Maria A. Vanderputten v. Seydaco Packaging Corp. and Gerry Sanvido, 2012 HRTO 2165

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Maria A. Vanderputten

Applicant

-and-

Seydaco Packaging Corp. and Gerry Sanvido

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: November 19, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2165

Indexed as: Vanderputten v. Seydaco Packaging Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Seydaco Packaging Corp., Respondent

David Seychell, Representative

1The respondent Seydaco Packaging Inc. requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision allowing this Application, 2012 HRTO 1977. The Request is dismissed, as none of the limited circumstances in which the Tribunal grants reconsideration apply.

2The respondent relies upon Rule 26.5 (a), (c) and (d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which read as follows:

26.5 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.

3Reconsideration is not an appeal, and is granted only in exceptional cases. As the Tribunal stated in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, at para. 56:

As is evident from the Rules and made explicit in Practice Direction #4, reconsideration is not an appeal. It is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the parties to a case have had the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has made a decision disposing of the issues, parties are entitled to treat the matter as closed, subject to limited exceptions.

4The respondent does not suggest that there are any facts or evidence that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, nor make reference to any established case law with which it says the Decision conflicts. Accordingly, reconsideration is not justified pursuant to Rule 26.5 (a) or (c).

5The respondent takes issue with various factual findings in the Decision, makes reference to evidence, including video evidence, that was available but not called at the hearing and indicates an intention to call further witnesses. It suggests that it was inappropriate for the Tribunal to find discrimination given that the applicant had anger management issues, and had referred to herself as both a man and a woman. None of these arguments justify reconsideration nor do they cast doubt on the conclusions in the Decision. Reconsideration is not granted because of disagreement with the adjudicator’s conclusions, nor because a party wishes to call further evidence. The respondent raises nothing that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions under Rule 26.5(d).

6The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.