Khan v. The Society of Notaries Public of BC (SNPBC) (No.2), 2025 BCHRT 172
Date Issued: July 25, 2025
File: CS-008324
Indexed as: Khan v. The Society of Notaries Public of BC (SNPBC) (No.2), 2025 BCHRT 172
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Ashfaq Khan
COMPLAINANT
AND:
The Society of Notaries Public of BC (SNPBC)
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER A DECISION
Rule 36
Tribunal Member: Kylie Buday
On their own behalf: Ashfaq Khan
Counsel for the Respondent: Avichay Sharon and Haley Richardson
I INTRODUCTION
[1] On November 17, 2022, Ashfaq Khan filed two complaints against the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia [the Society], which the Tribunal later joined [the Complaint]. The Complaint concerns Mr. Khan’s 2020 application to the Notary Education Program [the NEP], administered by the Society. Mr. Khan alleges the Society discriminated against him because of his mental and physical disabilities, and his political beliefs when it denied him entry into the NEP, contrary to s. 14 of the Human Rights Code, which prohibits discrimination by associations. Mr. Khan also alleges the Society rejected his application because he filed a human rights complaint against it in 2016, and because he told the Society that he might file a claim in future if it discriminated against him. He says this is retaliation, prohibited by s. 43 of the Code.
[2] On November 8, 2024, Mr. Khan filed an application for the disclosure of seventeen documents or categories of documents. The Society opposed the application. I denied the application with one exception: Khan v. The Society of Notaries Public of BC (SNPBC), 2025 BCHRT 130 [Decision].
[3] On June 23, 2025, Mr. Khan applied for reconsideration of my decision to deny his request for one category of documents in the Decision, which I refer to below as “Document 5.” I do not find it necessary to seek submissions from the Society. For the following reasons, I decline to reconsider the Decision. Mr. Khan’s application is denied.
II Decision
[4] The Tribunal has a limited jurisdiction to reconsider its own decisions: Rule 36 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Specifically, the Tribunal may reconsider a decision if it is in the interests of justice and fairness to do so: Routkovskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2012 BCCA 141 at para. 23. The Tribunal exercises this power sparingly, giving due consideration to the principle of finality in administrative proceedings: Grant v. City of Vancouver and others (No. 4), 2007 BCHRT 206 [Grant] at para 10.
[5] The burden is on the person seeking to have a matter re-opened to show that the interests of fairness and justice demand such an order: Grant at para. 10.
[6] The Tribunal does not have authority to reconsider a decision based on an argument that the decision was wrong or unreasonable or because there has been a change of circumstances: Fraser Health Authority v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2014 BCCA 499 at paras. 135 and 160. The Tribunal will not reconsider a decision to address arguments that could have been made in the first instance but were not, or to hear a party reargue its case: Ramadan v. Kwantlen Polytechnic University and another (No. 2), 2018 BCHRT 56 at para. 13. When a party simply disagrees with a Tribunal decision, the appropriate recourse is judicial review by the BC Supreme Court.
[7] In his reconsideration application, Mr. Khan says I misunderstood his application for disclosure. In particular, he asserts that I erred when I declined to order the Society to disclose Document 5: the evaluation forms of all selected applicants interviewed and assessed by the Panel/Committee for admission to the NEP in 2020.
[8] Mr. Khan submits the Tribunal can reconsider a decision to fix a mistake or problem that makes the process unfair and/or to deal with a question the Tribunal should have dealt with but did not. He argues that he applied for disclosure of documents in relation to his retaliation complaint only, not his discrimination complaint. As I understand it, Mr. Khan takes the view that I did not consider his request for disclosure of Document 5 in relation to his allegation that the Society retaliated against him when it denied him entry into the NEP. I am not persuaded.
[9] Regarding Mr. Khan’s request for the disclosure of Document 5 in relation to his retaliation complaint, I summarized his position in support of that request at paragraph 54 of the Decision as follows:
[Mr. Khan] says reviewing these forms will assist him in determining whether the Committee “was biased against [him] because he had challenged it at the Tribunal in the past.”
[10] I then explained why I was not persuaded by this argument. I noted Mr. Khan had not provided any factual basis to support his position. I explained that the request was based on speculation and concluded that it amounted to a fishing expedition and would not further the just and timely resolution of the Complaint.
[11] Given that I considered Mr. Khan’s submissions on the retaliation allegations, I cannot now revisit my decision. The Tribunal is not authorized to sit in appeal of its own decisions; it cannot reopen a decision “because one party or another feels that the decision is wrong”: Eddy v. Toby’s Pub and Grill and another (No. 2), 2013 BCHRT 48 at para. 27. Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to repeat prior arguments or make new ones that could have been made previously: Prosko v. District of Taylor (No. 3), 2024 BCHRT 319 at para. 7. I decline to exercise my discretion to reconsider the disclosure decision.
III Conclusion
[12] I deny Mr. Khan’s application to reconsider the Decision. The Decision stands.
Kylie Buday
Tribunal Member