HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gregory Vezina
Applicant
-and-
Elections Ontario, Liberal Party of Ontario, Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, New Democratic Party of Ontario, Green Party of Ontario, Town of Whitby, Whitby Chamber of Commerce, Abilities Centre, Lorne Coe, Elizabeth Roy, Niki Lundquist, and Stacey Leadbetter
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: September 7, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1176 Indexed as: Vezina v. Elections Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Gregory Vezina, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Decision, 2016-24481-1, dismissing his Application.
2For the reasons set out below, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.
The Decision being challenged
1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment and services because of creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant claims he was discriminated against because he was excluded from taking part in two candidate debates in advance of the Whitby-Oshawa provincial by-election. The applicant is the candidate for the “None of the Above Party of Ontario”.
2In the Decision, I found that it was plain and obvious that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the allegations made in the Application. Based on established case law from the courts in Ontario, I found that the applicant’s allegations do not engage the ground of “creed” under the Code. I also held that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over his claim that the respondents violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) or United Nations treaties.
Applicable Principles relating to reconsideration
3In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.
4The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules:
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.
analysis
5In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant restates many of the arguments he made in his initial submissions as to why he believes his claim falls under the Code. He also argues that I made a number of factual and legal errors in my Decision. I do not accept the applicant’s submissions. As noted above, a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue one’s case. I do not agree with the applicant that the Decision is in conflict with established caselaw or Tribunal procedure or that factors exist in this case that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. In my view, the Decision is consistent with the well-established caselaw relied cited in the Decision. I also do not agree that there are factual or legal errors in the Decision.
6The main problem with the applicant’s claims in his Application is that they are more properly framed as allegations of violations of his democratic rights and his rights to freedom of expression and/or association under sections 2 and 3 of the Charter. Instead of pursuing the Charter claim he had commenced, he filed an Application under the Code. However, for the reasons set out in my Decision his claim does not fall under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Code.
7Both in his Request for Reconsideration and in his Application, the applicant seeks to rely upon case law decided under the Charter in support of his claim. For example, Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 SCR 827 and Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 37, [2003] 1 SCR 912 are cases decided under the Charter. The applicant also claims that the Charter must be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as those provided under international law. These and other statements by the applicant referencing the Charter make clear that the applicant fails to distinguish between the Charter and the Code.
8In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant stated that I mischaracterized, or was dismissive of, his creed. In fact, my description of the applicant’s creed as his belief that “registered party leaders and all candidates have the right to be able to communicate with electors during and in between elections” was taken word for word from his answer to Question C14 on the Application form which asks “Please describe your creed”.
9In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant stated that his creed is more appropriately characterized as a belief in democracy, equality and human rights for all. In my view, that is precisely the kind of political belief that the Ontario Divisional Court and Court of Appeal held does not fall within the ground of creed. See Jazairi v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.), 1997 CanLII 12445 (ON SC) upheld 1999 CanLII 3744 (ON CA).
10I understand that the applicant believes strongly in direct democracy as well as openness and transparency in the electoral process. As admirable as these beliefs and principles are, they do not fall under the ground of creed under the Code. The applicant’s claim is more appropriately characterized as a claim that his democratic rights and/or as his fundamental freedoms under the Charter have been infringed. That is not a claim over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction.
ORDER
11For the above reasons, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of August, 2016.
“Signed By”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair```