Brian Eyolfson

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against his former employer, which was in receivership, and three individual respondents.

Due to a court-ordered stay of proceedings against the corporate respondent, the applicant requested to remove the corporation and proceed only against the individuals.

The Tribunal held that the stay did not apply to the individual respondents, as the applicant alleged personal liability for harassment and discrimination.

The Tribunal permitted the application to continue against the individuals but refused to remove the corporate respondent, noting that doing so might prejudice the individuals if they later sought to lift the stay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services and requested expedited proceedings, claiming the respondents planned to destroy a videotape of the incident.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding the applicant's allegations of evidence destruction to be speculative.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had already referenced the video in their own reports and that destruction of relevant records after receiving notice could result in a negative inference at a hearing.

The applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, along with a Request to Expedite.

She alleged the respondents refused to remove slippery wax from her floor, the accessible door only worked during office hours, and the bathroom lacked a grab bar.

The respondents denied the floors were waxed, noted security staff could assist with doors, and offered to let her break her lease without penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed the Request to Expedite, finding the applicant did not demonstrate truly urgent circumstances justifying priority over other matters.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of family status after her housing cooperative revoked her subsidy.

She subsequently filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, citing threats of eviction.

Although the respondents consented to expediting the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold of true urgency since formal eviction proceedings had not yet commenced.

The Tribunal directed the matter to mediation as agreed by the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application, but the respondent failed to file a Response.

The Tribunal previously issued an Interim Decision warning the respondent that the matter could proceed without them.

Counsel for the respondent subsequently sent correspondence indicating a misunderstanding, believing the matter related to an Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal granted the respondent an additional 10 days to file a Response before proceeding without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application against an organizational respondent and three individual respondents.

The organizational respondent was in receivership, and the Receiver argued the proceedings were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal previously noted it was unclear if the individual respondents received notice of the application.

The applicant requested the Tribunal direct the organizational respondent to disclose the addresses of the individual respondents.

The Tribunal directed the Receiver to advise if it would accept service for the individual respondents or to provide their current or most recent addresses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against an organizational respondent and nine individuals.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application against five of the individual respondents because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination by them.

The applicant consented to dismissing the application against two individuals but provided further details regarding the other three.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the two individuals on consent and allowed it to proceed against the remaining respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, initially requesting deferral pending the outcome of a union grievance.

After an arbitration hearing, the applicant requested the Tribunal proceed with his application.

The respondents argued for deferral, noting several outstanding grievances related to the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's union to provide submissions on the status of the grievances before deciding whether to defer the application.

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.

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

The respondent consented to the request.

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 consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against Holt Renfrew & Co. Limited 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 respondents 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 requested leave to withdraw her human rights Application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the Application was withdrawn.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation by the owner of the respondent catering company.

The respondents failed to participate in the proceedings and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the owner's inappropriate sexual comments and repeated invitations to join him in the shower constituted sexual harassment and solicitation in violation of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $2,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied claims for lost wages and an apology.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and requested that the matter be expedited.

The applicant cited financial pressures from a lack of income and health benefits, as well as potential medical and emotional harm.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that financial and emotional harm do not generally constitute urgent circumstances that warrant giving an 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 warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.