Brian Eyolfson

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

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

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the respondent that failure to participate may lead to orders against them without their participation, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

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

The Notice of Application sent to the respondent was returned due to an incomplete address.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a complete and accurate address for the respondent within 20 days, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond or provide the requested information.

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

The complainant, a software sales representative, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex in employment and reprisal after she discovered male colleagues were paid significantly more than her.

When she raised concerns about equal pay, the company's controller warned her that she would be fired 'on the spot' if head office found out she was talking about the law requiring equal pay.

The Tribunal found this constituted a threat of reprisal and created a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal also found the employer failed to adequately investigate her complaints of discrimination.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of discriminatory compensation, finding the pay differences were justified by the male colleagues' greater experience in enterprise sales, higher quotas, and tenure.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim that her termination was discriminatory or a reprisal, accepting the employer's explanation that she was terminated during a restructuring because she refused to relocate to Ottawa, where the majority of her accounts were located.

The complainant was awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence within the specified timeframe.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal's correspondence, including the Notice of Application and the respondents' Response, was repeatedly returned as the applicant had moved.

Despite speaking with Tribunal staff and promising to provide updated contact information, the applicant failed to do so.

Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it without further notice.

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

The Tribunal attempted to schedule mediation, but the applicant failed to respond to requests for dates.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant also indicated a desire to withdraw but failed to file a written request.

Due to the applicant's failure to respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age, claiming the employer failed to accommodate his medical condition following a heart attack.

The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, asserting that performing his duties would endanger his life.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided no medical or other information to demonstrate that the circumstances were truly urgent or that his health would be compromised if the regular process were followed.

The applicant advised the Tribunal and the respondent of his intent to withdraw his human rights application.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application.

The corporate respondent made no submissions and the individual respondent consented.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and requested that the Tribunal expedite the application due to impacts on her mental and physical health and her family's wellbeing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide details demonstrating truly urgent circumstances that would prevent a fair and just resolution if the regular process were followed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his need to have his coffee heated for thirty seconds to kill harmful bacteria.

The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite the application, arguing that his life had become paralyzed and he was experiencing humiliation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances that would warrant giving the application priority over other matters.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing 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 and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without further notice, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted a 10-day extension to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The organizational respondent requested an order to remove the individual respondent as a party to the human rights application, arguing she was no longer employed by the organization.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, finding that the individual respondent's conduct was a central issue and a remedy against her might be appropriate if an infringement was found.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment during a single day of employment.

The applicant also filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act regarding the same employment, which was currently being appealed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the Employment Standards Act proceedings to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against the respondent pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.