Brian Eyolfson

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

The respondent later advised the Tribunal that the parties had resolved the dispute.

The Tribunal sought written confirmation from the applicant, warning that failure to respond could result in deemed abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond, and 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 required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning that the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application under 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, 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 a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the remedy requested in her human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that it was filed early in the process before the respondent filed a Response, the respondent did not object or identify any prejudice, and the amendment only pertained to the requested remedy.

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

After failing to attend a rescheduled mediation session and failing to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction inquiring about her intentions, the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed.

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 Applications for Contravention of Settlement alleging that the respondent failed to pay monetary compensation ordered in a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant was alleging a failure to comply with a Tribunal decision rather than a breach of minutes of settlement, and directed the applicant to clarify her intentions.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and reprisal regarding a promotion competition, performance appraisal, and transfer to a civilian position.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss parts of the application for delay and lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed older allegations from 2008 and earlier as untimely.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding the 2009 promotion process, performance appraisal, and subsequent transfer to proceed, finding they constituted a series of incidents and had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to file their documents and witness materials, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent complied, but the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

A hearing was scheduled for March 28, 2012, and notice was properly delivered to the applicant.

None of the parties attended the hearing.

After waiting thirty minutes in accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned it.

The applicant, a student identified with a developmental disability, sought an interim remedy to be placed back at his neighbouring high school after being out of school for two years.

The respondent school board opposed the request and sought a cross-application directing the applicant's mother to comply with Special Education Tribunal orders placing him in a self-contained class.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request, finding the balance of harm did not favour granting an interim remedy contrary to the SET's orders, especially when preliminary issues regarding section 45.1 of the Code remained unresolved.

The respondent's cross-application was also dismissed as the Rules do not provide for respondent requests for interim remedies.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the allegations did not appear to relate to that ground.

The applicant responded, clarifying that he mistakenly checked the box for record of offences and intended to allege discrimination based on race, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and age.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction and directed that the application be processed and served on the respondent.

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, and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

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

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in services related to the smoking of medical marijuana.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend their pleadings to provide further particulars and additional reasons for denying services.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that no hearing dates had been set and the complainant had not identified any prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal in employment against an organizational respondent, a union, and six individuals.

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

Prior to the hearing, the applicant consented to their removal, and the remaining respondents did not object.

The Tribunal cancelled the summary hearing, ordered the union and individual respondents removed as parties, and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

Despite multiple directions and extensions of time from the Tribunal, the respondents failed to file a complete Response.

The Tribunal found that the respondents received notice of the Application and the Tribunal's directions but chose not to participate.

Consequently, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived their right to participate in the proceedings.

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, directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant requested that his physician be permitted to testify by teleconference at the hearing, citing travel distance and the financial impact of missing a day of practice.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that the physician's evidence was central to the case and that in-person testimony was necessary to properly examine the witness on extensive medical documentation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that given the extensive and key nature of the proposed evidence and the need to review detailed medical documents, it would be impractical and inappropriate to conduct the examination by teleconference.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested dismissal or deferral, arguing the matter fell within exclusive federal jurisdiction and noting the applicant had also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the CHRC's determination on jurisdiction to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

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

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

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.