Brian Eyolfson

The applicant, an Ontario Disability Support Program recipient, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent refused to reimburse him for the costs of obtaining a prescribed medication in the United States.

The medication was no longer manufactured or available in Canada.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant could not establish that the refusal to fund an unapproved, out-of-country medication was linked to his disability or constituted differential treatment under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal later directed the applicant to provide an update on the grievance within 30 days, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the correspondence.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was previously deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a written update on the status of the grievance process within 30 days, warning that failure to do so might result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the correspondence.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a steamfitter with a back injury, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the respondent employer failed to provide appropriate modified work to accommodate the applicant's medical restrictions, breaching both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate.

Furthermore, the respondent terminated the applicant's employment for alleged time theft after conducting video surveillance while he was off sick.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's disability-related absence was a factor in his termination and that the surveillance did not establish a reasonable non-discriminatory explanation.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal by police officers be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with by the applicant's complaint under the Police Services Act (PSA).

The Tribunal applied its previous reasoning in Claybourn, finding that it is not in accordance with the reasonable expectations of the parties to apply s. 45.1 to dismiss an application on the basis that the same underlying allegations of misconduct have been addressed as a result of a complaint filed under the PSA.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application was denied, and the application was allowed to proceed.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to provide an update on the grievance process, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application.

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

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant twice, requesting an update on the status of the grievance proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the correspondence.

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 had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

After the applicant indicated a desire to withdraw but failed to file the required request, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide an update on the grievance process.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant, who has a mild cognitive impairment resulting from childhood cancer treatments, obtained a law degree from a university in Wales with Third Class Honours.

The respondent refused to recognize his degree because its policy requires a minimum of a Lower Second Class (2:2) standing.

The applicant alleged adverse effect discrimination, arguing his disability prevented him from achieving the required grades.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was accommodated during law school and failed to establish that his lower academic standing was attributable to his disability rather than his refusal to request additional recommended accommodations, such as extra time.

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 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 the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of a related matter before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

After the LTB decision was issued, the applicant failed to file a request to reactivate the application within the required 60-day period.

Despite multiple communications and a Case Assessment Direction from the Tribunal warning of potential dismissal, the applicant failed to respond or indicate her intentions.

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

The applicant, who is blind, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, disability, and sex by the respondent restaurant.

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

The Tribunal found that the short delay in filing the application was incurred in good faith due to a technical mishap and that no substantial prejudice would result.

The Tribunal also concluded that the application had a reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant might be able to establish a link between the alleged events and the protected grounds.

The application was permitted to proceed.

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 s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1, arguing the substance had been dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the request to dismiss.

After the applicant failed to respond by the initial deadline, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction providing an extension and warning of potential abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of his intentions and warned that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

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 contacted the applicant multiple times to reschedule a mediation, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

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

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

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

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