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) 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 s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal attempted to schedule mediation, but the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications requesting available dates.

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

The applicant did not respond.

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed her human rights application against the Landlord and Tenant Board, the Department of Planning, Parks and Recreation, and a lawyer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was essentially re-arguing her case and raising new arguments that could have been made earlier.

The applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 for reconsideration.

The requests for reconsideration were denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal approximately 18 months after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to homelessness and medical issues.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish that her condition prevented her from filing in a timely manner, noting she was able to pursue other claims during the same period.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of related proceedings under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The applicant provided a copy of the Reasons for Decision of an Employment Standards Officer, indicating the ESA proceedings had concluded.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed the respondent to file a Response.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of an ongoing application filed by the applicant at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings, including allegations of ignored harassment complaints and broken locks.

Applying the factors for deferral, the Tribunal concluded it was appropriate to defer the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the LTB matter.

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

The Tribunal received a settlement form signed only by the respondent and repeatedly contacted the applicant to confirm the settlement or her intention to proceed.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of related grievances.

The Tribunal found that the request was premature because at least one of the grievances, which significantly overlapped with the application, was still being heard by an arbitrator.

The request to reactivate the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer alleging discrimination in employment, raising concerns about provisions of the collective agreement and his union's representation.

The union filed a Request to Intervene to address its representation of the applicant.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its standard practice to grant intervention status to a bargaining agent in human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment, absent exceptional circumstances.

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

After mediation failed, the applicant's counsel withdrew and requested that the Tribunal communicate with the applicant by mail.

The Tribunal sent multiple letters requesting an update on the applicant's search for new counsel, warning that the file could be closed as abandoned if she did not respond.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in the respondent's paratransit service booking features.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in finding he had not established a prima facie case and in its assessment of the evidence regarding undue hardship and witness statements.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not established any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 to justify reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness lists.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment after losing his teaching position.

He claimed he was threatened by the President of the respondent's Education Department after asking a question about another employee's role.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to explain how the respondent's actions were linked to claiming or enforcing rights under the Human Rights Code.

The applicants, who were recipients of Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being denied funding to apply for a criminal pardon.

They argued that such funding was available to able-bodied recipients of Ontario Works (OW) benefits but not to them.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were not subjected to discrimination, as OW discretionary benefits for employment-related expenses, including pardons, were available to both OW and ODSP recipients.

Furthermore, the applicants eventually received $500 each in Employment and Training Start Up Benefit (ESUB) under ODSP to assist with the costs of pardons.

The applications were dismissed.

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

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

Despite multiple written warnings sent by regular mail and email that her application might be deemed abandoned, the applicant failed to 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 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.

The respondent was placed in receivership by an Order of the Superior Court of Justice under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal found that the application is stayed pursuant to the Court's Order, which prohibits proceedings against the respondent without the Receiver's consent or leave of the Court.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal of her intentions within 30 days, failing which the application may be deemed abandoned.

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

The respondent filed a Response and a Notice of Request to Dismiss or Defer the Application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the Notice and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant's representative notified the Tribunal that he was ceasing representation due to a lack of communication from the applicant.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm her intention to proceed with the application.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because her representative had a scheduling conflict in small claims court.

The request was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the representative's scheduling conflict did not constitute exceptional circumstances to warrant an adjournment.