HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Hervé Ngamby
Applicant
-and-
Ontario New Democratic Party and James Pratt
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Ngamby v. Ontario New Democratic Party
APPEARANCES
Hervé Ngamby, Applicant
Self-represented
Ontario New Democratic Party and James Pratt, Respondents
George Vuicic, Counsel
1The Tribunal issued Decision 2016 HRTO 641 which dismissed the Application. The Tribunal has requested that the Tribunal reconsider its Decision. The respondents have not been directed to file a Response to the applicant' Request to reconsider.
Reconsideration
2Under 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.
3The 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 (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, last amended April 2014). 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.
4As 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
5The Request for reconsideration relies on Rule 26.5 a, c and d.
6I find that the applicant has not made out any of the criteria that would result in reconsideration. In support of his Request, the applicant essentially repeats arguments made orally before the Tribunal. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.
7In this case, the applicant alleges that the Decision contains a number of errors with respect to my reference to the respondent and the Federal NDP. I note that in the body of the Application the applicant makes a number of allegations against the Federal NPD though it is not a named respondent. In any event these “errors” are not material to the issues in dispute in the case or my reasons and accordingly are not a basis for reconsideration.
8The applicant also takes issue with the fact that I should have mentioned that there is no written complaint against him despite his requests to obtain these from various sources. He maintains therefore that this is a fabricated allegation which he refers to as a (“faux problème”) that was made to discredit him. This argument does not engage any of the grounds upon which I am entitled to reconsider the Decision.
9The applicant also makes new allegations which were not included in the original Application with respect to events regarding the 2013 nomination campaign and the “Congrès du NDP Ontario 2013 et 2014”. However, a Request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to make new allegations of discrimination.
10I find that the applicant has not satisfied any of the criteria which would result in reconsideration. I understand that the applicant is dissatisfied with the final Decision, but he has not provided any arguments which would justify reconsideration.
Order
11The Request to reconsider is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of June, 2016.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair