Angeles Toledo v. Mexitaco, 2015 HRTO 1672

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nelly Angeles Toledo

Applicant

-and-

Mexitaco and Gabriela Olguin de Copto

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: December 11, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1672

Indexed as: Angeles Toledo v. Mexitaco

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gabriela Olguin de Copto, Respondent

Self-represented

Introduction

1The personal respondent sought reconsideration of my Decision dated November 2, 2015, 2015 HRTO 1464, granting the Application against the respondents.

2For the reasons set out below, I find that the personal respondent has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause me to reconsider my Decision.

The Decision being challenged

3The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of her sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, she alleged that the respondents discriminated against her by denying her request for reduced hours due to her pregnancy and terminating her employment. The respondents denied that they discriminated against the applicant and also denied terminating her employment.

4I granted the Application. In the Decision I noted that the outcome of the case largely turned on my findings in relation to two key conversations between the applicant and the personal respondent. The applicant and the personal respondent gave significantly divergent testimony regarding these two conversations. Therefore, the outcome of the case turned on my findings of credibility regarding which account of the conversation is more credible in light of the evidence as a whole. Ultimately, I found that there were significant inconsistencies in the personal respondent’s evidence. I found it more likely than not that the respondents did terminate the applicant’s employment by removing her from the work schedule and that the applicant’s pregnancy was a factor in the respondents’ decision to do so.

Applicable Principles

5In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal stated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case. Once the Tribunal has made a decision in a case, parties are entitled to treat the matter as completed and final, subject to limited exceptions.

6The circumstances in which a Request for Reconsideration may be granted are set out in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules:

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.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

7The personal respondent indicated that she was seeking reconsideration under Rule 26.5(a) because there were new fact or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. She stated that “the decision did not recognize our evidence”. She also submitted that the respondents should not have to pay any monetary compensation for this reason. She provided no further information or submissions in support of her Request for Reconsideration.

Analysis

8The personal respondent did not raise any “new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier”. She appeared to disagree with my weighing of the evidence and my findings of credibility in this case. I canvassed the competing evidence of the parties at length in my decision and carefully set out the basis for my findings of credibility. I see no reason to change my conclusions in this regard.

Order

9As I expressed in my decision, I do not believe that the respondents intentionally breached the Code. However, it is well established in the case law that discrimination does not need to be intentional. In my view, the breaches of the Code in this case occurred due to the respondents’ lack of knowledge regarding the full extent of their obligations under the Code.

10For the above reasons, the personal respondent’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.