Ahsan Qureshi v. Ling & Ling Enterprises Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1897

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ahsan Qureshi Applicant

-and-

Ling & Ling Enterprises Ltd. and Chong Ling Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: November 14, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1897 Indexed as: Qureshi v. Ling & Ling Enterprises Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ahsan Qureshi, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1On October 17, 2013, the applicant filed Request for Reconsideration (Form 20), pursuant to section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) seeking reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, dated September 24, 2013 (see 2013 HRTO 1603).

2The Tribunal’s decision, dated September 24, 2013, dismissed a breach of settlement Application filed by the applicant. The Tribunal held that the applicant had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondents had breached a term of the Minutes Settlement entered into by the parties. Specifically he had not established that the respondents had failed to restrict their comments to prospective employers of the applicant to the contents of an agreed upon document attached to the Minutes of Settlement.

3Section 45.7 of the Code provides the Tribunal with authority and discretion to reconsider its decisions:

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.

4The Tribunal has issued rules governing Requests for Reconsideration, as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers.

5Rule 26.5 states that 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 and orders.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

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 a decision 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.

7The applicant has sought reconsideration on the basis of the grounds outlined in Rule 26(5)(a) and (d).

8It is apparent that the applicant disagrees with the outcome of this Application. He suggests that he would now like the chance to call additional witnesses, such as the prospective employer and the member of her staff who contacted the respondents.

9He does not offer any reason for not having presented this evidence during the hearing process other than to say that he was not told by those from whom he sought legal advice and assistance in advance of the hearing into his breach of settlement Application that he could call or have a summons issued to these persons to appear as witnesses. He believes that if a summons is issued to have them appear as witnesses, they will give evidence in support of his position.

10Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal confirmed that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.

11Once the parties to an application have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

12I find that none of the factors in Rule 26.5 are engaged by the Request for Reconsideration. There is no basis on which I might exercise my discretion to overturn my original decision in this matter.

13Accordingly the Request for Reconsideration is denied