Bang v. Kam Long Seafood Company, 2010 HRTO 2150

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Charlie (Joo Suck) Bang

Applicant

-and-

Kam Long Seafood Company, Frank Cheng, Li Xin (Sam) Cai

and Zing Rong Li

Respondents

Reconsideration DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: October 25, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2150

Indexed as: Bang v. Kam Long Seafood

1A hearing was held on July 14, 2010 in Toronto. In Decision 2010 HRTO 1971 I dismissed this Application.

2On September 17, 2010 the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (Request) of the Decision 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.

3The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications provide that any party may request reconsideration of a decision in accordance with Rule 25.5 which provides as follows:

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.

4The applicant’s only submission in support of his Request is that the respondents perjured themselves when asked about the issues in dispute at the hearing and that he has been defamed. The applicant apparently disagrees with the factual and legal conclusions I came to, neither of which are sufficient reasons to reconsider a final decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.