HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Azhar Bhatti
Applicant
-and-
Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation and Sam Dhaliwal
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Bhatti v. Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation
1On September 27, 2010, the Tribunal issued its Decision 2010 HRTO 1967 dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Decision.
2The Tribunal dismissed the Application because the applicant had signed a Release in respect of the respondents. The Decision noted that, in the course of the hearing, Mr. Pomer, the representative for the corporate respondent, telephoned the applicant and advised the applicant and the Tribunal that he was in possession of a document that showed that the applicant was not barred from pursuing the Application against the personal respondent Mr. Dhaliwal. The Decision noted that this document had not been sent to the Tribunal and that the applicant had no knowledge of it.
3The Request for reconsideration (Request) concerns Mr. Pomer’s telephone call during the hearing and the alleged document raised in that call. The Request provides no further insight regarding the purported document, any proof that it exists, why it was not previously produced and why the applicant had no knowledge of it. The applicant advises that he will be speaking to a lawyer.
DECISION
4Under 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.
5The 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 amended June 2008). Most relevant to the current Request 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.
6The Request filed by the applicant meets none of these criteria and the Request is accordingly denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 12^th^ day of October, 2010.
“Signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair