Chan v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 452

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mark Chan

Applicant

-and-

Registration Committee of the Association of

Professional Engineers of Ontario and Virendra Sahni

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: March 3, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 452

Indexed as: Chan v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario

1On December 29, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2010 HRTO 2265, (the “Decision”) of November 15, 2010. This is a denial of the Request.

INTRODUCTION

2The Application was filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In it, the applicant alleges discrimination because of age, marital status and ethnic origin with respect to services. The Application describes the applicant’s efforts to obtain an engineering licence, and the respondents’ refusal to grant that licence. Following a Summary Hearing by teleconference held on October 26, 2010, the Tribunal dismissed the Application on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove his allegations of discrimination because his proposed evidence did not link the alleged conduct of the respondents with a prohibited ground of discrimination.

THE REQUEST

3The applicant has checked off boxes on the Request form that state:

i) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier;

ii) the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; and

iii) other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

4In the box that requests detailed reasons and representations to support the Request, the applicant merely states, “PEO [the corporate respondent] has all records of date of birth (age related reasons) which I did not tell to Ms. Trunmer [sic] during the Teleconference. My thesis and report showed that I organized my reports for design.”

5The applicant attached to his Request ten pages of what appears to be a print-out from a web site that compiled more than 30 summaries of decisions made by human rights bodies throughout Canada. They are inserted under the headings, “Freedom of Expression”, “Freedom of Religion”, “Public Policy”, “Private Business” and “Public Service”. The applicant does not provide any explanation as to why he has chosen to attach these summaries, and they do not appear to assist his position that the Decision is in conflict with established caselaw.

Reasons

6Under section 45.7 of 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.

7Rule 26 states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

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

(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. [Emphasis added.]

8The applicant was required to file his Request for Reconsideration within 30 days of the Tribunal’s November 15, 2010 Decision, but only did so on December 29, 2010. On this basis alone, the Tribunal may deny the Request for Reconsideration. See der von Felix v. International Financial Data Services (Canada), 2010 HRTO 362. I find that even if the Request had been made in a timely manner, the applicant’s grounds for seeking reconsideration do not meet the factors set out in Rule 26.5. The applicant has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration.

9The fact that the respondents knew the applicant’s age was not relevant to the Decision. The applicant stated at the Summary Hearing that he was then 63 years old. He also stated that he had appeared in person before the respondents who could see that he was old. Even if the applicant indicated at the Summary Hearing that the respondents were aware of his exact age, it would not have affected the outcome, given that the applicant has still not provided or identified any evidence that people in his age group are unlikely to have recent experience, the respondents’ requirement for an engineering licence. The respondents’ purported knowledge of the applicant’s exact age is not a new fact or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case.

10With respect to the applicant’s statement that his thesis and report showed that he organized his reports for design, it appears that the applicant is alluding to one of the reasons of the Registration Committee for deciding not to grant the applicant an engineering licence, including a finding that the applicant did not have sufficient communication skills based on the applicant’s disorganized presentation and documents in the proceedings before them.

11A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to reframe or reargue a case; yet, I find that this is what the applicant is trying to do by referring to his alleged good organization skills in a context unrelated to the alleged reasons for his licence refusal. Regardless, this is not a new fact or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

12The applicant has not explained what other factors exist that might outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions, nor has he explained why the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure.

13For all these reasons, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.