Good old Human Rights Commission

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So you hate the Human Rights Commission because someone was able to file a complaint with them? They haven't even made a decision yet.

The decision is made the instant a complaint is filed. Show me one example of an accused person being vindicated by these commissions, or more fully, of an innocent defendant being compensated for the hardship of being accused. It does not happen...decisions are invariably in favour of the complainant. The only exception is that the complainant realizes his complaint is without merit and drops the case...in which case, the defendant has still lost (time, money, reputation).

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

The decision is made the instant a complaint is filed. Show me one example of an accused person being vindicated by these commissions, or more fully, of an innocent defendant being compensated for the hardship of being accused. It does not happen...decisions are invariably in favour of the complainant. The only exception is that the complainant realizes his complaint is without merit and drops the case...in which case, the defendant has still lost (time, money, reputation).

That's quite a sweeping generalization.

Maybe we can see if you are right here:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/default-en.asp

Will the Commission represent the complainant at the Tribunal?
The Commission represents neither the complainant nor the respondent. Its role is to represent the public interest in an impartial and objective manner at all stages in the complaint process— mediation, investigation or Tribunal. In some complaints, Commission counsel will appear at the Tribunal to represent the public interest. However, this does not happen in all cases, and the role of the Commission's lawyer at the Tribunal may vary from one complaint to another.

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/index_e.asp

.If one of the parties involved in the case wants a review of the Tribunal's decision, under appropriate circumstances the party may be able to file an application for review with the Federal Court of Canada.

IIRC, ultimately, the courts oversee the CHRT, where costs can be awarded against vexatious complainants?

Decisions can be reviewed here:

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/tribunal/...sp?filter=year

Chairperson Sinclair has recently made a careful review of Federal Court jurisprudence dealing with this issue (Mowat v. Canada Post Corporation, 2006 CHRT 49). He concludes that the predominance of authority from that court is that the Tribunal has the power to award compensation for legal expenses under section 53(2).

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

The decision is made the instant a complaint is filed. Show me one example of an accused person being vindicated by these commissions, or more fully, of an innocent defendant being compensated for the hardship of being accused. It does not happen...decisions are invariably in favour of the complainant. The only exception is that the complainant realizes his complaint is without merit and drops the case...in which case, the defendant has still lost (time, money, reputation).

If you go to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and look up the latest case you will find the complainant was denied their complaint
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/fi...406dechrt5.pdf

I would suggest reading the cases then commenting on how the decisions are "invariabily in favour of the complainant"

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by troutman

That's quite a sweeping generalization.

Maybe we can see if you are right here:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/default-en.asp

Will the Commission represent the complainant at the Tribunal?
The Commission represents neither the complainant nor the respondent. Its role is to represent the public interest in an impartial and objective manner at all stages in the complaint process— mediation, investigation or Tribunal. In some complaints, Commission counsel will appear at the Tribunal to represent the public interest. However, this does not happen in all cases, and the role of the Commission's lawyer at the Tribunal may vary from one complaint to another.

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/index_e.asp

.If one of the parties involved in the case wants a review of the Tribunal's decision, under appropriate circumstances the party may be able to file an application for review with the Federal Court of Canada.

IIRC, ultimately, the courts oversee the CHRT, where costs can be awarded against vexatious complainants?

Decisions can be reviewed here:

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/tribunal/...sp?filter=year

Chairperson Sinclair has recently made a careful review of Federal Court jurisprudence dealing with this issue (Mowat v. Canada Post Corporation, 2006 CHRT 49). He concludes that the predominance of authority from that court is that the Tribunal has the power to award compensation for legal expenses under section 53(2).

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.

And yes, eventually these decisions can be brought before a real court but again that is at the cost of the defendant and they can only hope that they will get fully re-imbursed.

Any kind of court system should never be set up where any person can make claims with no real consequences of the legitimacy of the complaint, where HRC are.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The reality is, especially in Alberta, all the members are expremely biased to the complaintant side. That CANNOT be disputed.

Not saying I disagree since I don't know, but how do you know this? Do you have examples demonstrating this indisputable and extreme bias?

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The reality is, especially in Alberta, all the members are expremely biased to the complaintant side. That CANNOT be disputed.

Well I cannot argue with that, the facts you have presented to back up your argument are overwhelming. I appoint you the Matlock of CP

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Swish swish swish FLUSH. I think I saw a beaver chasing the maple leaf down the drain.

What kind of a hopeless country even allows something so frivolous as a "Human Rights" complaint to even be lodged?

It really is disgusting. I love(d) Canada, but this stuff makes me sick. I've actually been considering moving to Saudi Arabia. They don't waste time with this crap over there.

In Saudi Arabia people have been arrested for having poppy seed (a banned substance there) on their shoe, stuck in the tread to be exact. I agree this story is ridiculous, but Saudi Arabia is not without it's dumbness either.

Maybe that was in Dubai.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

In Saudi Arabia people have been arrested for having poppy seed (a banned substance there) on their shoe, stuck in the tread to be exact. I agree this story is ridiculous, but Saudi Arabia is not without it's dumbness either.

Maybe that was in Dubai.

I believe that was sarcasm by Rouge

[peter12]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

In Saudi Arabia people have been arrested for having poppy seed (a banned substance there) on their shoe, stuck in the tread to be exact. I agree this story is ridiculous, but Saudi Arabia is not without it's dumbness either.

Maybe that was in Dubai.

The comparison can't even be made...

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by arsenal

If people feel that canada's laws interfere with their religion, then they should sign a waiver claiming that they, and their family cannot sue, claim monies, etc for any injury / death that the person may encounter while on the job, or extra curricular activities that they may enjoy.

ie: Safety helmets not being worn on the job due to religious beliefs, helmet not being worn while riding a motorcycle, etc.

They are going to HRC because they feel they are being discriminated against. Making someone sign anyway those things because of their religion is discrimination...back to square one.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Swish swish swish FLUSH. I think I saw a beaver chasing the maple leaf down the drain.

What kind of a hopeless country even allows something so frivolous as a "Human Rights" complaint to even be lodged?

It really is disgusting. I love(d) Canada, but this stuff makes me sick. I've actually been considering moving to Saudi Arabia. They don't waste time with this crap over there.

ha ha... no kidding. The fear and paranoia espoused by some here is truly remarkable.

Canada is a wonderful country. And one of the things that makes it wonderful is its ability to confront and try to understand issues of difference. I'd much rather live in a country in which people can bring complaints forward and have their voices heard.

No one is saying every complaint is a winner, that the system is perfect, or that there aren't problems. But what's the alternative? Scrapping our democratic principles in favour of some fictional narrative of Canadian identity construed by a few? All this garbage about how Canada is going down the drain because it allows people to express themselves is little more than eurocentric and xenophobic rhetoric cloaked in the substantively hollow appeal to 'tradition'. What a joke.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by fatso

ha ha... no kidding. The fear and paranoia espoused by some here is truly remarkable.

Canada is a wonderful country. And one of the things that makes it wonderful is its ability to confront and try to understand issues of difference. I'd much rather live in a country in which people can bring complaints forward and have their voices heard.

No one is saying every complaint is a winner, that the system is perfect, or that there aren't problems. But what's the alternative? Scrapping our democratic principles in favour of some fictional narrative of Canadian identity construed by a few? All this garbage about how Canada is going down the drain because it allows people to express themselves is little more than eurocentric and xenophobic rhetoric cloaked in the substantively hollow appeal to 'tradition'. What a joke.

Holy overreaction. Everyone is just saying they don't like the Human Rights Commission... which are UNDEMOCRATIC! Nothing about hating immigrants or anyone else.

Who said Canada was going down the drain? I love this country, I don't like the Human Rights Commission and believe there are far better ways to handle complaints.

[fredr123]

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.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by peter12

Holy overreaction. Everyone is just saying they don't like the Human Rights Commission... which are UNDEMOCRATIC! Nothing about hating immigrants or anyone else.

Who said Canada was going down the drain? I love this country, I don't like the Human Rights Commission and believe there are far better ways to handle complaints.

Hardly an over-reaction on my part. Merely an opinion. Was there not a toilet/plunging metaphor used on the first page? Has the HRC not been cast by some here as an organization wasting resources and slowly debilitating Canadian society?

Also, you're going to have to explain to me how a Human Rights Commission is undemocratic. I was pretty sure human rights are fundamental to democracy.

I'm not saying they're perfect or that the system shouldn't be overhauled or that people shouldn't complain about it. I just think a lot of the complaints against the HRC single out claims brought by people considered radically different from a 'Canadian identity' (whatever that is), and, by extension, such claims aren't worthy of consideration because it's people who unreasonably won't assimilate or acquiesce to that 'Canadian identity'. That kind of talk makes me nervous.

Maybe I'm wrong and that's a mischaracterization of what's going on here. Or maybe i'm just ideologically so left that I can't understand what those on the right are saying. You tell me.

At the end of the day, I see Canadian identity as not something set in the past but as something evolving, changing, and welcoming of difference. As such, I see something like the HRC as both important (even with its problems) and fundamental to Canadian identity.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

I believe that was sarcasm by Rouge

Ah yes internet sarcasm. Always detectable.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Ah yes internet sarcasm. Always detectable.

It should have been written in green.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

I appoint you the Matlock of CP

lol gold

shiny, 24k gold I say!

[killer_carlson]

my frustration with the frivolous Human Rights Complaints is that it makes things more difficult for some of my immigration clients who legitimately are getting hosed on the basis of their personal characteristics to get the proper attention and recourse that they deserve.

I have very little tolerance for those people who look for oppression under the bed each and every morning. There used to be a pretty big stigma for someone being found to have breached an individual's human rights. Unfortunately these dirtbags who file frivilous claims only to withdraw them at a later date "for the good of everyone and to put this finally behind me" type of crap have really diminished the stigma and consequences of legitmate oppression.

[HOZ]

Concidering how these people go online onto racist websites and spout racist stuff and then convict such and suich racist group on their OWN comments is the tip of the iceberg. Ala Richard Warman....

These people are acting WAY above the law...so much so



“Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant! And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt. She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced their bull down our throats. Time to go back to when the women imports knew their place… And that place was NOT in public! (Richard Warman as "90sAreOver")



that they are making Storm Front's Marc Lemire, a hero for freedom of speech.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely!!!

HRC defends itself...kind of.

Erza " ME" Lavant rebuttal

Rick Mercer's Rant!!!!!!!!!!

[jolinar of malkshor]

Here is the latest.

Recently the BC Human Rights Commission ruled against McDonalds for dismissing a employee because she could no longer wash her hands as she developed a skin condition.

The complaintant Ms. Datt started with McDonalds in 1981 and worked until Jan 2002 when she developed a skin condition in her hands. She went on short term Disability from Jan 02 to April 02. She consulted her family physician regarding her condition. She return to work in April 02 as her condition was getting better. After working for two weeks her condition developed again. She went back onto short term disability and then onto long term diability. She was on long term disibility from May 02 until Nov 30, 2004. She attempted to return to work on several occations during that time yet her condition came back each time. She had multiple tests done with her family doctor finally reporting that the future treatment gaol was "a new job". The doctor said that she could not work with anything that involved food prep, hand washing or wearing gloves. He also said that the handling of money may be a factor in her condition. He ruled that she could no longer work in the food prep industry.

An interview was done between the disability company and Ms. Datt. A report was written indicating that Ms. Datt said that she knew she could not work in food prep and that Ms. Datt request a job in HQ with admin. Ms. Datt later denied this.

The disability company said that she would be terminated from McDonalds and that she would recieve her disability payments for 4 months aswell has given 3 months of alternate job seeking help. Ms. Datt refused to look for alternate work and insisted that she be accomdated at McDonalds. A termination letter was sent in Novermber of 04.

The family doctor said that he would right a letter to CPP supporting a claim for disability payments as any job in her field would result in the return of her condition.

Ms Datt still wanted to work at McDonalds and her doctor sent a letter in Feb 06 that Ms. Datt could work for them again as long as she did not have to have frequent hand washing.

McDonalds has their own handwash policy aswell they are require to abide by the BC FOOD Premises Regulations namely section 21(3)

Every operator of food premises ensure that each employee washes his or her hands as often as necessary to prevent contamination of food.

Aswell as section 24(1)

Must have written proceedures.

McDonalds went above and beyond trying to accomodate Ms. Datt until her own doctor said she cannot work in food prep. They let her go, there was nothing for her to do. She could not work in that field.

So what does the good old human rights commission do? They find that McDonalds discriminated against her. And failed to accomodate her to undue hardship. They forced McDonalds to pay 23,000 in lost wages and $25,000 for loss of dignity.

Even tho she was on Disability for 2 years and her own doctor said she couldnt work in that field........McDonalds violated her Human Rights.

WTF

Get rid of these useless tribunals already.

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/200..._BCHRT_324.pdf