Khanna v. BC Ministry of Finance (No.2), 2025 BCHRT 173
Date Issued: July 29, 2025
File: CS-003813
Indexed as: Khanna v. BC Ministry of Finance (No.2), 2025 BCHRT 173
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:
Vivek Khanna
COMPLAINANT
AND:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Finance, BC Liquor Distribution Branch
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER A DECISION
Rule 36
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
On their own behalf: Vivek Khanna
Counsel for the Respondent: Zachary J. Ansley, Bobby Sangha
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Vivek Khanna filed a complaint alleging his employer, BC’s Liquor Distribution Branch, discriminated against him based on physical disability in the area of employment contrary to section 13 of the Human Rights Code. In Khanna v. BC Ministry of Finance and another, 2025 BCHRT 69 (the Original Decision), I dismissed Mr. Khanna’s complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code concluding that there was no reasonable prospect that the complaint would succeed at a hearing because the Branch is reasonably certain to prove a defence at a hearing.
[2] Mr. Khanna now applies for reconsideration of the Original Decision. The Branch opposes the application for reconsideration.
[3] For the following reasons, I deny Mr. Khanna’s application for reconsideration.
II BACKGROUND
[4] The background to Mr. Khanna’s complaint is set out in the Original Decision and I will not repeat it here: Khanna at paras. 4-19. Briefly, Mr. Khanna says he has a physical disability that puts him at risk of complications from COVID-19. He alleges the Branch did not adequately accommodate him between March 2020 to April 2022 because it did not find him an alternate job he could perform during the pandemic.
[5] The Original Decision turned on whether the Branch is reasonably certain to prove at a hearing that it met its duty to accommodate Mr. Khanna. I was satisfied based on the materials before me that the Branch was reasonably certain to prove it did and I dismissed the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
III Analysis and DECISION
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] I find that Mr. Khanna’s submissions do not present circumstances where it is in the interests of fairness and justice to reconsider the Original Decision.
[10] Mr. Khanna argues that the Original Decision was unfair and asks the Tribunal to review his evidence once more. He argues that the evidence shows the Branch could have accommodated his physical disability, and he suffered emotional and financial harm because it did not do so. I understand the ultimate point of Mr. Khanna’s submission on the reconsideration application to be that the Tribunal ought to have preferred his evidence and submissions over that of the Branch and consequently found in his favour. Effectively he argues that I should reweigh the evidence he submitted and reach a different outcome.
[11] Reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue issues that have already been determined in the Original Decision. The Tribunal’s power to reconsider its decisions is limited. It appears that Mr. Khanna is disagreeing with the Original Decision and arguing that the evidence he presented supports his position that the Branch did not reasonably accommodate him. The issue has already been considered and decided. Mr. Khanna’s arguments are that he disagrees with how I weighed the evidence in the Original Decision, which is not a basis for reconsideration.
[12] For these reasons, I am not satisfied Mr. Khanna has met his burden of showing that it would be in the interests of fairness and justice to reconsider the Original Decision.
IV Conclusion
[13] I deny the application for reconsideration.
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member