Danso v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 1140

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ransford Danso

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: August 25, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1140

Indexed as: Danso v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ransford Danso, Applicant

Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) filed by the applicant in relation to the Tribunal’s Decision 2016 HRTO 936, which is dated July 15, 2016 (“Decision”). This Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that his rights under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), have been violated by the respondents’ alleged surveillance actions; their actions in his interactions with them; or in their preparation and distribution of a report.

2On August 10, 2016, the applicant filed the Request. He submits that the Decision should be reconsidered on the basis that there are new facts that can prove the case, and on the basis that the Decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence and procedures. He also submits that there are matters of general or public importance that outweigh the finality of the decision.

ANALYSIS

3Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

4Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that 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.

5The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the nature of the reconsideration process. The Practice Direction states, in part:

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.

6As is evident from the above, a reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the power to reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the consideration of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

New Facts not Previously Available

7The applicant attached a number of documents to the Request. Some of these documents contained photographic images and details of events in which the applicant observed vehicles and officers of the Peel Regional Police. The dates of these events range from December 22, 2015 to May 2016. The Summary Hearing was ordered by the Tribunal to determine whether the applicant had a reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the allegations made in the Application, if proven, would result in a finding that his Code rights had been violated. The allegations outlined in the Application cover events that occurred between December 2014 and February 27, 2015. The Application indicates that the date of the last event is February 27, 2015. The new evidence that the applicant submitted with the Request, and which he states can prove the case, relates to events that occurred after the last incident covered in the Application. Such evidence could therefore not potentially be determinative of the case. Although these events outlined in the proposed new evidence describe incidents that involve one of the respondents to the Application, they are not evidence about the incidents described in the Application.

8The applicant submits that a letter from the Peel Regional Police dated July 8, 2015 is also new evidence that could prove his allegations. This letter addresses a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy request made by the applicant. The letter simply explains why some of the information he requested could not be made available to him and instructs him on how to make a request to review this decision if he wishes. There is nothing in this letter that could have assisted the applicant in demonstrating how he has a reasonable prospect of proving that the alleged incidents outlined in the Application could be found to be a violation of his rights under the Code.

Conflict with Established Jurisprudence or Procedure

9The applicant submits that because there was a discrepancy between the wording in the Case Assessment Direction and the Decision, there is a conflict with the Tribunal’s jurisprudence and procedures. The Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) appears to have erroneously stated that the Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment rather than goods, services and facilities, and included “creed” as one of the alleged grounds. However, it is clear from the first paragraph of the Decision that the Tribunal properly determined that the allegations made in the Application were that the applicant had experienced discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities, and did not list “creed” as one of the alleged grounds.

10The applicant does not address the issue of how this discrepancy between paragraph 1 of the CAD and paragraph 1 of the Decision renders the Decision in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure. In his arguments on this issue, he submits that because of the difference between the CAD and the Decision, he was put at a disadvantage and was unable to actually address what he put in the Application. It is clear from the Decision that the applicant was asked to address the allegations he made in the Application. In the section of the decision titled “Summary of Allegations”, the Tribunal outlined the same allegations as those that were detailed in Section 8, the “What Happened” portion of the Application.

11The applicant submits that the Tribunal also discriminated against him by perceiving or implying he has a disability when it wrote in the last paragraph of the Decision, “It was not clear if the applicant wished to add this as an additional allegation of discrimination.” The making of this statement is not in conflict with any Tribunal jurisprudence or procedure.

12The applicant’s further submissions on this issue address what he perceives to be conflicts of interest that the respondents’ representatives have with the Tribunal and what he submits were unfair rulings made by the Tribunal in the course of the Summary Hearing. I find that these submissions do not support a finding that the Decision is in conflict with the Tribunal’s jurisprudence or procedures.

13The remainder of the applicant’s submissions on how the Decision conflicts with the Tribunal’s jurisprudence and procedure do not address how they conflict. The submissions are the applicant’s arguments as to why he disagrees with the Decision. He submits that the Decision is based on what he argues are wrong premises and assumptions about the allegations and evidence and because the Tribunal did not consider all the pieces of evidence.

14As has been indicated above, reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue a case. Much of what the applicant has done through his submissions on the Request is reargue the points he was to make during the Summary Hearing.

Matters of General or Public Importance that Outweigh the Finality of the Decision

15The applicant states that another reason why the Request should be granted is that it raises matters of general or public importance that outweigh the finality of the decision. However, in support of this argument, he simply restates some of the arguments made in support of his assertion that the Decision is in conflict with the Tribunal’s jurisprudence or procedures.

Decision

16The applicant has not met the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 that must be satisfied in order for the Tribunal to grant a reconsideration request.

ORDER

17The Request for Reconsideration is denied.