Brian Eyolfson

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

A Notice of Confirmation of Hearing was sent to the applicant for a hearing scheduled on October 31, 2013.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondents requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the completion of related proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The HPARB proceedings having concluded without the applicant seeking judicial review, and the applicant agreeing that the matter should proceed, the Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and set deadlines for filing amended pleadings.

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, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicants filed human rights applications against the respondents.

The Tribunal issued Case Assessment Directions requiring the parties to provide submissions on consolidating the applications.

After the applicants failed to respond to multiple directions and warnings that their applications could be dismissed, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

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 the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal sent correspondence directing 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.

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 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) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified 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 issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to comply with disclosure obligations or confirm she had no materials to file, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal sent multiple communications directing the applicant to provide dates for rescheduling the hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the Tribunal's directions or 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 sent multiple communications to the applicant at the address provided, which were returned as undeliverable.

As the applicant failed to update his contact information as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, 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 specified deadlines despite it being sent by regular mail and email.

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

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation on time, the Tribunal rescheduled the mediation and directed the parties to confirm their attendance.

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

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondent CRR Cornwall Roadside Recovery Inc. failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent a final 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against two respondents.

One respondent, A.H. Fitzsimmons & Co. Ltd., failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding respondent to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicants, who receive ODSP benefits, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being denied funding to apply for a criminal pardon.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOPs).

The Tribunal granted the applicants' unopposed request to amend their applications.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to amend its response to include new information that it had recently approved the funding request, finding the amendment timely and without prejudice to the applicants.

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 specified 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 Employment Standards Act proceedings.

After the respondent indicated the applicant would not pursue the matter, the Tribunal sent multiple requests for the applicant to confirm her intentions.

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's Notice of Mediation was returned by mail, and subsequent attempts to contact the applicant by email and telephone were unsuccessful.

After the applicant failed to respond to warnings that the application might be dismissed for abandonment, 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 because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

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