Brian Eyolfson

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

The applicant claimed he was waiting for the Tribunal to call him.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the Notice of Hearing clearly instructed the applicant to dial into the conference call and that the applicant failed to establish he did not receive notice of the hearing through no fault of his own.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

After the applicant failed to attend the rescheduled conference call hearing, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The parties subsequently signed a settlement agreement resolving the applicant's grievance and human rights application.

The applicant later sought to proceed with her application, alleging she signed the settlement under duress from her union, family, and the employer.

The employer filed a contravention of settlement application, seeking damages for the applicant's failure to withdraw her application and for disclosing the settlement terms.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress and dismissed the human rights application as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also dismissed the employer's contravention application, finding that while a technical breach may have occurred, no further order or damages were appropriate.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction warning of potential abandonment, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, which was deferred pending the completion of a union grievance process.

The union withdrew the grievance, but the applicant waited over seven months to request re-activation of his Tribunal application, well beyond the 60-day limit in the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal found the delay unreasonable and dismissed the request to re-activate, thereby dismissing the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondents failed to accommodate his absence and terminated his employment.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested an order to exclude the respondents' proposed evidence relating to his criminal charges and police custody, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the proposed evidence of police officers regarding the applicant's whereabouts and ability to communicate appeared relevant to the issues in dispute, and that the admissibility of documentary evidence would be best determined during the hearing.

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

After initially indicating illness and a desire to reschedule mediation, the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications and directions from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

As the applicant did not respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond within the specified timeframe.

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 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 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, 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 a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing proceedings before the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

After the OCCPS proceedings concluded, the Tribunal repeatedly requested that the applicant file a Form 10 to reactivate the application and warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's 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 Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

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 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 and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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 that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without its participation, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was given 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the City of Toronto.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and provided notice to the applicant via email and regular mail.

The applicant failed to attend the commencement of the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age in housing after being evicted when the respondent landlord changed his rental policy to 'students only'.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the matter was already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The LTB had previously dismissed the applicant's claim, finding the tenancy was exempt under the Residential Tenancies Act because the parties shared a kitchen and bathroom.

The Tribunal applied the doctrine of issue estoppel, finding the LTB had already determined the essential factual questions required to apply the shared accommodation exemption under section 21(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the name of the corporate respondent to 'William Paul McCague and Howard Brian Borlack c.o.b. for McCague Borlack LLP'.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

The application was dismissed after the applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring whether she intended to proceed.

The applicant argued she was confused about whether the mediation was cancelled and was out of the country.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to seek clarification, failed to provide updated contact information, and did not establish any new facts or conflict with established jurisprudence to justify reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging he was subjected to racial profiling when a police officer pulled him over and issued two traffic tickets.

The respondents requested an early dismissal, arguing the application was an abuse of process because the applicant had already been convicted of the traffic offences in the Ontario Court of Justice, which had also considered and rejected his racial profiling allegations.

The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in CUPE and dismissed the application, finding that allowing it to proceed would necessitate re-litigating facts and issues already determined by the Court, which constitutes an abuse of process.

The applicant, who lives with HIV and Hepatitis C, alleged that the respondent orthopaedic surgeon discriminated against her on the basis of disability during a consultation for knee replacement surgery.

She claimed the respondent failed to physically examine her, inappropriately questioned her about her HIV status, and told her she was too young for surgery and would end up in a wheelchair.

The Tribunal found that the respondent likely did conduct a physical examination, that his questions about her HIV status were medically relevant to assessing surgical risks, and that his decision not to recommend surgery was based on her mild arthritis rather than her disability.

The application was dismissed.