Brian Eyolfson

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.

The applicant failed to respond to the notice by the specified deadline.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, age, and receipt of public assistance.

He subsequently requested to add his spouse as a co-applicant.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal treated the request as a new application filed on the spouse's behalf and consolidated the two applications.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations, including those related to subsidy information, an ODSP drug card, and certain repair issues, on the bases of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The remaining allegations concerning the timing of a move to a new unit and specific disability-related repair issues were permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, disability, sex, and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed on the basis of delay, settlement privilege regarding allegations from an OLRB mediation, and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that allegations prior to April 2009 were out of time, allegations arising from the OLRB mediation were barred by settlement privilege, and the remaining allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested a deferral pending an appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which was denied.

At the hearing, the applicant's representatives renewed the request for deferral, which was again denied.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing, having left the country.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal previously adjourned the hearing because the applicant had filed a workplace grievance positioned for arbitration, and sought submissions on whether to defer the application.

The Tribunal found that the grievance concerned the termination of the applicant's employment over two years after the human rights application was filed, and did not deal with the same facts and issues.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that deferral was not appropriate and directed that the hearing be rescheduled.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to defer her human rights application pending an appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The respondent opposed the request, arguing there was no overlap in issues and noting the application had been filed over two years prior with hearing dates already set.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding no evidence of overlapping issues and concluding that deferral would not be fair, just, or expeditious given the advanced stage of the proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The parties agreed to mediation, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled mediation and did not contact the Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she 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 regarding the accommodation of his needs during the Law School Admission Test (LSAT).

The respondents requested the removal of two individual respondents, a test centre supervisor and a member of the respondent's misconduct subcommittee.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted liability for the individuals' actions, there was no issue regarding its ability to remedy any infringement, and no compelling reason existed to continue the proceeding against the individuals.

The requests were granted and the individual respondents were removed as parties.

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

Two of the three respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding respondents to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

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.

The Tribunal warned that failure to comply could result in the matter proceeding without further notice to the respondent pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID within the extended deadline.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and was incomplete.

After the applicant failed to provide submissions on the jurisdiction issues despite multiple extensions and warnings, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to provide the requested submissions by the deadline.

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

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant warning that failure to respond within ten days could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant failed to respond to the request and subsequently failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment and membership in a vocational association because of age.

At the first day of the hearing, prior to any evidence being heard, the applicant requested to withdraw his application.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the applicant leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate and granted the respondent 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police and a security guard.

The applicant sought to amend the application to add numerous new allegations based on documents obtained through Youth Court.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to amend, finding it would considerably expand the scope of the hearing and prejudice the respondents given the passage of time.

The Tribunal also determined that the untimely allegations in the original application did not form a 'series of incidents' with the timely allegations under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, as they were discrete events separated by a lengthy gap in time.

The Tribunal requested further submissions on whether the limitation period was tolled because the applicant was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents.