Arora v. A-1 Bags & Supplies Inc., 2016 HRTO 237

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Simple Arora

Applicant

-and-

A-1 Bags & Supplies Inc. o/a A-1 Cash and Carry

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: February 24, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 237

Indexed as: Arora v. A-1 Bags & Supplies Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Simple Arora, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of November 18, 2015, 2015 HRTO 1557, dismissing this Application, which alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of sex, including sexual harassment and sexual solicitation.

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 begins with the following statements:

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.

4The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) on December 14, 2015 and relies upon Rules 26.5(a), (c) and (d).

5The applicant alleged that the Decision was biased in favour of the respondent because the applicant “could tell from the contents of the decision that it was drafted on BK recommendations”. The applicant identified “BK” as Bal Krishan Arora. It is not entirely clear on the face of the applicant’s submissions, but it appears that Mr. Arora and the applicant are engaged in a family law dispute. The applicant also submitted that she believes the Decision is incorrect in a number of respects. Finally, the applicant submitted a long list of factual allegations, most of which are entirely new allegations. Many of the new allegations are based on different prohibited grounds of discrimination that the applicant’s Application.

6An allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias, which, if well-founded, could be a factor that outweighs the finality of Tribunal decisions. In this case, the applicant’s argument is not well-founded. Impartiality is the fundamental qualification for an adjudicator. There is a presumption of impartiality and the onus is on the person seeking disqualification to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. See Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, 2003 SCC 45. The Supreme Court of Canada enunciated the principles to be applied in considering apprehension of bias in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 at p. 394 as follows:

… the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal, that test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.”

7Here, the applicant made the bald assertion that I drafted the Decision based on the “recommendation” of a third party. The applicant provided no basis for this very serious allegation. In my view, an informed person would conclude that there is no reasonable apprehension of bias.

8As 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.

9As noted, the applicant submitted a variety of new factual allegations and allegations based on Code grounds not asserted in the applicant’s Application. The applicant made no submissions regarding how these facts could potentially be determinative of the case or how they could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. Accordingly, the applicant has not satisfied the criteria under Rule 26.5(a). The applicant made submissions regarding Rules 26.5(c).

10In 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.