Brian Eyolfson

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Khalid v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 996

Brian Eyolfson

Leave to withdraw human rights application granted.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Leclerc v. Community Living Huntsville, 2010 HRTO 1001

Brian Eyolfson

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal on consent.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Mitchell v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2010 HRTO 999

Brian Eyolfson

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Franks v. Financial Services Commission of Ontario, 2010 HRTO 998

Brian Eyolfson

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Tisdale v. Ontario Clean Water Agency, 2010 HRTO 997

Brian Eyolfson

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Cohen v. BD Canada Ltd. cobs Bread, 2010 HRTO 995

Brian Eyolfson

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Varanelli v. JYSK Canada, 2010 HRTO 993

Brian Eyolfson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 3, 2010

Human rights application withdrawn after applicant expressed desire to abandon the proceeding.

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

After indicating a desire to withdraw the application in correspondence, the applicant was instructed to file a formal Request to Withdraw.

The applicant responded with a letter expressing a desire to have no further involvement with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Wayland v. Bell, 2010 HRTO 964

Brian Eyolfson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 29, 2010

Tribunal directed further submissions on whether respondent transportation company falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the application, arguing that the organizational respondent is a transportation company governed by federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondents provided insufficient information to determine whether the company operates interprovincially.

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

Debrah Digby v. Trans-Provincial Freight Carriers Ltd. and Andy Spruce, 2010 HRTO 944

Brian Eyolfson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 29, 2010

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions within the required time.

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

Olga Scinocco v. Debbie Robinson, 2010 HRTO 943

Brian Eyolfson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 29, 2010

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceedings.

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

The applicant requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of related union grievance proceedings.

The respondent agreed to the deferral request.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting its general practice of deferring to concurrent grievance proceedings that raise the same human rights issues.

Martin v. Toronto (City), 2010 HRTO 939

Brian Eyolfson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 27, 2010

Human rights application dismissed for failing to allege facts falling within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of reprisal and association.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not explain how the respondents' behaviour related to claiming a right under the Code or association with a person identified by a Code ground.

The applicant failed to provide submissions addressing the jurisdictional issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as it did not raise matters within its jurisdiction.

Adrian Lewis v. Shoppers Drug Mart and Gary Griffin, 2010 HRTO 919

Brian Eyolfson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 23, 2010

Respondent ordered to file a Response within 7 days or face consequences under Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of a minor.

The Tribunal previously granted a request to expedite the application and scheduled a mediation.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the respondent to file a Response within 7 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.

Marquardt-Grainer v. Countrywide Action Realty, 2010 HRTO 885

Brian Eyolfson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 19, 2010

Request to expedite human rights application denied as remedies sought would not become moot upon release.

The applicant, who is incarcerated, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

She requested that the application be expedited because she would be released soon and feared further reprisal if the request was denied.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the remedies sought (monetary compensation, apology, posting Code cards) would not become moot after her release, and that the high threshold for urgency was not met.

Beckford v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 845

Brian Eyolfson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 19, 2010

Tribunal grants unopposed request to amend respondents and directs original respondent to file overdue Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on family status.

She subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the housing cooperative as a respondent and add four individual board members alongside the existing individual respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request as unopposed.

The Tribunal also noted the original individual respondent's failure to file a Response and directed her to do so within seven days, warning of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5.

Sutherland v. Campbell, 2010 HRTO 851

Brian Eyolfson

Application for contravention of settlement dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a signed agreement.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging a breach of minutes of settlement from 2002.

The respondent submitted that no signed agreement existed.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide a signed copy of the settlement agreement.

The applicant failed to do so.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code because there was no evidence of a settlement signed by the parties and approved by the Commission.

The application was dismissed.

Richard Banigan v. Canadian Air and Space Museum, 2010 HRTO 835

Brian Eyolfson

Request to expedite denied; financial hardship does not constitute urgent circumstances.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite her human rights application, citing financial stress from mortgage payments and her daughter's upcoming wedding.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that purely financial losses are common in employment discrimination applications and rarely constitute urgent circumstances requiring expedited processing.

The Tribunal also directed that the ground of 'record of offences' would be removed from the application unless the applicant provided submissions within ten days, as she had indicated she was not discriminated against because of a federal or provincial record of offences.

Rosita Pandya v. Radisson Plaza Mississauga, Nick Kocchar and Harpreet Sethi, 2010 HRTO 844

Brian Eyolfson

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.

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

The Tribunal requested available dates for a rescheduled hearing, but the applicant failed to provide them.

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

Tricia Trotter v. Aria Day Spa and Audrey Lowther, 2010 HRTO 837

Brian Eyolfson

Respondent given final 10 days to respond to contravention of settlement application.

The applicant filed an Application alleging Contravention of Settlement.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 14 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond and granting a final 10-day extension to file a Response before proceeding without further notice.

Pascal Adorgloh v. Sentrex Communications Inc., 2010 HRTO 836

Brian Eyolfson