Brian Eyolfson

The applicant, a former Pizza Nova franchisee, alleged discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age.

He claimed the respondents harassed and pressured him into selling his franchise.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions, citing numerous material breaches of the Franchise Agreement, including poor cleanliness, unauthorized ingredients, and customer complaints.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age following her termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside due to economic duress and misrepresentation.

The Tribunal found that financial pressure alone does not constitute economic duress and that the respondent did not make any false representations regarding the business reasons for her termination.

The Tribunal concluded that proceeding with the application would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached two terms of a prior settlement agreement.

The first term required individual respondents to complete an online human rights course, and the second related to the destruction of the applicant's fingerprints and photograph.

The Tribunal found that the individual respondents had completed the course, and that the allegation of breach was untimely under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

Regarding the records, the Tribunal found no breach, as the settlement acknowledged that jurisdiction over destruction rested with the RCMP, not the respondent, and the respondent had requested the destruction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Black paralegal, was subjected to a racial slur by another member of the public while waiting for service at a City of Toronto courthouse.

He filed a human rights application alleging that the City and the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) discriminated against him by failing to respond appropriately to the incident and by subjecting him to adverse differential treatment.

The Tribunal found that the TPSB court officer responded reasonably to the incident and did not subject the applicant to greater scrutiny.

However, the Tribunal found that the City discriminated against the applicant when a staff member provided an inadequate response after being informed of the racial slur, leading the applicant to reasonably believe the City would take no action.

The City was ordered to pay $1,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to conduct human rights training for its staff.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

After being granted two adjournments for medical reasons, the Tribunal directed the applicant to contact the Tribunal and the respondents by a specified deadline to reschedule or request a further adjournment, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to contact the Tribunal by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a related complaint before the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal sent multiple letters and an email requesting an update on the status of the Nova Scotia complaint, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the correspondence.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A hearing was scheduled, and proper notice was delivered to the parties.

Neither party attended the hearing, nor did they communicate with the Tribunal to explain their absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested that his human rights application be deferred until after the conclusion of his criminal harassment proceeding.

The respondent opposed the deferral, arguing the criminal matter was unrelated.

The Tribunal found that the criminal charge arose out of the same factual matrix as the application, raising the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact.

The Tribunal concluded that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the criminal proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of his nephew, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of a perceived learning disability and reprisal.

The claimant worked as a prep cook at the respondent's restaurant and alleged he was placed on salary to avoid paying overtime, subjected to name-calling, and constructively dismissed.

The Tribunal found that while the claimant's hours increased and he was yelled at by a supervisor, there was insufficient evidence to establish he was perceived to have a learning disability.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of reprisal under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under s. 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

A teleconference hearing was scheduled, and proper notice was provided to the parties.

The respondent attended the hearing, but the applicant failed to appear.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the respondents.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness, insufficient hearing time, and adjudicator bias.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5(c) justifying reconsideration, noting that the applicant had sufficient time to present his case and failed to provide evidence of bias or procedural conflict.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required time.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The organizational respondent obtained protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, resulting in a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she had obtained leave of the Court or written consent to proceed.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that it had just retained a representative who was unavailable on the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondent had been aware of the hearing date for several months.

The Tribunal held that retaining counsel shortly before a hearing who is unavailable is not an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of the applicant's complete medical notes and records from his treating physicians and practitioners.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that the respondent already had the necessary medical documents from his medical leave.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had placed his medical condition and restrictions at issue and ordered him to produce the requested medical documents, as they were arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant and his representative failed to respond to the NOID by the required deadlines, despite it being re-issued.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The application had been deferred pending an appeal at the Court of Appeal, but the applicant failed to request re-activation within 60 days of the appeal's conclusion.

In his reconsideration request, the applicant argued that third parties failed to assist him with legal documents and challenged the original deferral decision.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already addressed and failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration.

The request was denied.

The applicant alleged that police officers discriminated against him on the basis of race and engaged in reprisal when they attended his home and apprehended him under the Mental Health Act following a call from his employer about a potential suicide threat.

The Tribunal found that the officers had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for apprehending the applicant based on the information they received and the applicant's own admissions at the scene.

The Tribunal also accepted the officers' reasonable explanation for handcuffing the applicant for safety reasons.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish discrimination or reprisal.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he had subjected the applicants to discrimination.

The respondent argued that his initial responses to the claims were not considered and asked that the cases be dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent failed to present new determinative evidence or meet any other threshold criteria under Rule 26.5, noting that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.