Shah Islam v. Geoffrey Ball, Darryl Hogan and Barbara Workum, 2011 HRTO 35

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shah Islam Applicant

• and -

Geoffrey Ball, Darryl Hogan and Barbara Workum Respondents

Reconsideration Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: January 5, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 35 Indexed as: Islam v. Ball

1This is an Application filed June 25, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment. In 2010 HRTO 2364 I dismissed the Application. The applicant seeks Reconsideration of that Decision.

2Section 45.7 of the Code provides as follows:

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 for Transitional Applications provide that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal. Rule 25.5 of the Rules for Transitional Applications 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.

5The applicant relies on the factors set out in paragraphs a and d above. However in his submissions he does not provide any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the Application, nor are there any other factors suggested by him that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

6The applicant states that a potential witness was not required to give evidence at the hearing and that he was unable to deliver documents to the Tribunal or the respondents because of a police ban. As I indicated to the parties at the hearing the documents he referred to were not necessary to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the Application as they were largely an iteration of the applicant’s positions with respect to many issues some only tangentially related to the issues raised in the Application. The applicant was present at the hearing and was given a full opportunity to lead whatever evidence he chose in respect of the issues raised in Application. Other than evidently disagreeing with the result, the applicant has articulated no other basis for reconsideration having regard to the factors outlined above. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.