Ng v. Chief of Toronto Police Service, 2016 HRTO 1081

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Ng

Applicant

-and-

Chief of Toronto Police Service and the

Office of the Independent Police Review Director

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Bruce Best

Date: August 12, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1081

Indexed as: Ng v. Chief of Toronto Police Service

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michael Ng, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1On June 30, 2016, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2016 HRTO 871 ("Decision"), dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

BACKGROUND

2The Application alleged that the respondents had discriminated against him on the basis of gender. He had a dispute with a woman who he alleges was running a brothel in a condominium in downtown Toronto. She called the police alleging he was stalking and harassing her. He was arrested. He claims that the police should have investigated her, not him, and by believing her, not him, were engaged in gender discrimination.

3The Tribunal's Decision found that the applicant had not been able to point to any evidence that could reasonably support a finding that gender discrimination was a factor in how the applicant was treated.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

4The Request for Reconsideration provides the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:

a. The decision did not address all the details of the applicant's proposed evidence that the police had not conducted a proper investigation.

b. The decision found that the applicant was guilty of criminal harassment.

5The respondent has not been required to respond.

THE LAW

6Under 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.

7The 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.

8The 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.

9As 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

10I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

11First, the applicant is arguing that the decision was wrong in that I ignored relevant parts of his submissions. The submissions in question were all proposed evidence relating to the police's investigation of the basis for the charges against him, and the alleged criminal conduct of others that was apparently not investigated.

12Though I did not refer to all the specific details raised by the applicant, his submissions were not ignored. In paragraph 19 of the Decision, I held that even accepting that the police had failed to conduct a proper investigation, as described by the applicant, there was still no proposed evidence that would support a finding that any connection between his gender and such a failure. The fact that the reasons did not detail all the proposed evidence, which I found did not support the applicant's position that the treatment he received was based on gender discrimination, is not a reason to reconsider the Application.

13Second, the applicant also took exception to a particular passage in paragraph 20 of the Decision, claiming that I had found him guilty of criminal harassment. There was, however, no such finding in the Decision. The applicant argued that because he was reporting illegal activities, the police had no legal basis to arrest him, regardless of his conduct. This passage in paragraph 20 of the Decision was simply pointing out that this was not the case, and that a person was not entitled to engage in harassing behaviour simply because they believed the other person had done something illegal.

14The issues raised in this Request were the subject of submissions before the Tribunal, and dealt with in the Decision. In Sigrist, above, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties have had the opportunity to present their proposed evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

15I find that the submissions in this Request amount to additional argument on issues already fully canvassed before the Tribunal, and on which a decision was made.

16In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision.

17The Request is denied.