Abbasi v. Sygenics Inc., 2016 HRTO 10

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Hassan Abbasi Applicant

-and-

Sygenics Inc. Respondent

Reconsideration Decision

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: January 6, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 10 Indexed as: Abbasi v. Sygenics Inc.

Written Submissions

Hassan Abbasi, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2015 HRTO 1014, which dismissed the Application.

Background

2On November 29, 2012, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), with this Tribunal, which alleged that the respondent discriminated against him by terminating his employment because of his disability.

3On December 11, 2014, a hearing took place. On July 29, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Decision, which dismissed the Application on a preliminary basis because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

4On August 10, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

Analysis

5Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

6Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that 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.

7The Tribunal has also issued a Practice Direction on Reconsideration to provide guidance to the community on the nature of the reconsideration process. The Practice Direction 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.

8In his Request for Reconsideration, the applicant indicated that the Tribunal’s Decision should be reconsidered in accordance with Rule 26.5 c) and d). However, in his submissions in support of his Request, he did not clearly explain how his Request falls within the criteria set out in Rule 26.5 c) and d). Instead, he repeated the same arguments that he made in advance of and at the hearing, and made new arguments that he could have made, but did not make, in advance of and at the hearing. In essence, he argued that the Tribunal failed to consider all of the evidence that he had pointed to, and accepted the respondent’s version of events. I disagree. I considered all of the evidence that the applicant had pointed to in advance of and at the hearing, and did not accept any aspect of the respondent’s version of events that was in dispute. With respect to this second point, I would simply point to paras. 33 and 52 of the Decision:

The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with or remedy general allegations of unfairness. The applicant must establish discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 (“Forde”) at para. 17.

Having evaluated the evidence that is proposed to be called, my conclusion is that the applicant’s theory of discrimination is largely speculative, and there is no reasonable prospect evidence that evidence he has or that is reasonably available to him can show a link between the respondent’s decision to terminate his employment and his disability. The evidence that he pointed to is vague, lacks a clear connection to the termination of his employment, or is undercut or contradicted by other evidence (including some of his own statements and actions) that he does not dispute the authenticity of. The Application is therefore dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

9Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case.

Order

10The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.