Mark DiGirolamo

The applicant, a municipal councillor and board member of the respondent corporation, alleged that her right to be free from reprisal was violated when her attendance record was leaked to the press after she filed a human rights application.

The Tribunal found that while the leak was likely intended to embarrass the applicant, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the motivation was to retaliate for her human rights application, given her pre-existing fractious relationship with other board members.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a municipal councillor and director of the respondent holding corporation, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status after the board moved its meeting start times to 3:30 p.m., which conflicted with her childcare obligations.

The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination claim, finding that as a corporate director, the applicant was not in an employment relationship under the Code.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of family status discrimination because she did not demonstrate reasonable efforts to find alternative childcare solutions or that the start time actually excluded her from participating.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on the applicant's reprisal claim, requesting further submissions from the parties.