Velegjanin v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 1698

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nikolai Velegjanin

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: December 30, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1698

Indexed as: Velegjanin v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Nikolai Velegjanin, Applicant

Bakhtier Shakhnazarov, Representative

1In February 2016, the Tribunal issued a decision, 2016 HRTO 158, dismissing this Application. In particular, after hearing the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that the respondent discriminated against him because of his creed, sex, ethnic origin and/or disability and dismissed the Application on that basis. In late March 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the decision pursuant to s. 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2Rule 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;

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;

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.

3The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers. The Practice Direction 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.

4In his Request, the applicant asks that the Tribunal reconsider its decision pursuant to Rule 26.5(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. However, the applicant has not established that other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. Rather, in his Request, the applicant expresses his disagreement with several aspects of the Tribunal’s decision, reiterates arguments that were previously made during the hearing and attempts to repair perceived deficiencies in the case.

5In addition, the applicant contends that the Tribunal’s decision dismissing the Application reflects the Tribunal’s “unwritten rule” that police officers are reliable witnesses who do not discriminate. He submits that the Tribunal’s decision made it clear that had the hearing continued, the Tribunal would have believed the respondent’s witnesses and not the applicant. This is not accurate. Without repeating the reasons for the decision dismissing the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success, I note that it was not based on any finding as to the reliability of the respondent’s witnesses. Nor did the Tribunal indicate that it would have believed the respondent’s witnesses and not the applicant had the hearing continued.

6As explained in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue a case. The applicant has failed to identify any factors, that in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions. Accordingly, there is no basis for reconsideration.

7The Request for Reconsideration is denied accordingly.