Anil Khanna v. Multimatic Inc., Dave Armstrong, Paul Clitheroe and Scott Worden, 2011 HRTO 90

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anil Khanna

Applicant

-and-

Multimatic Inc., Dave Armstrong, Paul Clitheroe and Scott Worden

Respondents

reconsideration decision

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: January 12, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 90

Indexed as: Khanna v. Multimatic

1This Decision addresses a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2010 HRTO 1899, dismissing the Application.

2On October 19, 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”).

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 applicant submitted that that I erroneously identified a second plant at Acton, where the other division, also in Concord, is called Anton Mfg. The applicant points to this as a significant error casting doubt on the reliability of the other factual findings in my Decision. In my view, this factual discrepancy is minor and not germane to my findings of fact.

5The applicant took issue with several of my findings of fact including that he had been adequately accommodated and with my conclusion that he had not established that his disability played a role in his lay-off.

6The applicant did not assert any new facts or evidence. He merely re-argued his case. This is not a basis for reconsideration.

7The Request for Reconsideration is denied.