Golbahar v. Technical Standards and Safety Authority, 2016 HRTO 928

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Behnam Golbahar Applicant

-and-

Technical Standards and Safety Authority Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: July 14, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 928

Indexed as: Golbahar v. Technical Standards and Safety Authority

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Behnam Golbahar, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant requests Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision of May 13, 2016, 2016 HRTO 653, dismissing this Application, (the “Decision”) which alleged discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association because of place of origin. The Tribunal dismissed the Application as abandoned because the applicant did not attend the hearing, despite being informed that his adjournment request was denied and he was expected to appear.

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 June 2, 2016 and relies upon Rules 26.5(a) and (d). The applicant stated that he was unable to attend the hearing because he commenced employment with an employer outside of Toronto in April 2016 and was undergoing training. The applicant stated that he was concerned about his employment if he missed a day of training. The applicant submitted that he is serious about pursuing the Application and provided a copy of a round trip bus ticket from Kingston to Toronto and back for November 26, 2015 as evidence of his commitment, notwithstanding that the Tribunal sent the Notice of Hearing for this matter on December 29, 2015 and the hearing date was May 13, 2016. The applicant submitted that the Application is not merely a personal issue, but also a public concern.

5As noted in the Decision, the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing two days prior to the hearing date on the basis of unspecified “personal reasons”. The Tribunal refused the request and advised the applicant that he must provide detailed reasons to support an adjournment request. The applicant did not respond. The facts provided in his Request for Reconsideration explain his “personal reasons”, but were obviously known to him at the time he made the request to adjourn. Accordingly, the applicant has not satisfied the criteria under Rule 26.5(a), which requires “new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier”.

6The applicant submitted that the issues arising in this Application are of public concern. However, the applicant has no standing to bring applications in the public interest pursuant to section 34(1) of the Code and it appears that this Application may be moot, as noted in a Case Assessment Direction in this matter, dated May 11, 2016. Consequently, the applicant has not in my opinion established factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

7In 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.

8The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.