Brian Eyolfson

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 deadlines despite multiple notices sent to his representative.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of delay, judicial immunity regarding the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB), and lack of Code-related allegations against a municipality and a lawyer.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the LTB due to adjudicative immunity, and against the municipality and lawyer for failing to allege acts of discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application for delay at this preliminary stage, allowing it to proceed against the landlords.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple letters and emails warning the applicant that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's communications.

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

The respondent police board brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the human rights application pending a judicial review in a separate matter, dismiss certain allegations for delay, and bifurcate the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding it inappropriate given the imminent hearing date and the fact that the parties were not involved in the judicial review.

The delay issue was deferred to the hearing, as the applicant agreed not to lead evidence on the older incidents.

The request to bifurcate the hearing to separate liability from public interest remedies was granted on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the area of employment, specifically regarding the respondent's failure to provide written documentation during a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention process.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a union grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

Finding a substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, which was scheduled to be heard by the Grievance Settlement Board, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of concurrent union grievances.

The applicant subsequently instructed her union to withdraw the grievances in order to pursue the matter before the Tribunal.

As there was no longer an ongoing concurrent proceeding, the Tribunal determined that deferral was not appropriate.

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.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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 had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of other proceedings.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple written requests from the Tribunal for updates on the status of the other proceedings, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

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

After the Tribunal repeatedly requested updates on the status of the grievance proceedings and granted an extension of time, 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 Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide submissions on whether the subject matter was within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent direction from the Tribunal warning of potential dismissal, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a parent with a stuttering disability, alleged discrimination in services because his children's school did not permit direct email communication with teachers.

The applicant argued that telephone communication was difficult for him and requested email access as an accommodation.

The Tribunal found that the school provided multiple alternative means of communication, including notes, Friday Files, and emailing the principal or office administrator.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as his disability-related needs were met by the existing communication methods, and the Code requires accommodation of needs rather than preferences.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to exchange and file a list of witnesses and summaries of their anticipated evidence.

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

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

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

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss or defer the application due to concurrent union grievances.

Finding substantial overlap between the human rights issues raised in the application and three outstanding grievances, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal in the area of housing.

The applicant alleged that the respondent tenants association moved his bicycle without permission, which exacerbated his disability, and that this action was a reprisal for his advocacy work educating tenants on their rights.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to communicate any disability-related needs to the respondent and could not establish how moving the bicycle resulted in a disadvantage based on disability.

The Tribunal also found the reprisal allegations to be highly speculative and insufficient to establish that moving the bicycle was intended retaliation for asserting human rights.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status because the respondent's washrooms did not have a baby changing station.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as she was able to manage changing her child and was not disadvantaged.

Furthermore, the applicant did not sufficiently communicate her family status-related needs to the respondent to trigger the duty to accommodate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, age, and receipt of public assistance.

The applicant sought to amend his application to include new allegations of retaliation and harassment, while the respondent requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend in part, allowing three new sufficiently particularized allegations to be added, as there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent's request for a summary hearing was denied.

The applicant, a person with a disability who relies on a motorized wheelchair, alleged that the respondent transit commission discriminated against him by requiring paratransit rides to be booked exactly three days in advance.

The applicant argued this policy denied him equal access to public transportation compared to able-bodied users of the conventional transit system.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as he was capable of using accessible conventional transit but lived in an area not serviced by it, making his disadvantage related to residence rather than disability.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if a prima facie case were established, the respondent had accommodated the applicant to the point of undue hardship, as expanding the booking window would require significant administrative resources and reduce the overall number of trips provided.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned.

The application was originally dismissed because the applicant failed to provide accurate contact information for the respondents after notices were returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as she still had not provided or confirmed the respondents' contact information.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates on medical grounds and to allow time to retain legal representation.

The Tribunal had previously directed the applicant to provide specific medical information to support the request, which she failed to do.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had ample time to retain counsel since her former representative withdrew.

The adjournment request was denied.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process was also denied, as they had not established sufficient prejudice or unfairness at this stage.