Brian Eyolfson

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

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

The applicant failed to respond by the 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 by the directed deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 14 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem 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 the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

Several respondents requested and were granted an extension of time to file their responses.

One individual respondent failed to file a response by the deadline, and correspondence sent to her was returned due to an incomplete address.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the individual 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 her to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent contravened a settlement agreement.

The application was filed more than a year after the six-month limitation period expired.

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant provided no explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of proceedings under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Tribunal sent multiple letters and an e-mail requesting an update on the status of the ESA proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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.

The respondent failed to file a response by the directed deadline.

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 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 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, 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 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 power to decide.

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 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 power to decide, and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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) 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, an architect employed by the respondents for 27 years, was terminated for failing to adhere to strict office attendance requirements.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status, arguing that his absences were required to care for his ailing mother.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, as his eldercare responsibilities required him to be absent from the office on numerous occasions.

The Tribunal held that the respondents failed in both their procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the applicant, having never inquired about his needs or explored accommodation options, and having failed to prove undue hardship.

The applicant was awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and the respondents were ordered to implement a human rights policy and training.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

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

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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 warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate and granting a 14-day extension to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because 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 the Human Rights Code against the school board and the union.

While the school board filed a response, the union failed to do so within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the union to file a response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested to defer his human rights application against the WSIB until after the hearing of another application against his employer, and alternatively requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to medical reasons following a bicycle accident.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding minimal overlap between the two applications and little possibility of inconsistent factual findings.

The Tribunal also denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances or provide medical documentation demonstrating an inability to prepare for the hearing.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination sought to amend her Application through three separate requests.

The Tribunal granted the first request to add the ground of family status and further disability allegations, as it was made early with no prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the second request to add marital status and association grounds because the applicant failed to link them to any allegations.

The third request, which sought to add extensive new allegations involving a previous employer and older incidents, was denied due to significant unexplained delay and the resulting unfair expansion of the Application's scope.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant argued that the respondent failed to provide requested information and that the Tribunal's decision conflicted with case law.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant provided no new determinative evidence, failed to explain his absence from the hearing, and did not establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 to justify reconsideration.