Kaushik v. University of Guelph, 2016 HRTO 91

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Azad Kaushik Applicant

-and-

University of Guelph Respondent

-and-

University of Guelph Faculty Association Intervenor

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: January 20, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 91

Indexed as: Kaushik v. University of Guelph

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Azad Kaushik, Applicant

Self-represented

background

1On December 11, 2015, the Tribunal issued its Decision (the “Decision”) in this Application, 2015 HRTO 1673, dismissing the Application. The Application was dismissed after an oral summary hearing held pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules because the Tribunal concluded that the Application had no reasonable prospect of success.

2On January 11, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (the “Request”) seeking reconsideration of the Decision to dismiss his Application.

THE LAW

3Under 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.

45.7 (1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

4The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, last amended April 2014). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which 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.

5The 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 HRTO. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case.

6As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

7In his Request the applicant checked the boxes indicating that the reasons for his Request are: there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; and, other factors exist that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

8In the Request, the applicant reiterates the argument he made in his oral submissions at the summary hearing. He also provides further detail about his interactions with the respondent, as well as new allegations about improprieties committed by the respondent. He does not assert that this information was not reasonably available to him as of the date of the summary hearing.

9While I accept that the applicant does not agree with the Decision, and that he sincerely believes he has been the victim of unfair treatment, this is not sufficient reason to allow the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision. The submissions in his Request are largely a repeat of argument he made at the summary hearing. The additional details he supplies with respect to the respondent’s alleged conduct were available to him at the time of the summary hearing. As noted above, reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of the case.

10I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision.

order

11The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.