HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Stevie Massela Sikou
Applicant
-and-
Service de Police de la Ville d’Ottawa
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Sikou v. Service de Police de la Ville d’Ottawa
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Stevie Massela Sikou, Applicant
Self-represented
1On November 6, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2015 HRTO 1496, dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
2Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (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.
3Most 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.
4In this case, the applicant relies on Rule 26(5)(a) and 25(5)(d) in support of his position that the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision. The applicant filed detailed submissions in support of his position, however these do not constitute new facts that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier. The applicant also forwarded to the Tribunal the “Declaration Universelle des droits de l’homme”.
5The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to deal with all issues of general unfairness. Having reviewed the applicant’s submissions, I am still of the view that it is plain and obvious that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the Application since it does not relate to discrimination, harassment and/or reprisal as contemplated by the Code.
6The applicant’s Request to reconsider the Decision is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of January, 2016.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair