Quote:
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor
It's all fine and dandy to pull off a statement from the HRC questions and answer page. Of course they are going to say that they represent neither parties and there sole duties is to be an impartial body. The reality is, especially in Alberta, all the members are expremely biased to the complaintant side. That CANNOT be disputed.
|
In no way should my comments be construed as defending the human rights process we currently have in place. Improvement could definitely be possible. However, I prefer to start from the premise that, outside of the inherent bias in all of us, the members of a human rights panel are no more likely to be biased towards the complainant than they are towards the respondent. I would ask that you convince me otherwise by providing, among other things, a bit of proof to back up your assertions.
Despite the notion that litigants receive "costs" when they win, costs are probably not what most people think. In the Court of Queen's Bench, costs are determined by a Schedule in the back of the Rules of Court that specifies a certain amount for various stages of litigation. Rarely do they even approach anything more than about 20% of the actual cost of litigation. In only the rarest of cases can you convince a court to order the unsuccessful party to pay your own lawyer's bills. That just doesn't happen. In Provincial Court, there is no schedule for costs but the court doesn't award anything close to full indemnity there either.