Brian Eyolfson

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

After the grievance proceeding concluded, the Tribunal repeatedly directed the applicant to file a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate the application.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions or respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The individual respondent failed to file a Response to the Application despite multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the individual respondent to have waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to address the respondent's request to dismiss the application based on a signed full and final release.

The applicant failed to respond within the required timeframe.

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.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID within the directed timeframe.

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

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 specified deadline despite receiving it by mail and email.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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

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

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 was directed to respond by a specified date but failed to do so.

As the NOID was successfully delivered and the deadline passed without a response, 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 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 specified 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) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so within the specified timeframe.

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

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of their preliminary request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, pending the outcome of a judicial review in a separate but related matter (De Lottinville).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing it would cause unfair delay.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the parties are entitled to timely resolution of complaints and that waiting for a speculative outcome in a judicial review involving different parties was not appropriate.

The applicant, a 20-year-old cleaner, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his age, claiming his supervisor told him they were 'looking for an older gentleman'.

The respondent maintained that the applicant was dismissed during his probationary period due to poor performance, inability to follow directions, and unexcused absences.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had clearly established non-discriminatory reasons for the termination and did not accept the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged discriminatory comment.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts were part of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The applicant's union indicated the grievances were held in abeyance pending the applicant's return to work.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting there was no indication when the applicant would return to work or if the grievances would proceed to arbitration, and directed the respondents to file a Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent was subsequently placed into receivership, and a stay of proceedings was issued under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to either obtain leave from the Superior Court to lift the stay or reach an agreement with the Receiver, and to advise the Tribunal of her intentions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions or provide updated contact information.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

After cancelling a scheduled mediation, the applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions inquiring whether she wished to proceed with the application.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

As the applicant did not respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and disability, and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of a concurrent union grievance.

Finding significant overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance, which was scheduled for arbitration, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

After the Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond might result in abandonment, the applicant still did not respond.

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

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal of the human rights application due to the applicant's failure to disclose arguably relevant documents.

The applicant failed to respond to the request and subsequently failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction from the Tribunal.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of two Tribunal decisions dismissing his applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in housing.

The first application concerned the removal of his bicycle, and the second concerned the housing provider knocking on his door despite a 'do not disturb' sign.

The Tribunal denied the requests for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5, such as new determinative evidence or conflict with established jurisprudence.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the request within seven days, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.

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