Azam Ahmed v. VPI Inc. and Frank Kelly, 2010 HRTO 2237

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Azam Ahmed

Applicant

-and-

VPI Inc. and Frank Kelly

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman

Date: November 9, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2237

Indexed as: Ahmed v. VPI

1This Decision addresses 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”) of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2010 HRTO 1855, dismissing the Application following a Hearing.

2Rule 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 indicates by checking boxes that points a, b, and c above are the reasons he makes his Request.

5On my review of the Request, I am not satisfied that any of the criteria supporting reconsideration of the Decision have been established.

6The applicant states that a new fact has arisen in that recently the location where he was employed prior to his termination has been closed “due to poor management and poor treatment of employees.” I am not persuaded that whether or not the applicant’s previous place of employment has recently closed is arguably relevant to whether or not the applicant experienced discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin during the period of his employment from March 2005 to March 2006 and is a new fact that could be potentially determinative of the case.

7The applicant also 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. On the latter point, the applicant argues “the decision does not include vital details ... such as VPI’s violation of their termination policy.” The applicant felt that he deserved two weeks salary and benefits rather than the one-week salary and benefits that were granted to him. The applicant was terminated without cause and as an employee with less than a year’s service was granted the salary and benefits in lieu of notice as per the company policy and their statutory obligation. In my Decision I found that the respondents followed their termination policy steps and that his race or ethnic origin were not factors in the decision to terminate him. Therefore the evidence relating to that point was considered.

8The other points the applicant identifies as “gaps” in my reasons essentially amount to reargument of his evidence presented at the hearing that I considered and weighed with the respondents’ evidence in making my findings. The applicant is attempting to reargue his case. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue evidence already advanced and considered. See 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.

9The 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 which conflicts with the Decision. Reconsideration is discretionary. The applicant’s disagreement with the conclusions that I drew from the evidence is not a basis for reconsideration. I decline to exercise my discretion to reconsider the Application.

10The Request does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5. The Request for Reconsideration is denied.