Brian Eyolfson

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and requested that the matter be expedited.

She cited impending financial hardship due to loss of income and benefits, as well as concerns about the preservation of evidence given a respondent's upcoming retirement.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that financial consequences and standard evidentiary concerns do not meet the high threshold of urgency required to prioritize the application over others.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a grievance alleging the same acts of discrimination.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance.

Applying its normal approach to defer to concurrent grievance proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant requested leave to conditionally withdraw her human rights application, with the option to reactivate it until October 15, 2010.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal adjourned the application until October 10, 2010, allowing the applicant to reactivate it before that date, failing which the application would be deemed unconditionally withdrawn.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, age, and record of offences against her former employer, her union, the College of Nurses of Ontario, and numerous individuals.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the applications because the facts were part of an ongoing grievance proceeding and an incapacity proceeding before the College.

Finding considerable overlap of facts and issues, and noting that the arbitrator has the authority to deal with the human rights issues raised in the grievance, the Tribunal deferred both applications pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and requested that the application be expedited due to financial pressures and risk of bankruptcy.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that financial harm does not constitute an urgent circumstance warranting priority over other matters, and noting the applicant's unexplained five-and-a-half-month delay in filing the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant had notice of the hearing.

Due to the applicant's non-attendance, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging race discrimination in employment, along with a Request to Expedite the proceedings.

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of an ongoing grievance arbitration based on the same facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the Request to Expedite, finding no urgent circumstances.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that the grievance arbitrator has the authority to deal with the human rights issues and the union intends to vigorously advance the applicant's claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving the respondent a final 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant, through her next friend, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in education services and requested that the proceedings be expedited because she had been unable to attend school.

The respondent agreed to expedite but requested conditions, including an extension of time to file its Response until it received written permission to use the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR).

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding the circumstances were not meaningfully different from other education disputes and the issues were complex.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written permission for the OSR and granted the respondent an extension of time to file its Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, various individuals, and the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the police respondents were barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because they duplicated a previous complaint filed with the Commission.

The allegations against Chris Bentley were dismissed for failing to disclose any discriminatory conduct.

Finally, the allegations against the Tribunal and its adjudicators were dismissed because adjudicative decisions do not constitute a 'service' under the Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.

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 of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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 respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, along with a request to expedite proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell under federal jurisdiction and allowed the application to proceed.

However, 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 under section 34 of 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 under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age, and included a copy of a signed release.

The respondent filed a Request for Early Dismissal on the basis of the release.

The applicant submitted that the release was signed under extreme personal duress and requested to make oral submissions.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed due to the signed release.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a grievance alleging the same acts of discrimination.

The applicant did not file a reply to the request.

The Tribunal noted that it generally defers applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's union to make written submissions on whether the application should be deferred before making a final determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and named her employer's counsel and the grievance arbitrator as individual respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding these individuals.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over opposing counsel, as a lawyer representing an adverse party in an arbitration is not providing a service to the applicant.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction over the arbitrator, as adjudicative decisions are not considered services under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed against the lawyer and the arbitrator, but proceeded against the remaining respondents.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had initiated three concurrent grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievances were proceeding to arbitration and that the arbitrator had the authority to deal with the human rights issues.

Applying its normal approach to concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's unopposed request to remove two individual respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, having previously withdrawn a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on the same facts.

The respondent requested early dismissal under s. 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the application was barred and could not be converted to a transitional application.

The Tribunal found that the material raised a jurisdictional issue and directed an oral hearing to determine whether the application was barred by s. 53(8) and whether the complaint was continued within the meaning of s. 53.

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 orders being made without their participation.

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