Singh v. F&G Delivery Ltd. and another (No.2), 2025 BCHRT 297
Date Issued: December 3, 2025
File:CS-005197
Indexed as: Singh v. F&G Delivery Ltd. and another (No.2), 2025 BCHRT 297
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:
Parvinder Singh
COMPLAINANT
AND:
F&G Delivery Ltd. and Lloyd Ford
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER A DECISION
RULE 36
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
Agent for the Complainant Sukhmanpreet Singh
Counsel for the Respondents: Christopher Dyson
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Parvinder Singh filed a human rights complaint alleging his former employer, F&G Delivery Ltd. and its owner, Lloyd Ford, discriminated against him in employment on the grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin, and religion contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code when they did not pay him his full wages and terminated his employment.
[2] The Respondents applied to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) and (d)(ii) of the Code. In Singh v. F&G Delivery Ltd. and another, 2025 BCHRT 255 [the Original Decision], I allowed the application and dismissed the complaint. Under s. 27(1)(d)(ii) I was persuaded that it would not further the purposes of the Code to proceed with the allegation that Mr. Singh was not paid his full wages because the parties entered into a settlement agreement fully resolving this part of the complaint. Under s. 27(1)(c) I concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the complaint could succeed at a hearing because the Respondents are reasonably certain to establish they had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for their actions.
[3] Mr. Singh now applies for reconsideration of the Original Decision pursuant to Rule 36 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. He argues the Original Decision was unfair because I did not accept his arguments.
[4] I have not found it necessary to seek submissions from the Respondents.
[5] For the following reasons, I deny the application for reconsideration.
II BACKGROUND
[6] The background to Mr. Singh’s complaint is set out in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the Original Decision and I will not repeat it here. Briefly, Mr. Singh worked as a crane operator for the Respondents. He alleged he was not paid his full wages and was laid off because of his protected characteristics.
[7] The issues before me in the Original Decision were whether it would not further the purposes of the Code to proceed with the portion of the complaint alleging Mr. Singh was not paid his full wages because the parties entered into a settlement agreement fully resolving this part of the complaint and; whether there was no reasonable prospect that Mr. Singh’s complaint could establish at a hearing that his protected characteristics were a factor in the Respondents’ decision to lay him off. I was satisfied that the Respondents had met their burden on the totality of the evidence before me for the dismissal application and I dismissed the complaint.
III Analysis and DECISION
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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 [Fraser Health] 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.
[11] I find that none of Mr. Singh’s arguments presents circumstances that engage the narrow jurisdiction of the Tribunal to intervene in the Original Decision.
[12] Mr. Singh’s primary argument on the reconsideration application appears to be that the Tribunal ought to have preferred his submissions over that of the Respondents and found in his favour.
[13] Mr. Singh repeats his allegation that he was discriminated against, and that his protected characteristics must have been a factor in the Respondents’ decision to lay him off. He disagrees with the Respondents’ position and their submissions that their decision was purely a business decision. These are arguments that were considered in the Original Decision: Singh at paras. 23 to 30.
[14] Reconsideration is not an opportunity to repeat arguments that have previously been made in order to achieve different results. I am not persuaded that the interests of fairness and justice require the Tribunal to reconsider the Original Decision.
IV Conclusion
[15] The application for reconsideration is denied. The Original Decision stands.
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member