Brian Eyolfson

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding they violated the complainant's right to be free from discrimination.

The initial request was filed on the wrong form, and the corrected form was filed almost eight months later.

The Tribunal considered the request despite the delay but found that the respondents failed to meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 102, as they provided no new evidence, did not show a conflict with established jurisprudence, and merely sought to re-argue the case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by police, a hospital, and his ex-partner's father following a domestic disturbance.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing fears that his ex-partner might attempt suicide, and a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry to obtain police photographs of his injuries.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding no evidence that a rapid process would alleviate the suicide risk.

The Tribunal also denied the request for an inquiry as premature.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the ex-partner's father, as the Code does not generally regulate private family relationships.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the Bank of Nova Scotia and an individual respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondents appeared to fall under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant did not provide submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that banks fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore the provincial Human Rights Code does not apply.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, marital status, and reprisal.

She brought a request to expedite the application, citing concerns that the respondents might delete or modify evidence she previously had access to during her employment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's concerns about the potential loss of evidence were general and speculative, and did not meet the high threshold of urgency required to expedite an application.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents' disclosure obligations and the potential for negative inferences if evidence is destroyed address the applicant's concerns.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for lack of jurisdiction and as a duplicate proceeding under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged ongoing hate crimes, collusion, and a conflict of interest by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely restated previous arguments and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, such as new evidence or a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their 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.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The Tribunal granted the respondent 10 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application.

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.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The proceeding was previously stayed due to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act protecting the respondent.

The applicant notified the Tribunal that the respondent had emerged from bankruptcy protection and requested that his application be made active.

The Tribunal found that the stay was no longer in effect and directed the respondent to file a Response within 35 days.

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.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her 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.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities because of receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the Code does not prohibit discrimination on this basis in that social area.

After the applicant failed to provide submissions in response to the Notice within the extended deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a previous interim decision ordering it to do so.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived its right to participate in the proceedings, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, Bell Distribution Inc. The respondent, now amalgamated into Bell Mobility Inc., brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it is a federally-regulated telecommunications business.

The Tribunal found it could not determine the jurisdictional issue on the written materials alone and directed the respondent to file a full Response to the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal received information indicating the applicant may have been charged with criminal harassment in relation to the events set out in the application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision on its own initiative, directing the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application after the parties resolved their dispute.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application 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.

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

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.