Mukesh Chopra v. Financial Services Commission of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 800

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mukesh Chopra

Applicant

-and-

Financial Services Commission of Ontario

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: June 16, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 800

Indexed as: Chopra v. Financial Services Commission of Ontario

1The applicant has requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision 2014 HRTO 1575, dated October 24, 2014 (“the Decision”). The Request for Reconsideration (“the Request”) was filed on November 24, 2015. On May 29, 2015, the applicant filed a second document that appears to concern events that have allegedly occurred since the Decision was issued and that the applicant alleges are examples of further discrimination and reprisal.

2Under 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.

3Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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.

4The 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.

The Request for Reconsideration

5The basis for the Request is that the applicant does not agree that his Application should have been dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The Application was dismissed on that basis in the Decision following a summary hearing. As noted in the Decision, an important purpose for the summary hearing was to allow the applicant to identify the evidence that he has or that would be available that would establish his claim of discrimination.

6The Tribunal has consistently held that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties have had the opportunity to address their respective cases 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. I find that the submissions in this Request amount to re-argument of issues already fully canvassed before the Tribunal.

7The allegations and arguments in the Request are the same allegations and arguments that were before the Tribunal at the time of the summary hearing. As noted in the Decision, much of those allegations had previously been considered dealt with in earlier legal proceedings.

8The information and allegations set out in the applicant's more recent submission of May 29, 2015, concern information and allegations relevant to the applicant's application for a license from the respondent in the period after November 2014. The applicant appears to allege a continuing pattern of discrimination and reprisal relating to that application process. The fact that the applicant has experienced continuing issues related to his attempts to have his license re-instated, do not provide a basis to re-open the decision.

9The applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.