Brian Eyolfson

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35 days, despite the Tribunal delivering the Application to both the original and an alternative address.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted them a final 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 respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set out in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation, 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 on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant failed to provide submissions on the jurisdictional issue within the required 30-day period.

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 because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period and failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was directed to provide submissions within 30 days but failed to do so.

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

The complainant requested a reconsideration of a final decision that partially upheld her human rights complaint but dismissed allegations of gender-based wage discrimination and discriminatory termination.

She argued the Tribunal denied natural justice by refusing certain document production, applied an insurmountable burden of proof, and misapprehended material facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the complainant was attempting to re-argue issues already decided and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 102.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to provide a harassment-free workplace.

The facts of the application were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant and union did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap in facts and human rights issues and the authority of grievance arbitrators to enforce human rights obligations.

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, directing the applicant to respond within thirty days.

The applicant failed to respond.

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

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

She had failed to attend the original hearing because she was found unconscious and hospitalized due to a serious medical condition.

The Tribunal found that, in these exceptional circumstances, the interest in ensuring access to justice outweighed the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The request for reconsideration was granted and a new hearing was ordered.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal, claiming the respondents breached a prior settlement agreement through submissions made by their representative to the WSIB.

The respondents requested early dismissal.

The Tribunal held that absolute privilege attached to the submissions made in the WSIB proceedings, preventing them from forming the basis of a Code violation.

As no other particulars were provided, the Tribunal found the application did not disclose a prima facie case and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning the respondent of the consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal ordered 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.

The applicant filed a request to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

The Tribunal sought submissions from the parties and the union regarding the status of the outstanding grievances.

Finding that the grievance process had not yet concluded, the Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, with leave to renew the request within 60 days if the grievance process concludes.

The applicant filed two Applications for Contravention of Settlement under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code against his employer and his union.

The respondents sought dismissal, arguing the applications failed to disclose a breach of settlement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the attached minutes appeared to relate to grievance settlements and did not specify which terms were breached.

The applicant subsequently provided signed Minutes of Settlement but did not specify the breached provisions.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call to hear submissions on whether the applications should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or failure to establish a prima facie case.

The applicants, a student and her mother, filed separate human rights applications against the respondent school board alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and reprisal.

The applicants requested to consolidate the two applications, noting the overlap in evidence.

The respondent consented to the consolidation and requested an adjournment of the upcoming hearing dates.

The Tribunal granted the requests, finding a strong public interest in consolidating the matters to avoid repetition of evidence and inconvenience to witnesses, and adjourned the hearing dates to allow the parties to prepare.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set out 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.

The respondent was given 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents filed a Request for Dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the organizational respondent is located on a First Nation and owned by a status Indian.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that under section 88 of the Indian Act, provincial laws of general application like the Human Rights Code apply to Indians unless specific exceptions are met, which the respondents did not establish.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period after the Notice of Application was issued.

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 to them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, seeking accommodation regarding his shift schedule.

The respondents requested deferral of the application pending the resolution of a concurrent union grievance based on the same facts.

The applicant opposed deferral and requested that the proceedings be expedited.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding no urgent circumstances, and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap between the proceedings and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to address human rights issues.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment against her employer, which was in receivership, and several individual respondents.

The court-appointed Receiver requested early dismissal, arguing the proceedings were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and a Superior Court Receivership Order.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the individual respondents primarily concerned their acts as agents or employees of the organizational respondent, and proceeding would violate the Receivership Order.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications could not proceed without leave of the Court or consent of the Receiver.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) and several universities.

He requested an interim remedy ordering LSAC not to communicate a misconduct hearing decision to any law schools pending the outcome of his application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had already provided the misconduct decision to the respondent law schools himself, making the requested remedy ineffective.

The Tribunal also found that an interim remedy was not necessary to further the remedial purposes of the Code, as a full and effective remedy could be ordered at the end of the hearing if discrimination is found.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not describe how the respondents' behaviour related to a pardoned criminal conviction or a provincial offence.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as it did not allege facts falling within the Code's definition of record of offences.