Brian Eyolfson

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the required deadline.

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

The applicant, a school bus driver employed by the respondent First Nation, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination.

The respondent requested deferral pending related federal proceedings, and the Tribunal raised the issue of whether the matter fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting the federal proceedings were on hold or conditional.

Applying the functional test, the Tribunal found that the respondent's provision of school bus services to provincial high schools was a provincial undertaking, not integral to any federal undertaking, and therefore fell under provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a request to re-activate his deferred human rights application more than 14 months past the 60-day time limit following the conclusion of his related Court of Appeal proceeding.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address the delay.

Finding that the applicant failed to provide a good reason for the significant delay and that the respondents could suffer prejudice, the Tribunal declined to extend the time limit and dismissed the request to re-activate, thereby dismissing the application.

The applicant, a Recruitment Specialist, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and pregnancy, and reprisal, after she was denied a significant salary increase and her employment was terminated shortly after she requested maternity leave.

The respondents maintained that the termination was due to a global budget reduction and restructuring, and that the applicant was selected for position elimination due to a decreased need for recruiters in her specific area and negative client feedback.

The Tribunal found that while the timing of the termination raised an inference of discrimination, the respondents successfully established a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for both the termination and the denial of the salary increase.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of a small claims court proceeding.

The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to confirm the status of the other proceeding.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent doctor sexually harassed her by unnecessarily exposing her breast during a physical examination for chronic pain.

The respondent doctor testified that examining the pectoralis muscles was medically necessary to assess her condition.

An expert witness in pain management supported the respondent's methodology as meeting the standard of practice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish discrimination or harassment on the basis of sex, accepting the medical necessity of the examination.

Application dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a Reply to the respondent's Response.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of documents after the applicant failed to provide them.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond and comply with document disclosure rules, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

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

A hearing was scheduled for March 27, 2015.

Neither party attended the hearing nor communicated with the Tribunal to explain their absence.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the required deadlines despite receiving it by mail and email.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID and subsequent communications from the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal later notified the applicant that the respondent was engaged in bankruptcy proceedings and directed the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The applicant, who has a mobility impairment, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her former employer.

She claimed the employer failed to accommodate her needs by providing insufficient taxi chits and denying remote computer access, and that the manner of her termination was discriminatory.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to communicate a disability-related need for additional taxi chits or remote computer access, and that the employer had reasonably responded to her requests.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the termination process disadvantaged the applicant on the basis of her disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending union grievance proceedings.

After withdrawing her grievance, the applicant indicated a desire to proceed but failed to file the required Request for an Order During Proceedings.

Despite multiple communications and warnings from the Tribunal, the applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal over several years regarding the status of the grievance, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had 11 active union grievances dealing with substantially the same facts and human rights issues, including sick leave, accommodation of doctor's notes, and workplace harassment.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant had failed to respond to a Tribunal direction because he was awaiting the outcome of a union grievance and settlement discussions regarding a transfer to a new department.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant made a personal choice to abandon the application and failed to establish any new facts or other criteria under Rule 26.5 that would justify reconsidering the dismissal.

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

The night before the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment, citing a financial inability to travel from British Columbia to Ontario.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant had ample notice of the hearing date and failed to make the request in a timely manner.

As the applicant did not attend to present her case, the application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found discrimination but denied compensation for lost income and an apology.

The applicant submitted new documents regarding his job search efforts to support his claim for lost wages.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to repair deficiencies in his case and that the new evidence could reasonably have been obtained earlier.

The request for an apology was also denied as the applicant failed to establish criteria for reconsideration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The application was originally dismissed because the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

In his reconsideration request, the applicant claimed he did not receive an earlier Notice of Incomplete Application, but provided no explanation for failing to respond to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, as all correspondence was sent to the address provided and none was returned as undeliverable.

The request for reconsideration was denied.