HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Pardeep Chodha

Applicant

-and-

1252866 Ontario Inc. o/a Times Kitchen and Bath

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: November 9, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1444

Indexed as: Chodha v. 1252866 Ontario Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Pardeep Chodha, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant has requested a reconsideration of Decision 2016 HRTO 1241.

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.

[3] Rule 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.

[5] The Request explains that the applicant does not agree with the outcome of the Decision. As was the case at the hearing, a major focus of the applicant’s submissions in the Request is his belief that the respondent altered the date on a doctor’s note. This issue was thoroughly canvassed at the hearing and in the Decision. In the Request, the applicant asserts that the evidence concerning this issue was deliberately misstated in the Decision, which he believes is evidence of bias and racism on the part of the Tribunal.

[6] With the exception of the allegations of bias and racism on the part of the Tribunal, the issues raised in this Request were the subject of submissions before the Tribunal, and dealt with in its Decision. Reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties 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. The submissions in this Request amount to additional argument on issues already fully canvassed before the Tribunal. The basis for the allegation of bias and racism seems to rest only on the fact that the applicant does not agree with the conclusions reached in the Decision.

[7] The applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria set out in Rule 26 (quoted above) that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.