Brian Eyolfson

The applicant, who required hip replacement surgery, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated five days before his scheduled surgery.

The respondents claimed the termination was strictly due to financial restructuring.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pending disability-related absence was a factor in the decision to terminate his employment, constituting discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the Constable Selection System's hearing standards.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested an order to add the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services as a respondent, arguing the Ministry developed the standards.

Applying the three-part test for adding a respondent, the Tribunal granted the request, noting the Ministry consented to being added and there was no apparent prejudice to the parties.

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

After the initial filing, the Tribunal and the respondent's counsel received returned mail indicating the applicant no longer resided at the provided address.

The Tribunal sent multiple directives to the applicant at both the original and a newly discovered address, requiring him to confirm his current mailing address.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application.

Two respondents filed a Response, which identified an additional corporate respondent.

The Tribunal notified the additional respondent, but it failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the additional respondent to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence by regular mail and email.

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

The applicant, a high school English teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his colleagues and the school board.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations of discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin had a reasonable prospect of success and allowed them to proceed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal allegations concerning the time period prior to April 16, 2009, as the applicant could not establish an intention to retaliate for a claim of Code rights before that date.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of a grievance arbitration.

Following the dismissal of his grievance, the applicant failed to request the re-activation of his application within the 60-day time limit prescribed by Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, waiting approximately 13 months to do so.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide a good reason for the delay and that the respondent would suffer prejudice due to the passage of time.

The request to re-activate was denied and the application was dismissed.

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

Following a request by the respondent to reschedule the hearing, the Tribunal sent multiple emails and a letter to the applicant requesting dates for the rescheduled hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the Tribunal's communications, despite being warned that her application could be deemed abandoned.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents.

All respondents except one personal respondent filed a response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding personal respondent to file a response within 10 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 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, and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID within the specified timeframe.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of another individual.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on whether the application could proceed without a litigation guardian and whether the applicant should be appointed as such.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction and a subsequent warning letter.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and family status.

The Tribunal found that the respondent violated the Human Rights Code by asking the applicant about her children during her employment interview.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation that the applicant's subsequent termination was discriminatory, finding that she was dismissed for performance-related issues rather than her pregnancy.

As there was no evidence of injury to dignity from the interview questions, the Tribunal declined to award monetary compensation but ordered the respondent to review human rights materials regarding interviewing and hiring.

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

The applicant claimed he did not receive notice of the hearing and objected to the teleconference format.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding no credible evidence that the applicant failed to receive notice through no fault of his own, noting his contradictory statements and the successful delivery of other correspondence to his address.

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

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant failed to respond to the Registrar's invitation to file a Reply and subsequently failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

After the hearing was rescheduled at the respondent's request, the Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant to set a new date.

The applicant failed to respond to emails, her phone was disconnected, and mail was returned.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to provide contact information would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond, and the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple emails and a letter requesting the applicant to provide mutually agreeable dates to reschedule a Summary Hearing and to confirm his intentions with respect to the application.

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against three respondents.

Two respondents filed Responses, but the third respondent failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted him a final ten-day extension to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.

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 10 days to file a response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The organizational respondent failed to file a complete response despite previous directions from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the organizational respondent to file a complete 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 s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Following an adjournment of the hearing, the applicant failed to respond to communications from the respondents and the Tribunal regarding rescheduling.

The Tribunal sent a letter warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.