Radheshwar v. New Westminster Police Board and another (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 247
Date Issued: October 15, 2025
File: CS-002700
Indexed as: Radheshwar v. New Westminster Police Board and another (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 247
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:
Sundar-Jovian Radheshwar
COMPLAINANT
AND:
New Westminster Police Board and Alexandru Oprea
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER A DECISION
Rule 36
Tribunal Member: Jonathan Chapnick
On his own behalf: Sundar-Jovian Radheshwar
For the Respondents: No submissions sought
I INTRODUCTION
[1] The Tribunal issued a final decision in this matter on August 15, 2025: Radheshwar v. New Westminster Police Board and another, 2025 BCHRT 196 [Decision]. On August 29, 2025, the complainant, Sundar-Jovian Radheshwar, applied for reconsideration of the Decision.
[2] The respondents in this case are the New Westminster Police Board and Constable Alexandru Oprea. I do not find it necessary to seek their submissions. For the reasons that follow, Dr. Radheshwar’s reconsideration application is denied.
II Decision
[3] Under the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal’s core function is to make decisions. In principle, once a decision is made, it is final and the Tribunal cannot revisit it. There are only two narrow exceptions to this principle of finality.
[4] First, the Tribunal has the ability to correct non-substantive mistakes: BC Human Rights Tribunal, Rules of Practice and Procedure [Rules], Rule 35; Fraser Health Authority v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2014 BCCA 499 [Fraser Health] at paras. 135-141.
[5] Second, the Tribunal can reconsider a decision if the interests of fairness and justice require it to do so: Rule 36(1); see Zutter v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), 1995 CanLII 1234 (BC CA). This reconsideration power is exercised carefully and restrictively, in deference to the principle of finality: see Zutter at para. 31. The Tribunal can only reopen a decision to properly carry out its function or complete its task. It can reconsider a decision if it failed to resolve an issue that required resolution, or if it made the decision without procedural fairness: Fraser Health at paras. 135-141 and 160.
[6] I have reviewed Dr. Radheshwar’s application and find that the basis for the reconsideration sought falls outside the limited scope of the Tribunal’s power to reconsider the Decision. Dr. Radheshwar seeks to reargue issues that I have already decided after a full and fair hearing of the parties’ evidence and arguments. I appreciate that he disagrees with the Decision; however, the appropriate recourse for resolving that disagreement is judicial review by the BC Supreme Court. Dr. Radheshwar’s application does not disclose a proper ground for reconsideration.
[7] I am not satisfied that the interests of fairness and justice require the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision.
III CONCLUSION
[8] The application for reconsideration is denied. The Decision stands.
Jonathan Chapnick
Tribunal Member