Lan v. Huawei Technologies Canada Co. Ltd., 2016 HRTO 1602

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wenfeng Lan

Applicant

-and-

Huawei Technologies Canada Co. Ltd.

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: December 12, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1602

Indexed as: Lan v. Huawei Technologies Canada Co. Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Wenfeng Lan, Applicant

Self-represented

1The respondent requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of July 8, 2016, 2016 HRTO 901, dismissing the Application in part (the “Decision).

2The circumstances in which Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5:

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.

3The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes the following statements:

Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case.

4The respondent filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on July 19, 2016. The respondent relies on Rules 26.5(a) and 26.5(c).

5However, the applicant’s submissions in support of the Request do not address either of the Rules upon which he relies. That is, the applicant neither identified new facts or evidence nor explained how the Decision conflicts with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure. Rather, the applicant’s submissions describe errors the applicant considers me to have made in the assessment of evidence, which in turn resulted in an incorrect result. As is clearly enunciated in the Practice Direction on Reconsideration and in the Tribunal's jurisprudence, Reconsideration is not an appeal or evaluation of alleged errors in a Decision. See Latronico v. York Region District School Board, 2012 HRTO 637 and 4137566 Canada Ltd. v. Clements, 2011 HRTO 1008. Therefore, the applicant’s submissions that the Tribunal erred in its Decision do not establish grounds for Reconsideration.

6In my view, the applicant provided no reason to conclude that compelling and extraordinary circumstances exist that would call for Reconsideration of the Decision to dismiss the Application. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.