Ahmed v. Ontario (Transportation), 2015 HRTO 266

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Masud Ahmed

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Transportation, Becca Lane, Pamela Marks, Hannah Schell, and Stephen Senior

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: March 5, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 266

Indexed as: Ahmed v. Ontario (Transportation)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Masud Ahmed, Applicant ) Self-represented

1On December 23, 2014, the Tribunal issued its Decision in this Application, 2014 HRTO 1820 (“the Decision), dismissing the Application. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision.

BACKGROUND

2The Decision dismissed the Application because it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination and because I was not satisfied that the applicant had provided a good faith explanation for the delay.

3The applicant filed the Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) on January 21, 2015. The Request indicates that the applicant believes that there was a good faith explanation for the delay. He further indicates that the Decision includes a factual error. Finally, he indicates that after he filed the Application he found out further information that seems to relate to another hiring process that the applicant believes was unfair and discriminatory.

4In the Request, the applicant reiterates his position that the delay in filing the Application was incurred in good faith because he engaged other processes, and in particular, the grievance process to try and get redress for his complaints. He filed the Application only after those processes came to an end. The applicant notes that if he had filed the Application while those other processes were underway the Application might have been deferred by the Tribunal. The argument that the applicant showed good faith by waiting for other processes to conclude was dealt with in the Decision. The conclusion was consistent with the Tribunal’s case law which was noted in the Decision. I understand that the applicant does not agree with the result but that alone is not a sufficient reason to reconsider the Decision.

5The applicant states that the Decision contains a factual error. In the Decision, the alleged discrimination was described as involving an October 7, 2013 interview after which the applicant was not offered the position. The applicant states that he was not in fact interviewed. He indicates that it was the fact that he was not selected for an interview that was the discriminatory event. The applicant states that this was very clear from the Application.

6While I do not agree that this history was clear from the Application, I have no reason to doubt that the applicant is correct that he was not interviewed. However, correcting this error would not have any bearing on the question of whether there was a good faith explanation for the delay.

7The applicant states that after filing the Application, he discovered information about another hiring process which he believes was also unfair and discriminatory. It is not clear when this other process occurred. However, it also does not seem to have any bearing on the issue of the delay in filing the Application about the October 2013 hiring process.

CONCLUSIONS

8Under 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.

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.

9The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests to reconsider Decisions of the Tribunal. Rule 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.

10The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration 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 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.

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

11While I accept that the applicant does not agree with the Decision, this is not a sufficient reason to allow the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision. I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

DECISION

12The Request is denied.