Brian Eyolfson

The applicant, a parking supervisor, alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and age by his employer and co-workers.

He claimed a co-worker undermined him and that his termination was discriminatory.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application, arguing the matter was already dealt with in an Employment Standards Act proceeding, which the Tribunal denied.

On the merits, the respondents maintained the applicant was terminated for gross misconduct involving the unauthorized exchange of free parking passes for cafeteria beverages.

The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination or harassment and concluded the employer had a reasonable, non-discriminatory explanation for the termination.

The application was dismissed.

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, directing the applicant to respond.

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

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

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal issued a Registrar's Letter requesting the applicant to advise of her intention to proceed, warning that failure to respond would be deemed an abandonment.

The applicant did not respond by the deadline.

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 after two notices were sent by the Tribunal to different addresses.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so may 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 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 respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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

The respondent filed an incomplete Response and failed to correct it despite a Notice of Incomplete Response from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a complete Response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to the respondent pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her employment discrimination applications against York University and the University of Waterloo for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a complete response despite multiple directions from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a complete response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them and deem them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the name of the organizational respondent to properly identify it as '510947 Ontario Limited o/a Anchor Inn Hotel'.

As the organizational respondent was already participating and the request was made on consent, the Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause.

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

Following a decision in a similar matter, the Commission and the complainant advised the Tribunal that they did not intend to proceed further.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the complaint.

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

All respondents except Bart Furmanek filed a Response.

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

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

The applicant submitted that he did not receive the Tribunal's Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it was sent to his union, which did not forward it to him.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not receive the Notice through no fault of his own and did not intend to abandon his application.

The request for reconsideration was granted, the previous decision was set aside, and the applicant was given 21 days to respond to the issue of delay.

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

The application had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration, and the applicant's counsel inadvertently missed an email from the Tribunal requesting a status update.

The Tribunal found that the failure to respond was due to a confluence of inadvertence, the applicant did not intend to abandon the application, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The reconsideration request was granted, the dismissal was set aside, and the application was returned to deferred status.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 was directed to respond but failed to do so by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed human rights applications against York University and the University of Waterloo, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, and other grounds after she was not granted job interviews.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents submitted that the applicant was not interviewed because her application materials contained numerous spelling and grammatical errors and did not demonstrate she met the posted requirements.

The Tribunal found the applicant's allegations were merely speculative and dismissed the applications, concluding there was no reasonable prospect she could prove her Code rights were violated.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted them 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.

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, and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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.

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