Brian Eyolfson

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could result in the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5.

The Tribunal granted the respondents 14 days to file a Response and explain their delay.

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 the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, 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 a human rights application against multiple respondents.

One individual respondent failed to file a Response after being served with a Notice of Application at a new address.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming him to have accepted the allegations under Rule 5.5.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to proceed.

The applicant failed to provide submissions by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without further notice, and granted the respondent 10 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 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 to the Tribunal's inquiry.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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 a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the resolution of a grievance.

The applicant subsequently opted not to proceed with the grievance to arbitration and filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to re-activate her application.

As the grievance process had concluded and no response was filed by the respondent or the union, the Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the area of goods, services and facilities.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed against the university respondents.

At the outset of the hearing, the applicant withdrew the application against the university respondents, which was granted by the Tribunal.

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

The Tribunal made multiple attempts to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent, which were returned as unclaimed.

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 under Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the Ontario Fire Code discriminated on the basis of disability.

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

Following the hearing, the applicant conceded that the Fire Code provides for the safety of disabled persons and that he had been misled by his municipal Fire chief.

Given this concession, the Tribunal found the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a rescheduled mediation and did not respond to a subsequent warning letter.

The applicant's counsel asserted he never received the notice of rescheduled mediation or the warning letter, which were sent by regular mail.

The Tribunal found that while it was troubling that the mail was allegedly not received, the applicant had actively participated in the process prior to the missed mediation.

Concluding that the applicant did not intend to abandon her application, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant the reconsideration request and set aside the dismissal.

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

One of the named respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 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 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 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 had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

After the applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence regarding the status of the grievance proceedings and failed to file a formal request to withdraw after indicating an intention to do so, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 was directed to respond by a specified date but failed to do so.

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

The applicant, an eight-year-old student with disabilities, filed an application alleging discrimination in educational services and reprisal.

The applicant sought interim remedies requiring the respondent school board to provide a full-time educational assistant and to contact the applicant's mother in emergencies, despite an existing trespass notice and communication ban.

The Tribunal denied the request for a full-time educational assistant at this time, noting an imminent Identification, Placement and Review Committee meeting, but granted the request requiring the respondent to contact the mother in emergencies.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to expedite the hearing due to the urgent circumstances affecting the student's education and health.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to medical reasons, supported by a letter from his psychologist.

The respondent opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application for failure to comply with Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal found the medical information sufficient to justify an adjournment based on exceptional circumstances and granted a six-month adjournment, dismissing the respondent's request to dismiss the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal.

Both the applicant and the respondents filed multiple requests for particulars and production of documents.

The applicant also requested to add a school council as an affected party.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests for particulars and production as premature, noting that early production is only required in exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to add the school council as an affected party, finding no basis for the request, but permitted the council to file a Request to Intervene if it chose to do so.