Brian Eyolfson

Nine applicants in consolidated housing discrimination applications filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings (RFOPs) to amend their applications to increase the amount of monetary compensation claimed.

The respondents consented to one applicant's request but opposed the others.

The Tribunal granted all the requests, noting that amendments to applications, including remedial claims, are generally permitted prior to the commencement of a hearing, without prejudice to the respondents' position on the merits or appropriateness of the remedies.

The respondents failed to file a Response to a human rights application within the extended time limit, resulting in an Interim Decision deeming them to have accepted all allegations.

The respondents subsequently participated in a conference call and mediation, and filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to vary the Interim Decision and permit them to file a joint Response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it would be unfair to deny the individual and organizational respondents the opportunity to defend against the application, particularly as the applicant raised no prejudice.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the extended deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The corporate respondent filed a response, but the personal respondent failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the personal respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and provided him with 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending a jurisdictional determination by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the other process and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

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

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The parties agreed to mediation, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment.

During the hearing process, the applicant was taken into custody and requested an indefinite abeyance of the proceedings pending his release.

The respondents opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application for delay, arguing prejudice to their right to a fair hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request to dismiss the application, finding no breach of natural justice or actual prejudice established at this stage.

The Tribunal granted a three-month abeyance, directing the applicant to provide updates on his custody status and ability to attend, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending another proceeding.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The respondents requested to defer or stay the human rights application, arguing that the applicant had commenced a duplicative civil action in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal found that the civil action, which sought damages for physical injuries from falling, did not raise human rights allegations or seek remedies for Code violations.

The request to defer or stay the application was dismissed.

The respondents requested an order for the production of the applicant's psychiatric records, arguing they were relevant to his claims of mental anguish resulting from alleged discrimination.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce arguably relevant medical records from his psychiatrist from one year prior to the alleged incident to the present, finding them relevant to both liability and remedy.

The Tribunal also declined to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy.

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

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the grievance proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending another legal proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently attempted to contact the applicant by mail, courier, and telephone to ascertain the status of the other proceeding and the applicant's intentions.

All written communications were returned as undeliverable and the applicant did not respond to a telephone message.

Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent a final 14 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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 failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to consolidate ten human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing based on the posting of offensive messages.

The respondents also filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate, finding common issues of fact and law and a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Request for Summary Hearing was denied without reasons.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence inquiring about his intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging a contravention of a settlement agreement.

The respondent acknowledged an administrative error and requested the applicant contact their counsel to complete the settlement.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to indicate her intentions.

The applicant failed to respond.

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them under Rule 5.5.