Brian Eyolfson

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

She subsequently filed Requests to Expedite and for an Order During Proceedings to amend the monetary compensation sought.

The respondent did not respond to the requests.

The Tribunal granted the Request to Expedite, finding that the applicant's severe financial difficulties and deteriorating health constituted urgent circumstances.

The Tribunal also granted the unopposed request to amend the monetary compensation sought and abridged the timelines for disclosure.

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

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

After the Tribunal wrote to the applicant warning that her application may be deemed abandoned if she did not respond within ten days, she failed to reply.

Consequently, 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.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction warning that the application may be deemed abandoned, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

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

The Tribunal subsequently warned the applicant that failure to respond to its correspondence would 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 section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

After the Tribunal wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the grievance proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment, the applicant failed to reply.

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

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

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

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction warning that her application might be deemed abandoned, 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 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.

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 Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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, 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 s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal sent multiple letters requesting information and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the Tribunal's letters.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a Reply to the respondent's version of events, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file a Reply within the specified time.

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

The individual respondent, Alan Bowman, requested an order to defer the organizational respondent's Response to a human rights application pending an oppression remedy application in Superior Court, or alternatively, to bifurcate the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that no oppression remedy application had been brought and that the allegations against the organizational and individual respondents were the same, providing no reasonable basis for deferral or bifurcation.

The self-represented applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a university professor.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant filed a request to withdraw the application after learning the Tribunal would not contact witnesses on his behalf.

The respondents objected and requested the application be dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case and for abuse of process, citing the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure rules and Tribunal orders regarding an audiotape.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' requests, finding the allegations would establish a prima facie case if true, and that the self-represented applicant's procedural failures did not amount to an abuse of process warranting dismissal.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but later informed the Tribunal he did not wish to proceed.

After failing to file the required withdrawal forms or respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence warning of potential abandonment, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to the Tribunal's subsequent correspondence directing him to advise of his intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application, arguing that their business, located on a First Nation, was under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to a recently passed Band Council Resolution.

The Tribunal treated the request as a reconsideration of an earlier interim decision that had affirmed provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Band Council Resolution was passed after the alleged discrimination occurred and could not apply retrospectively.

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

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the status of the Family Court proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

The applicant filed human rights applications against the respondents.

In an earlier interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to seek leave of the Superior Court to lift a bankruptcy stay or reach an agreement with the Receiver, and to advise the Tribunal of her intentions.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions within the specified timeframes and did not contact the Tribunal for over four months.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.