Adhin Sukhu v. Universal Energy Corporation, Stephen Browne and Martin Singh, 2009 HRTO 2251

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Adhin Sukhu

Applicant

-and-

Universal Energy Corporation, Stephen Browne and Martin Singh

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman

Date: December 23, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2251

Indexed as: Sukhu v. Universal Energy

1This Decision addresses a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 1922, dismissing the Application following a Case Resolution Conference.

2On December 3, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

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.

3Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provides that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. Rule 25.5 provides:

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 his Request the applicant cites the third factor above, that my Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

5On my review of the Request, I am not satisfied that any of the criteria supporting reconsideration of the decision have been established. In his Request the applicant cites several findings of fact that he disagrees with and also argues that I ignored or failed to refer to evidence, which was inconsistent with my findings.

6The applicant is attempting to reargue his case that following a job interview the respondents failed to offer him a position because of his age. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue evidence already advanced and considered; Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34. Once the parties to an Application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

7The issues raised by the applicant challenging the merits of my decision are not compelling or extraordinary. They do not raise issues of general importance nor outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The applicant has not cited any established case law or Tribunal procedure that the Decision conflicts with. The applicant’s disagreement with the conclusions that I drew from the evidence is not a basis for reconsideration.

8The Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5. The Request for reconsideration is denied.