HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Audrey Dante
Applicant
-and-
U-Haul Co. (Canada) Ltd., Muraudhar Madireddy,
Shirisha Madireddy and Antony Grocott
Respondents
Reconsideration DECISION
Adjudicator: Sunil Kapur
Indexed as: Dante v. U-Haul Co. (Canada)
1The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2009 HRTO 2080, in which the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s claim that she had been discriminated against by the respondents on the basis of her sex, ethnic origin and place of origin.
2Section 45.7 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), provides as follows:
45.7 (1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.
(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.
3Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under Section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code provides any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision. Rule 25.5 provides:
A Request for 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; or
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; or
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 applicant asserts in her reconsideration request that a witness, Christina Pfeiffer (“Ms. Pfeiffer”), has come forward with evidence that will directly contradict the evidence of the individual respondents. In making this assertion, the applicant is in essence arguing that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case. The problem with the applicant’s assertion is that the evidence of Ms. Pfeiffer was known to the applicant during the hearing. The applicant had included in her Application statements that described Ms. Pfeiffer being present for the statements and conduct being alleged against the respondents. As part of her “exhibits” filed with the Tribunal at the hearing the applicant had handwritten notes that stated “both Christina Pfeiffer and I kept notes when we felt it necessary due to the improper and arrogant behaviour of…”
5As Ms. Pfeiffer’s evidence would have been directly related to the central issues in dispute, the applicant was advised by the Tribunal that she would need to call Ms. Pfeiffer as a witness if she intended to rely on her evidence. The Tribunal provided the applicant an opportunity to contact Ms. Pfeiffer to see if she would attend the hearing. During the hearing the applicant advised the Tribunal that she had made contact with Ms. Pfeiffer but that Ms. Pfeiffer would not be testifying. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the evidence of Ms. Pfeiffer could have been obtained earlier.
6The Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of April, 2010.
“signed by”
Sunil Kapur
Member