Conde v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2017 HRTO 1046

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leonel Conde

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Michael Hare

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: August 14, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1046

Indexed as: Conde v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Leonel Conde, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto Police Services Board and Michael Hare, Respondents

David Gourlay, Counsel

Introduction

1On June 19, 2017 the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2017 HRTO 695, dismissing the Application as abandoned. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.

BACKGROUND

2In a Case Assessment Direction issued on March 28, 2017 the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing by telephone conference call be held in this case. The hearing was scheduled to take place on May 25, 2017. The applicant did not attend the telephone hearing and it was dismissed.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3The Request for Reconsideration provides the following reasons why the Tribunal should reconsider its Decision:

a. Because the applicant although receipt of a Notice of Summary Hearing was told by Tribunal staff that the hearing was on May 25, 2017.

4In its response to the Request the respondents note that the applicant had notice of the hearing; that it is unlikely that Tribunal staff would provide him with incorrect information; that if the applicant was confused he should have sought clarification; and that the applicant has made scandalous submissions about the Tribunal and Tribunal staff which indicate that his assertion should not be accepted.

5The applicant filed a Reply in which he makes a great number of submissions which are often difficult to follow and which have no connection to his Request.

THE LAW

6Under 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.

7The 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.

8The 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.

9As 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.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

10I find that the applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

11As indicated above, the applicant relies on Rule 26.5(b).

12There is nothing before me suggesting that the applicant was entitled to but did not receive notice of the proceeding or the hearing. The applicant alleges that he was told orally that the hearing was on May 26, 2017. However this is a bald assertion. The applicant does not explain why he would have enquired about the date; who he allegedly spoke to and when this conversation occurred. I also observe that the applicant has made, until directed to cease doing so, a number of assertions about Tribunal staff which are patently false and as the respondents characterized them, scandalous. They are part of the Tribunal record and no purpose would be served by repeating them here. It is sufficient to say that the applicant is capable of making false assertions.

13In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.