Brian Eyolfson

The applicants filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, sex, disability, and association after their full-time artist positions were eliminated during a workplace restructuring.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations of discrimination based on age, sex, and association had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicants failed to show a link between the termination of their employment and the protected grounds.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, and the applicants failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing by Toronto Community Housing and other respondents following her eviction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application did not raise matters within its jurisdiction and dismissed the application at a preliminary stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and reprisal against her former employer, a clinic, a union, and two individuals.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were speculative and that she failed to point to any reasonably available evidence that could establish a link between the respondents' alleged actions and the grounds cited.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to re-activate her deferred human rights application, confirming that her related grievance and Ontario Labour Relations Board proceedings had concluded.

The respondents either consented to the re-activation or did not oppose it.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and noted that a separate Case Assessment Direction would issue regarding next steps, including the respondents' requests for a summary hearing.

The respondents, the City of Mississauga and Dara Marcoccia, requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates with the applicant's consent, after the applicant's representative withdrew less than a month before the hearing.

The individual respondent, Rohan Abbey, opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the withdrawal of the representative constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying the delay.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of an ongoing workplace grievance.

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

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the respondent requested to reschedule the hearing.

The Tribunal made multiple attempts to contact the applicant by email, telephone, and regular mail to obtain available dates for rescheduling.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the Tribunal's correspondence or confirm her intentions with respect to the application.

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

After multiple attempts to contact the applicant and her representative by mail and email to ascertain the status of the grievance proceedings went unanswered or were returned as undeliverable, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant's representative requesting an update on the status of the grievance proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment 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 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 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings.

The applicant's former counsel advised the Tribunal that the matter was settled and he no longer acted for the applicant.

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

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of an investigation by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

The Tribunal later requested an update on the OIPRD investigation, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

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 alleged that his employment was terminated because he attended medical appointments related to his hypothyroidism.

The respondents claimed the termination was due to excessive unexcused tardiness and absences.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's absences for medical appointments related to his disability were a factor in the decision to terminate his employment.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability and ordered the respondents to pay $12,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to implement a human rights policy and training.

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

The respondent failed to file a response despite being granted two extensions of time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning of the consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the respondent a final 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 a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking details of the respondents' witness evidence and disclosed a complete audio recording shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The respondents requested an adjournment, on consent, citing insufficient time to prepare and prejudice from the late disclosure.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the respondents failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify adjourning the hearing at the last minute.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when she was not hired for a position with the Ministry of Education.

She originally named the Director of the Provincial Schools Branch as the sole respondent.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for improperly naming her in her personal capacity.

The applicant subsequently requested an order to remove the individual respondent and add the Ministry as the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding a respondent, found that the request was made at an early stage with no actual prejudice, and granted the amendment.

The respondent's request for a summary hearing was denied.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent filed a Notice of Intention to make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, resulting in a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise within one year if the stay was lifted or other steps were taken, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond, and the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file hearing materials or confirm she had none, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.