HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ruminder Kalkat
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Services Board
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Kalkat v. Toronto Police Services Board
APPEARANCES
Ruminder Kalkat, Applicant
Self-represented
1The Tribunal issued its Decision 2016 HRTO 276 dismissing the Application.
2The applicant filed a Request to reconsider the Application.
THE LAW
3Under 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.
4The 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. 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.
5The 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.
6As 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.
Decision
7Since the Decision was issued, the applicant has written to the Tribunal to advise that he believes that he continues to be attacked by police informants, about a half dozen times or so in the last month or two. The applicant also disagrees with the fact that I have dismissed his Application as having no reasonable prospect of success and attempts to reargue some of the same allegations that he made during the course of the hearing.
7I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. I remain of the view that the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
8The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of April, 2016.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair