Brian Eyolfson

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The applicant's union had also filed two grievances on her behalf concerning the employer's failure to accommodate and her termination, which were referred to arbitration.

The union and the respondent both requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the grievances.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievances, and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The respondent, Hilton Toronto, filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to be added as a respondent and to remove its General Manager, Edwin Frizzell, as a respondent, assuming liability for any proven actions of its employees.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, amended the style of cause, and directed Hilton Toronto to file a Response to the Application within 35 days.

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

The respondent transportation company requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally regulated business outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Based on submissions confirming that the respondent engages in freight deliveries extending beyond Ontario into Quebec and the United States, the Tribunal found that the respondent is a federally regulated undertaking pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The respondent filed a response including a request for early dismissal, arguing the substance had been dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant failed to file a reply or respond to the Tribunal's directions regarding the request to dismiss.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after his gym membership was terminated.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether to defer the application because the applicant was facing criminal harassment charges involving the respondent's contact person.

Finding that the facts in the criminal proceeding overlapped with the allegations in the application, and noting potential contact restrictions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings to avoid inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent corporation.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The applicant subsequently provided a new address for the respondent and requested to amend the application to add the respondent's contact person as an individual respondent.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving the respondent 14 days to file a Response and explain its delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The proposed individual respondent was also given 14 days to respond to the request to add him as a party.

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.

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 a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the respondents' food bank services and a requirement to sign a waiver.

The applicant brought several preliminary requests, including requests to expedite the proceedings, for an interim remedy to halt the waiver requirement, for a Tribunal ordered inquiry, and for early document production.

The Tribunal denied all requests, finding no urgent circumstances to expedite, a lack of evidentiary foundation for an interim remedy, and that the requests for an inquiry and document production were premature.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate two human rights applications that had been previously deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance proceeding.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that the grievance proceeding had not yet concluded and no material facts had changed.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, finding no circumstances to justify departing from its normal approach to deferral while the grievance proceeding remained ongoing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on record of offences, claiming he was terminated because the respondents wrongly believed he had a criminal record due to a peace bond.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the matter was already dealt with in a previous transition application, that a peace bond is not a 'record of offences' under the Code, and that the application was filed outside the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal directed a one-day preliminary hearing to address these jurisdictional and procedural issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The Tribunal previously ruled that the application could not proceed without leave of the Superior Court of Justice due to a stay of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal if she obtained leave.

Having failed to do so or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The union requested to intervene, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that a settlement had been reached resolving an outstanding grievance.

The applicant claimed she signed the settlement under distress.

The Tribunal directed that a half-day hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed based on the settlement or because another proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The York University Faculty Association (YUFA) requested to intervene because the applicant sought the termination of a respondent who was a YUFA member.

The Tribunal granted YUFA intervenor status to make submissions regarding the collective agreement and remedial issues.

The respondents also requested orders compelling the applicant to comply with disclosure rules.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to immediately deliver any arguably relevant documents and comply with the witness and document disclosure requirements under Rules 16 and 17, warning that failure to do so could result in the exclusion of evidence.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment against a corporate respondent and two individuals.

The Tribunal received notice that the corporate respondent was dissolved under bankruptcy and a court order stayed all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intends to pursue the applications, seek leave to lift the stay, and provide alternate addresses for service for the individual respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

She also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing financial hardship and health issues.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that purely financial losses and ongoing health implications do not meet the high threshold for urgency required to expedite an application.

Furthermore, the applicant delayed filing her application for at least eight months after the last alleged event without sufficient explanation.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal, along with a Request to Expedite the Application due to financial hardship and emotional stress.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding that purely financial losses and ongoing health concerns do not meet the high threshold for urgency required to bypass the regular process.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the applicant delayed in filing the Application without sufficient explanation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

She also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing extreme financial hardship, potential loss of her house, and health concerns.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that purely financial losses and ongoing health implications are common in employment discrimination applications and do not meet the high threshold of truly urgent circumstances required to expedite the process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally-regulated transport company and therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had not provided sufficient information or documentation to establish that it is engaged in interprovincial transportation works and undertakings.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to provide further submissions on the jurisdiction issue.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the application on the basis that the organizational respondent is an interprovincial transportation company and therefore falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant did not respond to the Request.

The Tribunal found that the organizational respondent is engaged in transportation extending beyond Ontario and is federally regulated pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an Application alleging Contravention of Settlement.

After the Tribunal stated it would take no further steps for up to one year unless contacted, the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide her intentions, but she did not respond.

Consequently, the applicant was deemed to have withdrawn her Application, and it was dismissed.