Eugene Johnson v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2017 HRTO 1594

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Eugene Johnson Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: November 30, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1594 Indexed as: Johnson v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Eugene Johnson, Applicant Self-represented

1The applicant has requested a reconsideration of Decision 2017 HRTO 1266, dated September 26, 2017 ("the Decision").

2The Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that it was not filed in accordance with section 34 of the Code, which provides as follows:

34. (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

3The Application was filed on August 19, 2016 ("the 2016 Application"). The Decision found that the allegations that relate to events within one year of that date had no reasonable prospect of success and they were dismissed on that basis. The allegations that related to events between November 2014 and June 2015 did not occur within one year of when the Application was filed. The Decision considered whether there was a good faith explanation for the delay, and found that there was not. The Application was dismissed.

4The Decision followed a hearing held by telephone conference call on August 30, 2017. The issues in that hearing were whether the Application was filed in accordance with section 34 and whether the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

5On September 4, 2017, after the hearing, but before the Decision was released, the applicant filed a second Application in Tribunal file number 2017-29498-I ("the 2017 Application"). It concerns allegations of a failure to accommodate the applicant in regards to disability in a time period starting in February 2017.

6In the request for reconsideration, the applicant asks that the 2017 Application be consolidated with the earlier 2016 Application. He submits that there would then be a clear "series of incidents", the last of which would be timely. The applicant does concede that the allegations in the 2016 Application are different than those in the 2017 Application.

Conclusions

7Under 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.

8Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 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.

9The Tribunal's Practice Direction on Reconsideration states in part:

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.

10In this case, the applicant seeks to have the 2017 Application consolidated with the 2016 Application so that the allegations in the 2016 Application will be timely.

11Even if the Applications were consolidated, the Tribunal has held that a "series of incidents" under section 34(1)(b) must be a series of incidents that relate to each other and that concern similar allegations. It is clear that the allegations in the two Applications deal with very different things. Accordingly, even if the Applications were to be consolidated, it would not follow that the allegations in the 2016 Application that were dismissed as not being timely would become timely.

12Having considered the applicant's Request for Reconsideration, I find that the Request does not identify any of the factors identified in the Tribunal's Rules as reasons why a Decision may be reconsidered. The Request for Reconsideration is denied on that basis.