Brian Eyolfson

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 time.

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

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

The Tribunal held the matter in abeyance while the Estate prepared an Application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the Estate to provide an update on the status of the appointment process, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

After the Estate failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of an Employment Standards claim.

The Tribunal subsequently requested a status update on the Employment Standards claim and warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by considering irrelevant prejudicial evidence regarding his criminal charges and failing to recognize the employer's duty to inquire about his medical situation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, as he was merely attempting to re-argue his case and failed to show the decision was based on irrelevant considerations or conflicted with established case law.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, alleging the respondent failed to comply with a previous Tribunal decision ordering monetary compensation.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to clarify whether a settlement had been breached.

The applicant confirmed she was pursuing the matter in Small Claims Court but did not clarify the existence of a settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction as there was no settlement agreement, and the enforcement of a Tribunal decision must be pursued through the courts.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a Reply or Form 10.

Despite being granted an extension of time, the applicant failed to provide submissions or communicate further with the Tribunal.

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 issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the notice despite being contacted by mail and email.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal, including a letter sent by regular mail and an email warning that the application could be deemed abandoned.

Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, 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) 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 required time.

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 previously deferred the Application pending the completion of grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested status updates from the applicant regarding the grievance process, warning that failure to respond could result in the Application being dismissed as abandoned.

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 previously confirmed that the application was stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to seek to have the stay lifted.

The applicant failed to respond within the directed timeframe.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

She argued that she did not have a fair hearing because her cognitive functionality was impaired due to fatigue on the second day of the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had actively participated in the hearing, did not request an adjournment for medical reasons, and failed to establish any new evidence or factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and disability after she was not returned to her previous position following a maternity leave and was subsequently terminated.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had been appropriately dealt with by a prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the ESA proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the sex discrimination allegation, as the Employment Standards Officer had already determined the applicant was offered reinstatement to her previous position and was not constructively dismissed.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the disability discrimination allegation, as the issue of whether the applicant had a disability-related need to be absent from work was not before the Employment Standards Officer.

The applicants, a same-sex couple where one partner is a trans woman, alleged discrimination in housing by the respondent landlord.

The respondent initially offered them a main floor unit but withdrew the offer after meeting the trans applicant and seeing her identification.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's refusal to rent the main floor unit was discriminatory based on gender identity and association.

Additionally, the Tribunal found that the respondent's comments regarding the comfort of other tenants with a same-sex couple constituted harassment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay each applicant $2,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange documents and witness statements prior to the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

As the applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by conference call to hear submissions on how to proceed.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had proper notice and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and sexual harassment in employment by the respondent municipality and several individual respondents.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application on the basis of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the serious allegations of sexual harassment from 2010 did not form a series of incidents with later allegations of workplace differences, and were therefore out of time.

The Tribunal also found no good faith explanation for the delay.

Most of the remaining allegations were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to establish a link between the workplace conflicts and her gender.

However, a few specific allegations against two individual respondents were allowed to proceed, and those individuals remained as parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

While awaiting a decision on a preliminary issue of delay, the applicant commenced a Small Claims Court action seeking damages for the same alleged Code infringements to preserve her limitation period.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code is mandatory and prohibits an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement has been commenced.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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 required time.

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 deferred the Application pending completion of appeals before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal subsequently requested updates from the applicant regarding the status of the appeals, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

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

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