Brian Eyolfson

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 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 along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could result in the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to respond to communications from the respondent and the Tribunal regarding the scheduling of mediation.

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

As the applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's directions, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of 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 respond under Rule 5.5 and granting the respondent 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the Application on the basis that it is federally-regulated and falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that it was currently addressing the same jurisdictional issue regarding the respondent in another matter, Swift v. Bell Technical Solutions Inc., where a hearing had already been held.

Pursuant to section 9.1(d) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal ordered that the present Application be held in abeyance pending the release of the jurisdictional decision in Swift.

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 within 30 days but failed to do so.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal sent multiple communications directing the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

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

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

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation session, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant directing her to advise of her intentions and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

Counsel for the applicant subsequently advised the Tribunal that the applicant intended to withdraw the application.

Despite multiple inquiries from the Tribunal over several months requesting confirmation of the withdrawal or instructions to proceed, neither the applicant nor his counsel responded.

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

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 grievance proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which the Tribunal deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming her employment was terminated after she advised her manager she was pregnant.

She also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings due to a history of miscarriages, stress, and severe financial hardship resulting from the termination.

The respondent agreed to work towards expediting the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant's health issues and financial difficulties constituted urgent circumstances that could affect the fair and just resolution of the application.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the directed deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents 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 respondents 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.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so within the specified time.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to defer her human rights application due to health reasons, supported by a physician's note.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application held in abeyance for six months, noting that it could not be held in abeyance indefinitely.

The applicant filed an application under section 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.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified 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, 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 section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against two respondents.

One respondent filed a response, while the other, FreshCo, failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning FreshCo of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

FreshCo was granted 10 days to file a response and an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences after his employment was terminated.

The respondents brought a request for early dismissal, arguing that the applicant's peace bond did not constitute a 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that a peace bond does not result in a conviction for a provincial offence or a federal offence for which a pardon has been granted.

As the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of 'record of offences', the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.