Brian Eyolfson

The complainant, a law clerk, alleged that the personal respondent, a lawyer and her employer, subjected her to sexual harassment, inappropriate touching, and reprisal.

The Tribunal found the complainant's evidence credible and concluded that the personal respondent engaged in a course of vexatious conduct, including inappropriate comments and touching, constituting sexual harassment and solicitation.

The Tribunal also found that the personal respondent committed a reprisal by reducing the complainant's hours to 'on call' after she rejected his advances, effectively terminating her employment.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $1,536 for lost wages, and the personal respondent was ordered to develop an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy.

The applicant filed an application alleging a contravention of minutes of settlement from 2002.

The respondent submitted that the applicant had not provided a signed agreement and that neither it nor the Commission had a copy of one.

The Tribunal noted that its jurisdiction to enforce a settlement under the Code requires the agreement to be in writing, signed by the parties, and approved by the Commission.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a signed settlement agreement within 21 days, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the completion of a grievance process.

The respondents requested that the deadline for delivering their Response be suspended until the application is formally reinstated, which the Tribunal granted.

The applicant's request to re-activate the application was denied because the grievance process was still ongoing.

The Tribunal also provided directions regarding the applicant's intention to amend his application to add a ground of reprisal.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application did not allege how the respondents' behaviour related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions explaining the jurisdictional basis of her claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into general claims of unfairness outside the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against her former employer and three individuals.

The organizational respondent was in receivership and bankruptcy.

The court-appointed Receiver and Trustee submitted that the proceedings were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and a Receivership Order.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether she intended to pursue the application and seek leave of the Superior Court of Justice to lift the stay, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate respondent and two individual respondents.

Proceedings against the corporate respondent were stayed due to its filing of a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

One individual respondent filed a response, while the other failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding individual of the consequences of failing to respond and granting a 7-day extension.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the bankruptcy stay against the corporate respondent extends to the individual respondents.

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

The respondent failed to file a response and subsequently advised the Tribunal that it was subject to a Recognition Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal found that the CCAA Order had the effect of staying the human rights proceeding.

The Tribunal directed that the matter be placed in abeyance for up to one year, with instructions for the parties to advise the Tribunal if the stay expires or if leave to continue is obtained from the Court.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against a corporate respondent and several individual respondents.

The corporate respondent was insolvent and under a court-enforced receivership, resulting in a stay of proceedings against it.

The applicant requested to discontinue the proceedings against the corporate respondent and continue against the individual respondents.

The Tribunal directed the individual respondents to file responses to the applicant's request before making a determination.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual harassment, and reprisal in employment.

She subsequently filed a Request for Order to add her supervisor, Mau Lao, as an individual respondent.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test from Smyth v. Toronto Police Services and the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board.

Finding that the allegations could support a Code violation, that the organizational respondents denied responsibility for the supervisor's conduct, and that there was no apparent prejudice, the Tribunal granted the request to add the individual respondent.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it challenged adjudicative decisions regarding workers' compensation benefits.

The applicant requested to amend his application to clarify that the respondent's refusal to directly deposit his benefit cheques constituted a denial of a service and a failure to accommodate his disability.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to dismiss, finding that while some allegations may fall outside its jurisdiction, the direct deposit issue related to a 'service' under the Code.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application.

The respondents requested the Tribunal dismiss the complaint on the basis that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal.

The complainant alleged he was permanently screened out of the police constable hiring process after writing a letter to the Chief of Police complaining about discrimination based on his race and gender.

The Tribunal found there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of reprisal, noting the threshold at this stage is low and the evidence must only show a reasonable basis on which a conclusion in the complainant's favour could be reached.

The request to dismiss was denied.

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

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance on her behalf based on substantially the same facts and issues, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its normal approach is to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where the other decision-maker has the authority to deal with the human rights issues raised.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory dismissal and requested that the matter be expedited due to financial hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that financial hardship does not generally constitute an urgent circumstance requiring priority over other matters under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance based on the same facts and seeking the same remedies, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that the arbitrator has the authority to deal with the human rights issues raised.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of record of offences.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide written submissions on jurisdiction, as the applicant indicated he did not believe he was discriminated against because of a conviction for a federal or provincial offence.

The applicant failed to provide submissions.

The Tribunal found that the application did not raise matters within its jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code and dismissed the application.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging workplace discrimination be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance proceeding based on substantially the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its normal approach is to defer to concurrent grievance proceedings where an arbitrator has the authority to deal with the human rights issues raised.

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

The respondents and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred because a concurrent grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race against his former partner, a judge, and the Ontario Court of Justice regarding family law proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that personal relationships are not covered by the Code, and that judicial decisions and comments made during court proceedings do not constitute a 'service' within the meaning of the Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance proceeding based on substantially the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its normal approach is to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where an arbitrator has the authority to deal with human rights issues.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to withdraw from the proceeding without conditions.

As there were no responses from the other parties and no apparent transitional issues, the Tribunal granted the request, allowing the Commission to withdraw without conditions while continuing to receive notice of the proceedings.