Khawar Hanif v. The College of Veterinarians of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 2277

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Khawar Hanif

Applicant

-and-

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie

Date: December 20, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2277

Indexed as: Hanif v. The College of Veterinarians of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Khawar Hanif, Applicant )

) Gerhard A. Pyper, Counsel

1On October 24, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Decision dismissing this Application: (2011 HRTO 1916) on the basis that it was not filed within the time limits provided for in Code. The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, I have denied the Request.

2The Application alleges discrimination in a vocational association on the basis of race, colour, ethnicity and creed. The allegations of discrimination are against the College of Veterinarians of Ontario (“CVO”), the regulatory body for veterinarians in Ontario, and arise out of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.

3On September 7, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss based on delay in filing the Application. The applicant provided written submissions on October 5 and October 12, 2011. The respondent was not required to make submissions.

4In my Decision I determined that the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were completed on or before March 24, 2010 (the date the discipline committee of the CVO issued its decisions). Those disciplinary proceedings were judicially reviewed and the court ordered new hearings on the disciplinary complaints. I concluded as follows (at paragraph 11):

The ongoing litigation is the result of a court decision and cannot be regarded as continued discrimination by the COV. The COV is scheduling a new hearing as a result of the decision of the court. The applicant has not provided any additional allegations of discrimination. Therefore, I find the date of the disciplinary decision to be the last possible incident of alleged discrimination. As such, the applicant is approximately 16 months late in filing his Application.

5Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O 1990, c.H.19, as amended (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.

6The 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). The applicant has relied on the following grounds for reconsideration, set out in Rule 26:

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

(d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

7The applicant states that I misinterpreted and/or overlooked material facts that were contained in his submissions to the Tribunal. The applicant also disagrees with my interpretation of the information contained in his Application and submissions. The applicant also submits that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to every tribunal and that he has established a right to be heard by the Tribunal. The applicant has not cited any specific provision of the Charter upon which he relies, nor has he alleged that section 34 of the Code, which establishes the one year limitation period for Code applications, violates the Charter. He further states that a grave injustice will occur if the Application is not accepted for filing.

8The applicant also included copies of correspondence received after the date of the Decision relating to efforts to schedule dates for the disciplinary hearing before the College of Veterinarians of Ontario.

9Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. It is not an appeal or a chance for a party to repair any deficiencies in its presentation of its case. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision in compelling and extraordinary circumstances, and where those circumstances outweigh the public interest in the finality of orders and decisions (see the Practice Direction on Reconsideration).

10The applicant has simply argued that I was mistaken in my Decision. He has submitted that the ongoing litigation after the decisions in the disciplinary proceedings does constitute a new discriminatory act by the respondent. The applicant has referred to new correspondence from the respondent relating to continued efforts to schedule the disciplinary hearing.

11A reconsideration is not an appeal of the Decision and is not an opportunity to re-argue a case (Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board et al., 2008 HRTO 34). The applicant has not raised new arguments that he could not have raised in his original submissions. The correspondence he has provided does not contain new facts. In his original submissions, the applicant noted that the COV was attempting to schedule new hearing dates. Ongoing efforts to schedule the hearing are not new facts that would justify a reconsideration of the Decision.

12He has also relied on the Charter but has not specified which section of the Charter is relevant to his Reconsideration Request nor explained how it is relevant to the Application. The applicant has not sought to constitutionally challenge section 34 of the Code, which specifies the Code’s limitation period and which was the basis for the Decision to dismiss the Application as being outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In any event, it was open to the applicant to make a Charter argument in his original submissions to the Tribunal and he failed to do so.

13There are no factors that, in my opinion, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decision.

14In conclusion, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria that would justify a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

15The Request is denied.