Brian Eyolfson

The applicant filed an Application alleging Contravention of Settlement.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 14-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving the respondents 10 days to file a Response and an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because a concurrent grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues was proceeding through the grievance/arbitration process.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral to the concurrent proceeding favours the orderly administration of justice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation or advances in employment.

Both the applicant and 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 and deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues and that deferral is the normal approach in such circumstances.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding, and one respondent requested early dismissal.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal because the grievance process had not concluded.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

She subsequently filed a Request to Expedite the application, citing a desire for quick resolution and ongoing emotional stress.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's circumstances did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to bypass the regular process.

The applicant requested to withdraw his human rights application against one of the two named respondents, the union.

The corporate respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application against the union was withdrawn.

The respondents requested an order to consolidate or hear together two human rights applications challenging the prohibition on smoking medical marihuana in licensed premises.

The respondents proposed hearing both matters in Ottawa and offered to pay travel expenses for the Toronto-based applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the Ottawa complainant's inability to travel and the Toronto applicant's childcare responsibilities, which made a joint hearing in either location impractical.

The Tribunal indicated a willingness to consider other ways to manage the evidence efficiently.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment and requested to expedite the proceedings, citing the risk that his current position might be filled by another person.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the potential filling of the position did not constitute a truly urgent circumstance requiring priority over other matters.

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 filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by her employer and requested that the application be expedited due to the risk of relapse upon returning to work without accommodation.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the alleged harm did not meet the high threshold of urgency required to prioritize the application over other matters.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal but objected to it being on a without prejudice basis.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, 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 a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto and an individual respondent regarding proceedings related to the applicant's child.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the Child and Family Services Review Board, finding that adjudicative decisions are not services under the Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the remaining allegations disclose a prima facie case of discrimination and whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code because the substance was dealt with in other proceedings.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the subject-matter was the same as a prior complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The applicant submitted the prior complaint was withdrawn before being served and thus not formally filed.

After receiving statements of facts and submissions, the Tribunal ordered an oral hearing to determine the preliminary issue of whether the application is barred by section 53(8).

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

Despite receiving notice of the application and a subsequent interim decision directing them to file a response, the respondents failed to do so.

The Tribunal found that the respondents received notice and chose not to participate.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules, the Tribunal deemed the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived their right to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant Selwyn Pieters requested an adjournment of the June 8, 2009 hearing date.

The co-applicant consented, but the respondents opposed.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment because no Confirmation of Hearing had been issued for Pieters' application, and a recent Notice of Joint Mediation indicated that hearing dates would be set if mediation was unsuccessful.

The corporate respondent requested an order requiring the Peel Regional Police to produce original digital versions of photographs showing the complainant's alleged injuries.

The complainant opposed the request, arguing the copies already provided were adequate.

The Tribunal found the digital photographs were arguably relevant to the dispute over whether the complainant's wounds were caused by biting during the alleged assault.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the digital photographs at the corporate respondent's expense.

The Tribunal also granted the Ontario Human Rights Commission's request to withdraw from the proceeding without conditions.

The applicant filed an application alleging contravention of a settlement reached at the Ontario Human Rights Commission under the old Part IV of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under s. 45.9 because the settlement had not been approved by the Commission.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's transitional application under s. 53(3), finding that the voluntary settlement and release signed by the parties meant the complaint was no longer 'continued' within the meaning of the transition provisions.