Jennifer Mary Fantini

The applicant alleged that the respondent Storm failed to hire him because of his age, race, and association when it took over a coil repair contract from his former employer, Outotec.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success against Outotec and AMD, removing them as respondents.

The Tribunal allowed the age discrimination claim against Storm to proceed to a full hearing, but dismissed the other grounds for lack of evidence.

The respondents requested the consolidation of two human rights applications filed by co-workers alleging discrimination based on creed for being denied time off to pray.

The staffing agencies that placed the applicants with the corporate respondent also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation request, finding the applications raised identical facts and issues.

The Tribunal also granted the intervention request, finding the staffing agencies had a significant interest and could provide assistance regarding the employment context.

The plaintiff consultant brought an action after being terminated one week into a six‑month consulting contract as research coordinator for a community health project.

The court found that a binding verbal consulting agreement had been formed despite the absence of a written contract.

Because the plaintiff was an independent contractor rather than an employee, the contract was terminable at will and damages were not the full contract value.

The court awarded compensation on a quantum meruit basis for six days of work performed and granted punitive damages due to the defendant’s harsh and deliberate manner of termination.

The applicant alleged that the respondent hospital breached the Minutes of Settlement from a previous human rights application by failing to provide staff training on 'Transgendered Health Competency' as agreed.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had indeed developed and delivered the training in consultation with the specified clinic, and that the settlement did not require the training to be delivered by an external organization or to be of a specific duration.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent employer requested to defer the human rights application alleging disability discrimination pending the outcome of the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint against her union at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, noting that deferral might be appropriate later if the OLRB proceeding results in access to the grievance process.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene in the application.

The applicants, two female youth hockey players and their mother, filed human rights complaints against the Brampton Youth Hockey Association (BYHA), its president, and the Ontario Hockey Federation (OHF).

The daughters alleged discrimination on the basis of sex regarding their exclusion from team dressing rooms, unequal changing facilities, and discriminatory comments from teammates.

The mother alleged reprisal after she was removed from a volunteer committee for filing the complaints.

The Tribunal found that while the OHF's dressing room policy was not inherently discriminatory, the BYHA discriminated against the daughters by failing to provide equal access to pre- and post-game activities, failing to arrange comparable changing rooms, tolerating discriminatory comments, and failing to investigate their complaints.

The Tribunal also found that the BYHA and its president committed a reprisal against the mother.

The applications against the OHF were dismissed.

The BYHA was ordered to pay a total of $18,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

In a bifurcated proceeding, the Tribunal previously found that the respondent's failure to address the applicant's performance issues was tainted by age discrimination, leading to her termination.

In this decision on remedy, the Tribunal concluded that even if a performance management plan had been implemented, the applicant would have been terminated in any event due to her lack of self-awareness regarding her performance deficiencies.

The Tribunal awarded $21,392.48 for lost wages and benefits based on the severance package she likely would have accepted, and $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, supported by medical evidence of depression.

Claims for reinstatement, legal expenses, and medical expenses were denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing because his counsel failed to attend due to a double booking and failed to provide him with the respondents' disclosure package.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the counsel's failure to provide the disclosure package to the applicant constituted an extraordinary circumstance.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' unopposed request to remove the individual respondent from the application, as the corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability and had the capacity to remedy any alleged Code infringement.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision on remedy, which awarded him $5,000 for injury to dignity but denied damages for lost wages because he had mitigated his wage loss.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to appreciate the full impact of his carpal tunnel syndrome on his future employability.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and appeal the decision, which does not meet the limited criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.

Following a finding that the respondent discriminated against the applicant by failing to rehire him because of his disability, the Tribunal held a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to lost wages because he had completely mitigated his losses by obtaining new employment shortly after his lay-off.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $5,000 as monetary compensation for the frustration and insult he suffered from the breach of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a 59-year-old hospital manager, alleged that her termination without cause was discriminatory based on age.

The respondent hospital claimed the termination was due to documented performance issues.

The Tribunal found that while the performance issues were legitimate and untainted by age discrimination, the respondent failed to take appropriate steps to address these issues with the applicant, contrary to its own policies.

The Tribunal inferred that age was a factor in this failure, as the respondent's director had inquired about the applicant's retirement plans and seemingly decided not to invest in performance management for an older employee.

Because the failure to address performance issues tainted the termination decision, the Tribunal concluded that age was a factor in the termination and found a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (carpal tunnel syndrome) when the respondent failed to rehire him after his recall rights expired.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, as employees with less seniority and new employees were hired over him despite his strong performance appraisals.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's explanation that the applicant was not rehired due to a poor attitude, finding it to be a pretext.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's decision not to rehire the applicant was based, in part, on his disability, violating section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment for wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions against his former employer, Westsun Show Systems Inc. Without attempting to execute the judgment, he brought a second action against the parent company's directors and officers, and former officers of the employer.

The trial judge found several directors liable for the wage debts and held a corporate representative personally liable for the costs of the first trial under the oppression remedy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeals, finding no duty on the corporate representative to disclose the lack of directors to an adverse party, and holding that the plaintiff failed to meet the strict statutory preconditions and limitation periods for directors' liability under the Manitoba Corporations Act.

The plaintiff's appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.