Brian Eyolfson

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondent requested that the union be added as a respondent and argued the application should be dismissed for delay.

The union opposed being added as a party but requested to intervene.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to address the preliminary issues of delay, the addition of the union as a respondent, and the union's request to intervene.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of family status and age.

The Notice of Application mailed to the individual respondent was returned as undelivered.

Pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide a current or most recent address for the individual respondent to enable delivery of the application.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of original digital photographs from the police, clinical notes from the complainant's doctors, and an order preventing any future motion to remove its counsel for conflict of interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for photographs because the police were not served.

The request for medical records was deemed premature as the complainant was already complying.

The Tribunal also refused to restrict the rights of the Commission or complainant to bring future motions regarding counsel's potential conflict of interest.

The complainant, who alleged reprisal after being permanently screened out of the police constable hiring process, brought a motion for the production of numerous documents and records from the respondents.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' threshold for production in human rights proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the production of certain uniform officers' notebook records from 2003-2004, but denied the remaining requests, finding them either irrelevant, overly broad, speculative, or already publicly available.

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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 requested leave to withdraw his application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent agreed to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The application indicated that a civil action had already been commenced based on the same facts, claiming bad faith damages for the alleged Code violation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide submissions on whether the application is barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC).

The IPC had previously dismissed the applicant's complaint regarding the disclosure of personal information to her son.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that while some facts were relevant, the IPC decision did not address the allegations of discrimination set out in the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the area of goods, services, and facilities.

The applicant also filed a request to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances requiring resolution in a particularly rapid manner compared to the regular process.

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

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances requiring rapid resolution compared to the regular process.

The Tribunal considered whether an application filed under the new Part IV of the Human Rights Code and a complaint referred by the Ontario Human Rights Commission under the old Code should be heard together.

Both matters involved allegations of discrimination in services based on disability, specifically related to the smoking of medical marihuana.

After receiving written submissions where the applicant and the Commission opposed hearing the matters together, the Tribunal declined to order that the proceedings be joined.

The respondents requested to defer the hearing of the human rights application pending the completion of a grievance arbitration.

The applicant stated he was unable to respond as he did not know what grievance had been referred to arbitration.

The respondents subsequently provided copies of five grievances referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to deliver written submissions on the request for deferral, and allowed the respondents to reply.

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

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances were not so particularly urgent as to distinguish the application from other cases before the Tribunal.

An addendum was later issued to correct a factual error regarding the respondent's filing of a response.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, along with a request to expedite proceedings under Rule 21.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances requiring resolution in a particularly rapid manner compared to the regular process.

The Tribunal also amended the title of proceedings to correctly name the respondent.

The applicant, a pregnant firefighter, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after her request for modified duties on her regular 24-hour shift was denied.

She requested an expedited process.

The respondents agreed to expedite but also requested dismissal or deferral because the applicant had filed a union grievance.

Given the circumstances, the Tribunal ordered expedited mediation and deferred the preliminary issues of dismissal and deferral in the event mediation does not result in a settlement.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and requested that the proceedings be expedited under Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances that would distinguish the application from other cases before the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, along with a request to expedite proceedings under Rule 21.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances requiring resolution in a particularly rapid manner compared to the regular process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, along with a request to expedite proceedings under Rule 21.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances requiring resolution in a particularly rapid manner compared to the regular process.

The Tribunal also amended the title of proceedings to correctly name the respondent Attorney General.

The respondents in a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination and reprisal brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the complainant's pleadings.

They argued the allegations were untimely and improperly expanded the scope of the complaint.

The Tribunal found that most of the impugned paragraphs formed part of the continuum of facts of the original complaint and did not expand its scope.

The Tribunal struck one portion of a paragraph on consent, declined to strike the rest, but ordered the complainant and the Commission to provide further particulars for five of the paragraphs.

The respondents sought to bring a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the complainant's Statement of Facts prior to filing their own responding pleadings.

The Tribunal found the proposed motion to be premature, noting that preliminary and procedural objections should generally not be brought prior to a party filing its pleadings and making disclosure.

The respondents were ordered to file their responding pleadings.