Kapoor v. Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 39

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Shashi Kapoor

Applicant

-and-

Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario and Jeff Bear

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: January 5, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 39

Indexed as: Kapoor v. Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application on July 2, 2010 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination on the grounds of race, colour and place of origin with respect to membership in a vocational association.

2The applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy on November 2, 2010 requesting that he be allowed to operate an insurance brokerage without two contracted insurance markets for an interim period, preferably two years. The respondents opposed the Request for Interim Remedy, submitted that the applicant has been unable to meet the requirements that must be met by all individuals seeking to register a brokerage, and asserted that the applicant is seeking a remedy that would give him a class of license with conditions that are beyond the current licensing and policy requirements of its Qualifications and Registration Committee.

3In an Interim Decision dated November 30, 2010, 2010 HRTO 2375, the Tribunal dismissed the Request for Interim Remedy. At para. 14, the Tribunal stated:

I do find that granting the requested interim remedy would harm the respondents as granting the remedy the applicant requests would allow the applicant to practice without the requirement to obtain two contracted markets, which is an established requirement set by the Q&R Committee and applicable for all other brokerages operating in Ontario. To allow the requested remedy for the applicant, in the absence of him previously having this exemption, would be to create an extraordinary remedy. This is particularly so where a two contracted market requirement has existed since 2004 when the applicant’s brokerage was deregistered, but was not raised by the applicant until almost four months after he filed his Application.

4On December 8, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) asking the Tribunal to reconsider its Interim Decision. Pursuant to Rule 26.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, a respondent is not required to respond to a Request for Reconsideration unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Tribunal did not deem it necessary to seek submissions from the respondents.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

5Section 45.7 of the Code allows any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to request it reconsider its decision. The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Pursuant to Rule 26.5, 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 exit that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

6It is also useful to consider the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, which states in part:

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

7In the Request, the applicant indicated that Rules 26.5(a) and (d) apply. The applicant submitted:

The following will demonstrate that the Respondents had no real objection(s) to Form 16 [the Request for Interim Remedy]. They only inundated their 73 pages of Form 17 with misrepresentations and twisting of facts to mislead the Tribunal.

It will also be shown that whereas a regulator like RIBO, in the public interest, should be professional, transparent, accountable; free from discriminating one race from another – the regulator is far from those qualities. The Respondents are earning so called, ‘cheap popularity’ at the expense of minorities particularly South-Asians by having a ‘double standard’.

8The applicant sets out fifteen factors that he submits support the positions set out in para. 7 above, reiterates his Request for Interim Relief and reasons why it should be granted. As a remedy to the Request, the applicant seeks the Tribunal to order the respondents to let the applicant open a brokerage without two contracted markets for a limited time.

9The Tribunal’s Rules provide that a reconsideration request may be made in respect of a final decision of the Tribunal. A final decision is one that “disposes of some or all of the central issues in the complaint as between the parties”: Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, at para. 41. The determination made in the Interim Decision is not final and on that basis the Request is dismissed.