismissed for the following reasons.
3The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:
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 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.
The First Request
5The applicant relies upon Rule 26.5(a). The applicant submits that some “small print” in sections of the current policy manual suggest that content regarding the care of prisoners has been amended or added since his arrests in 2012. The applicant submitted that the Tribunal should either reconsider the Interim Decision and order the respondent to provide him with the policy manual that was current at the time of the arrests in question or require the respondent to “reconfirm its reply to this request that the version dated June 7, 2012 of the police manual was in force/current at the dates of the arrests.” The applicant submitted that he desires confirmation that the respondent will not dispute the validity of the manual disclosed to him pursuant to its disclosure obligations in this proceeding.
Analysis and Decision
6First, Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. An Interim Decision may be considered “final” for the purpose of a reconsideration request if it disposes of some or all of the central issues in an application. See Matthews v. Toronto Police Service, 2011 HRTO 354. In this case, the decision dismissing the applicant’s request for production of a document does not finally dispose of any of the central issues in the Application and is clearly not final. Consequently, this aspect of the Interim Decision is not subject to Reconsideration. Second, the applicant has essentially reiterated the basis for his original request regarding the policy manual and has neither presented any new facts or explained why any of the facts on which this reconsideration request is based could not reasonably been obtained earlier. Consequently, the applicant has not met the criteria under Rule 26.5(a). Third, the Request for Reconsideration is redundant, both because it repeats his earlier production request and because the respondent has already confirmed that the material section of the policy manual it disclosed to the applicant is the version current at the time of his arrests in 2012. The respondent is bound by that representation.
The Second Request
7The applicant relies on Rules 26.5(a) and 26.5(d). The applicant submitted that he included in this Application an allegation to the effect that the respondent did not permit him to wear sufficient clothing to keep warm when incarcerated. The applicant submitted that he recently reviewed the booking room video in respect of his arrest on March 27, 2012, which the respondent disclosed to the applicant in these proceedings. The applicant submitted that the video shows the applicant asking to be allowed to wear warm clothing and that he informed the arresting police officers that he has medical conditions that put him at risk of suffering a stroke. The applicant submitted that his request was denied, which amounts to violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”). The applicant submitted that Canada is a signatory to these conventions and that he is enforcing his rights under them. As noted above, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal should reconsider its ruling in the Interim Decision and “include torture, cruelty, inhuman treatment or punishment in the upcoming hearing”. The applicant also submitted that the Tribunal should find the respondent guilty of violating the UDHR and the ICCPR.
Analysis and Decision
8The Interim Decision addressed several Requests for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOPs”) filed by the applicant. One of them, filed on October 24, 2014, requested that the Tribunal make a declaration that the respondent is “guilty of committing atrocities” against the applicant because the respondent failed to provide a defence to the Application. I dismissed that request because it was patently inaccurate. This decision was also not “final” for the purposes of Rule 26 and not subject to reconsideration.
9I also note that none of the RFOPs addressed in the Interim Decision included a request to add allegations that the respondent did not allow the applicant sufficient clothing to keep warm while incarcerated. As noted, these allegations were included in this Application. Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed these allegations as having no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant provided no information that would connect the respondent’s alleged refusal to allow the applicant warm clothing to the prohibited grounds asserted by the applicant, i.e., creed and disability. See Rosario v. Thunder Bay (Police Service), 2013 HRTO 2094, dated December 18, 2013. The time limit for requesting reconsideration of that decision has long since passed. Inasmuch as the applicant has simply repeated the allegations contained in the Application and his submissions during the summary hearing, the applicant has not met the criteria under Rules 26.5(a) and 26.5(d) in any event. Consequently, the issue of whether the respondent denied the applicant sufficiently warm clothing while incarcerated remains outside the scope of this Application. I also note that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enforce either the UDHR or the ICCPR.
Order
10The Requests for Reconsideration are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of January, 2015.
“signed by”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair