Ahmad Kamal v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 51 and Alba Property Management Inc., 2017 HRTO 918

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ahmad Kamal

Applicant

-and-

Peel Condominium Corp. No. 51 and Alba Property Management Inc.

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price

Date: July 21, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 918

Indexed as: Kamal v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 51

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ahmad Kamal, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is a Request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2016 HRTO 1282, dismissing the Application following a merits hearing on the basis that the applicant had failed to establish that the respondent condominium corporation and/or the respondent property management company discriminated against him because of his creed by holding a special owners’ meeting on Eid-ul-Azha, an important religious holiday for Muslims.

2Section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), provides that the Tribunal may reconsider its decisions in accordance with its Rules.

3Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure is the Rule that identifies the circumstances in which the Tribunal may reconsider a decision. Rule 26.5 states that 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;

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;

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 has also issued a Practice Direction to provide guidance to the community on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers. The Practice Direction 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.

5The applicant submits that the Tribunal ought to reconsider its decision dismissing his Application pursuant to Rule 26.5(c) on the basis that the decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance. However, the applicant’s Request does not identify any conflict between the Decision and established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure.

6Rather, in his reconsideration request, the applicant repeats submissions that were made during the hearing. In particular, the applicant submits that the Decision should be reconsidered because I denied the applicants’ request that I recuse myself (2015 HRTO 53); because it was established that the special owners’ meeting was held on Eid-ul-Azha; and because the respondents, in his view, had “zero credibility”. All of the submissions in the reconsideration request were before the Tribunal at the time it rendered the Decision.

7It is clear from the reconsideration request that the applicant disagrees with determinations made by the Tribunal in his case. However, as noted in the Practice Direction, the fact that an applicant disagrees with a decision of the Tribunal is not a basis upon which the Tribunal may grant reconsideration. Nor is reconsideration an opportunity for a party to reargue a case.

8As the reconsideration request has failed to establish the existence of any of the criteria for reconsideration set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, there is no basis upon which to reconsider the Decision.

9The Request for Reconsideration is denied accordingly.