Alam v. Brimell Motors, 2010 HRTO 899

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mohammad Alam

Applicant

-and-

Brimell Motors Ltd., Laura Moon, Mike Hamilton and Anthony King

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: April 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 899

Indexed as: Alam v. Brimell Motors

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2010 HRTO 274, dated February 5, 2010 dismissing the Application on the basis that the applicant had not established that that he had been discriminated against with respect to employment on the basis of disability.

2On March 5, 2010, 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”). Section 45.7 of the Code provides:

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 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.

4The basis of the Request for Reconsideration is that the Tribunal failed to grant the applicant an adjournment to obtain documents ordered produced by the Tribunal in an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1987, dated November 23, 2009.

5In the Interim Decision, I denied some of the applicant’s requests for production. I did order the respondents to produce the applicant’s performance appraisal and notes of meetings regarding his performance. On the first day of the hearing the applicant sought an adjournment on the basis that the respondents had not provided the above information. The respondents explained that they had not failed to comply with the Order but that no such appraisals or notes existed. In these circumstances, I denied the applicant’s request for an adjournment.

6The applicant asserts in his Request for Reconsideration that I withdrew my own order for production without reason which prejudiced his ability to prove his allegations of discrimination. That is not the case. I did not change my Interim Decision relating to production. I merely determined that my Interim Decision had been complied with, as there were no such documents to be produced. Accordingly, there was no basis to adjourn the hearing.

7At the start of the hearing, the applicant also renewed his request for production of other documents which had been refused in my earlier decision and sought an adjournment until such documentation had been produced. The applicant asserts in his Request for Reconsideration that he should be the judge of what is arguably relevant to prove his allegations. On the contrary, it is my task to assess whether documents are arguably relevant and I did so in my Interim Decision. Mere disagreement with my production rulings in not a basis for obtaining Reconsideration.

8The Request for Reconsideration is denied.