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) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his former employer, Tokmakjian, its manager, and Veolia, the company that took over the transit contract.

The applicant's driver's licence had been suspended for medical reasons (depression) and for speeding.

He alleged he was not rehired or accommodated by Tokmakjian, and that Veolia refused to let him write a test or hire him while his licence was suspended.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against all respondents, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish a link between the respondents' actions and his disability.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required time.

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, directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID within the required time.

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 because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

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

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

The respondent argued the application was filed beyond the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a Reply, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant, a security guard, alleged discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of sexual solicitation, gender identity, gender expression, and record of offences.

She claimed she was not provided with gender-appropriate sleeping accommodations at an out-of-town event and was subjected to harassment by co-workers.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and was inconsistent.

The Tribunal preferred the respondents' evidence that the applicant left her post early and was informed her services were no longer required before the alleged incidents occurred.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested to participate in her upcoming human rights hearing by teleconference, citing her recent move to British Columbia, a new job, and financial constraints.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that credibility was a significant issue and that cross-examination would be prejudiced by a teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the ordinary expectation is for parties to testify in person.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's presence was necessary to fairly assess credibility and to appropriately deal with the parties' documentary evidence, which included difficult-to-read documents and email exchanges.

The applicant, a sole support mother of two young children, filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status after her employer refused to continue accommodating her on straight day shifts.

She brought a Request for Interim Remedy seeking an order that the respondent continue to schedule her on straight day shifts until the matter is resolved.

The Tribunal found that the Application raised an arguable case, the balance of harm favoured the applicant, and it was just and appropriate to grant the interim remedy to prevent the applicant from having to choose between her job and her children's care.

The request for an interim remedy was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status after she and her new partner were banned from attending the respondent church.

The applicant claimed the ban was due to her separation from her husband and her choice of a new partner.

The Tribunal found that the applicant and her partner had engaged in abusive, threatening, and inappropriate behaviour towards the church's priest and staff on multiple occasions.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was banned because of this behaviour, not because of her marital status, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, claiming that her manager and co-workers spoke Farsi exclusively, ignored her, and favoured Persian employees.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant might be able to establish a link between the alleged events and Code grounds, and therefore declined to dismiss the application at this preliminary stage.

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

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy, arguing that medical evidence was primarily relevant to damages.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that medical evidence was central to liability issues, including whether the applicant's absence was medically supported and whether he refused reasonable accommodation.

The Tribunal denied the request to bifurcate, finding that there would likely be an overlap of evidence concerning liability and remedy, making bifurcation inappropriate.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about their intentions with respect to the application.

As a result, 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 by the required deadline.

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 deadline.

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 sent multiple letters requesting dates for a rescheduled summary hearing and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) the application, which alleged discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association on the basis of race, colour, and disability.

The NOID was issued because the application did not appear to identify specific acts of discrimination by the respondents.

Although the applicant did not provide submissions in response, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction.

The application was ordered to be delivered to the respondents.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Matachewan First Nation.

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required time.

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

The applicants, two minor students with special needs, sought an interim remedy requiring the respondent school board to provide transportation to their new school, as well as a request to expedite the proceedings.

The applicants had transferred from their home school, where transportation was provided, but the respondent refused to provide transportation to the new school.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, finding the applicants failed to establish an arguable case or that the balance of harm favoured the remedy, as they could return to their home school where transportation was available.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite in part, ordering expedited mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, Nortek Computers Ltd., alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

Shortly before the hearing, Nortek filed an assignment in bankruptcy, resulting in a stay of proceedings against it.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add Nortek's owner as an individual respondent.

The Tribunal applied the three-stage test from Smyth and dismissed the request, finding no allegations beyond mere speculation that the owner personally violated the Code.