“Just Because She Is a Mother”: What a BC Human Rights Case Tells Us About Returning from Maternity Leave

Castro Mosquera v. North Horizon Immigration Consulting Inc., 2026 BCHRT 61

A recent BC Human Rights Tribunal decision is a timely reminder that discrimination doesn't have to be intentional to be real — and that how an employer treats an employee returning from maternity leave can have serious legal consequences.

The Story

Estherly Castro Mosquera was, by all accounts, an exceptional employee. Her employer, Rita Benkhalti, CEO of North Horizon Immigration Consulting Inc. in Vancouver, described her in a reference letter as "the most valuable member of my team" — someone who demonstrated "extremely high levels of competence from the very first day." Since 2018, the two women — friends as well as colleagues — had spoken excitedly about Ms. Castro Mosquera becoming Ms. Benkhalti's "right hand" at the company. She was studying to become a licensed immigration consultant while on maternity leave. The future looked promising.

It all unravelled over a misunderstanding about Fridays.

When Ms. Castro Mosquera met with Ms. Benkhalti about three weeks before her scheduled return to work in early 2020, she mentioned she couldn't work Fridays — she hadn't been able to secure Friday daycare after years on waiting lists. Ms. Benkhalti, who believed they had a verbal agreement that Ms. Castro Mosquera would return full-time Monday to Friday, was blindsided. Rather than considering the possibility of an honest miscommunication, she assumed her employee had deliberately lied to her.

What followed was a rapid and painful breakdown. Ms. Benkhalti told Ms. Castro Mosquera she was "demanding too much" and didn't "deserve" special privileges "just because she is a mother." She questioned her motivation and commitment. She required her to attend counselling before returning to work — a condition Ms. Castro Mosquera felt she had to accept to keep her job. When Ms. Castro Mosquera sent a reasonable email asking clarifying questions about a new employment contract the Friday before her scheduled start date, Ms. Benkhalti cancelled the agreement that same evening and told her she could not come in on Monday. Three days later, Ms. Castro Mosquera's employment was terminated by email.

What the Tribunal Found

Tribunal Member Beverly Froese found that North Horizon had discriminated against Ms. Castro Mosquera based on sex and family status under s. 13 of the BC Human Rights Code — even though the discrimination was unintentional.

The key legal principle at play: under human rights law, intent doesn't matter. What matters is impact. As the Tribunal put it, "the fact that a respondent did not intend to discriminate does not lessen the impact of the discrimination on a complainant."

The Tribunal identified several adverse impacts: Ms. Castro Mosquera was treated in a humiliating manner after the misunderstanding came to light; she was required to attend counselling as a condition of returning to work; she was blocked from returning on her scheduled start date; and her employment was terminated. The nexus to her protected characteristics was established through the timing (everything happened as she was returning from maternity leave), Ms. Benkhalti's explicit comments about "special privileges" for mothers, and the evidence that Ms. Benkhalti perceived Ms. Castro Mosquera as inherently unreliable because of her childcare obligations.

Critically, the Tribunal rejected North Horizon's claim that Ms. Castro Mosquera had "repudiated" her employment contract. She had done no such thing — she had asked perfectly reasonable questions about a new contract and repeatedly affirmed she was ready and willing to return to work.

The retaliation allegation under s. 43 of the Code did not succeed, as the evidence didn't establish that the termination was driven by the prospect of a human rights complaint.

The Remedies

The Tribunal ordered North Horizon to pay a total of approximately $45,038, broken down as follows:

• $21,350.40 in lost wages (covering the period from termination in February 2020 to when Ms. Castro Mosquera found new employment in October 2020)
• $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect
• $3,688 in expenses, including pre-complaint legal fees, physiotherapy, and counselling she sought to cope with the situation
• Pre- and post-judgment interest on the above amounts

Why This Case Matters for Maternity Leave and Family Status Discrimination

This decision is a clear signal to employers — particularly small businesses — about the legal risks of mishandling a maternity leave return. A few lessons stand out:

Assumptions are dangerous.

The entire chain of events flowed from Ms. Benkhalti assuming the worst about an employee she had previously described as unshakably honest. Had she paused to consider the possibility of a misunderstanding, the outcome might have been entirely different.

Words carry weight.

Telling an employee she doesn't "deserve" flexibility "just because she is a mother" is not just unkind — it is the kind of remark that, in a human rights proceeding, becomes compelling evidence of discriminatory motivation.

Questions are not repudiation.

An employee asking for clarification before signing a contract is exercising basic due diligence. Treating it as defiance or a power grab is a serious misstep.

Discrimination doesn't require bad intentions.

Employers who genuinely believe they are being fair and accommodating can still discriminate if they allow stereotypes about mothers and childcare to colour their perceptions of an employee's reliability and commitment.

Ms. Castro Mosquera's story ends on a hopeful note — she completed her immigration consulting course, found a new job where flexibility "was not a problem," and has since taken on increasing responsibilities. But she should never have had to fight for that outcome.

This post is a summary of a publicly available BC Human Rights Tribunal decision and is intended for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.