Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Woman Denied Haircut, Files Human Right Complaint


  • Please log in to reply
240 replies to this topic

#211 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 18 November 2012 - 09:42 PM

594 Bay Street: Terminal Barber Shop.

655 Bay Street: Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

I wonder if she was able to fit her immediate complaint within her lunch hour?

This was a setup job by an attention whore. Wouldn't doubt if she's a racist too. Either way, she's doing people who she thinks she's helping here a real disservice.

Now excuse me while i demand to use the john in a females-only fitness center.

Why would the the timeline make any difference other than the fact there is a statutory time limit by which you must file a complaint - there is no minimum period.

No "disservice" that I can see.

You are making a number of assumptions not borne out by the reports.

If you try your "demand", you would be refused. Apples and orangutans.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 18 November 2012 - 09:43 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#212 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,931 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:22 AM

According to reports she asked for a haircut in a style that the barbershop provided:

Faith McGregor walked into the Terminal Barber Shop on Bay St. in June to get a haircut — the “businessman,” short on the sides, tapered, trim the top. The shop, like many barbers in Toronto, doesn’t do women’s haircuts. But McGregor, 35, said she wanted a men’s cut.


Shop co-owner Omar Mahrouk told her his Muslim faith prohibits him from touching a woman who is not a member of his family. All the other barbers said the same thing.


“For me it was just a haircut and started out about me being a woman. Now we’re talking about religion versus gender versus human rights and businesses in Ontario,” said McGregor.


No special treatment involved - just provide the exact same service that they do for other customers.

If it wasn't clear by the bold, what you ascribe to as "equal treatment" was not there any more than equal treatment for, as mentioned for relevance, a man being denied services at a woman-only fitness centre due to being a man.

It's not a service provided to women barring some exceptions made with the business itself. Going to a business that already caters to men and complaining about human rights due to gender discrimination, regardless of what comes out of their mouth as an excuse, is amazingly stupid but not surprising in the least bit with this dramatic and caricatured joke of an interpretation of "rights". No surprise if this situation happened in the reverse, or in the applicable fitness centre scenario, the guy would have been told to bugger off and not waste the court's time.. rightfully.

This complaint is not about equality it's about special treatment and clearly setting out to find a business to attack due to personal problems someone has with who runs the business. She filed a human rights claim saying she "felt like a second class citizen". LOL. :lol: Really. Surely as an obvious lesbian she should understand more than others that tolerance is, given people have rights to be religious too. Then there's the fact that the barber recommended another place that would cut her hair. Nope. She wants a fight over trivial crap. Pretty much everyone knows this is not about human rights.
  • 0

#213 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:47 AM

If it wasn't clear by the bold, what you ascribe to as "equal treatment" was not there any more than equal treatment for, as mentioned for relevance, a man being denied services at a woman-only fitness centre due to being a man.

It's not a service provided to women barring some exceptions made with the business itself. Going to a business that already caters to men and complaining about human rights due to gender discrimination, regardless of what comes out of their mouth as an excuse, is amazingly stupid but not surprising in the least bit with this dramatic and caricatured joke of an interpretation of "rights". No surprise if this situation happened in the reverse, or in the applicable fitness centre scenario, the guy would have been told to bugger off and not waste the court's time.. rightfully.

This complaint is not about equality it's about special treatment and clearly setting out to find a business to attack due to personal problems someone has with who runs the business. She filed a human rights claim saying she "felt like a second class citizen". LOL. :lol: Really. Surely as an obvious lesbian she should understand more than others that tolerance is, given people have rights to be religious too. Then there's the fact that the barber recommended another place that would cut her hair. Nope. She wants a fight over trivial crap. Pretty much everyone knows this is not about human rights.

Completely different situations between a gym and a barber shop.

A women's only gym fits within the public decency exception while a barber shop does not.

The reason for refusal of service was based upon religion.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#214 Mountain Man

Mountain Man

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:46 AM

Fast forward 20 years and instead of looking to get your hair cut by qualified people to do the job. You now go wherever your particular religion deems it to be.
  • 0
virtus junxit mors non separabit.

Hockey season must be back on, the crazies are coming out again....


#215 canucks since 77

canucks since 77

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:49 AM

I do not see this as petty... it is a fundamental right that services to the public be provided in accordance with the principles of equality without discrimination. Simply because this particular fact pattern related to a haircut does not make it any less worthy of protection.

The problem is that she was refused a service available to the public on a ground prohibited by law and it appears there is no viable defence to the complaint. We have laws and procedures in plce to enforce such rights so people are not required to engeage in self-help remedies. Personally I might find it much more satisfying to give this barber a whack upside the head but that is not how we do things in a civilized society

Services


1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.

That's because you see it as a form of income where as the rest of us rational folk don't. Your allegiance to the law blinds you to common sense sometimes. Pun intended.

Edited by canucks since 77, 19 November 2012 - 02:51 AM.

  • 1
Politeness is the first step to respect!

#216 Mountain Man

Mountain Man

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:57 AM

That's because you see it as a form of income where as the rest of us rational folk don't. Your allegiance to the law blinds you to common sense sometimes. Pun intended.


Count me out of your perception of rational folk than. I fail to see how agreeing with this woman and how she was discriminated against isint rational?

I have walked into many hair salons(for those who insist on gender distinctions for places to get hair done) and had my hair cut without the slightest hesitation from either male or female staff.

Does she not have the same rights as a man in this country?
  • 0
virtus junxit mors non separabit.

Hockey season must be back on, the crazies are coming out again....


#217 canucks since 77

canucks since 77

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 03:33 AM

Count me out of your perception of rational folk than. I fail to see how agreeing with this woman and how she was discriminated againisn'tint rational?

I have walked into many hair salons(for those who insist on gender distinctions for places to get hair done) and had my hair cut without the slightest hesitation from either male or female staff.

Does she not have the same rights as a man in this country?

Because she wasn't discriminated against. She was offered another haircut by a different employee and refused. Seeing as the shop in question is surrounded by other hair establishments she was not inconvenienced in any way. The only ones that win in these long ridiculous suites are the lawyers.I agree with the a frivolous suit law, with an added clause that the lawyer be chastised for not having the common sense to refuse. This woman,and I use the word lightly, is nothing more than unscrupulous opportunist who is willing to bankrupt a business that has been a respectable member of the community for decades. Frivolous suite is frivolouse. I'm not arguing court of law with you Wet, I'm arguing court of common sense, something the Courts have apparently lost hold of.
  • 0
Politeness is the first step to respect!

#218 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 19 November 2012 - 04:29 AM

Because she wasn't discriminated against. She was offered another haircut by a different employee and refused. Seeing as the shop in question is surrounded by other hair establishments she was not inconvenienced in any way. The only ones that win in these long ridiculous suites are the lawyers.I agree with the a frivolous suit law, with an added clause that the lawyer be chastised for not having the common sense to refuse. This woman,and I use the word lightly, is nothing more than unscrupulous opportunist who is willing to bankrupt a business that has been a respectable member of the community for decades. Frivolous suite is frivolouse. I'm not arguing court of law with you Wet, I'm arguing court of common sense, something the Courts have apparently lost hold of.

You are inventing facts and making unwarranted and baseless assumptions as it seems many posters here have done.

Ms. McGregor was not offered a haircut by another barber because all the barbers in the shop were Muslim:

The barbers, who are all Muslim, told her their religion didn't allow them to cut the hair of a woman who is not a member of their family.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/15/toronto-haircut-mcgregor.html

It has been reported that several months later she was offered a haircut at another shop:

The barbershop suggested a solution to McGregor toward the end of August, offering her a haircut from a barber willing to do so.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1288023--woman-denied-haircut-goes-to-human-rights-tribunal-of-ontario

Other shops being nearby and convenience is not relevant as all businesses offering services to the public must comply with the Human Rights Code to provide equal access without discrimination subject to very limited exceptions that do not seem to apply to this case.

Like the vast majority of complaints filed with human rights tribunals, lawyers are not involved. The system is designed for persons to be able to file complaints and represent themselves with online forms:
http://www.hrto.ca/hrto/

Besides lawyers do not get rich off these sorts of cases.

There is no court or law suit but rather a specialized tribunal specifically designed to handle these matters which first attempts a resolution by way of mediation that is set to go ahead sometime in February. If that fails, an adjudicator appointed by the Human Rights Tribunal will decide the outcome.

And in this particular case Ms. McGregor is not seeking an award of damages or that the shop change the services (men's haricuts) offered.

She is asking the tribunal to force Terminal Barber Shop to offer its men’s haircuts to both genders, and suggests in her application that the shop post a sign indicating it serves both men and women. She is not seeking money.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1288023--woman-denied-haircut-goes-to-human-rights-tribunal-of-ontario

There are already rules in place to dismiss baseless claims under the rules of procedure for the tribunal:

RULE 19A SUMMARY HEARINGS



19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.



This is not one of them since prima facie there is a breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code. The owner of the barber shop is not disputing the factual underpinnings of the claim and admits he does not dispute McGregor’s complaint but says being forced to cut a woman’s hair would violate his freedom of religion and for no other reason.

“We live for our values. We are people who have values and we hold on to it. I am not going to change what the faith has stated to us to do. This is not extreme — this is just a basic value that we follow,” said Karim Saaden, co-owner of the Terminal Barber Shop.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1288023--woman-denied-haircut-goes-to-human-rights-tribunal-of-ontario
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#219 canucks since 77

canucks since 77

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:53 PM

You are inventing facts and making unwarranted and baseless assumptions as it seems many posters here have done.

Ms. McGregor was not offered a haircut by another barber because all the barbers in the shop were Muslim:

The barbers, who are all Muslim, told her their religion didn't allow them to cut the hair of a woman who is not a member of their family.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/15/toronto-haircut-mcgregor.html

It has been reported that several months later she was offered a haircut at another shop:

The barbershop suggested a solution to McGregor toward the end of August, offering her a haircut from a barber willing to do so.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1288023--woman-denied-haircut-goes-to-human-rights-tribunal-of-ontario

Other shops being nearby and convenience is not relevant as all businesses offering services to the public must comply with the Human Rights Code to provide equal access without discrimination subject to very limited exceptions that do not seem to apply to this case.

Like the vast majority of complaints filed with human rights tribunals, lawyers are not involved. The system is designed for persons to be able to file complaints and represent themselves with online forms:
http://www.hrto.ca/hrto/

Besides lawyers do not get rich off these sorts of cases.

There is no court or law suit but rather a specialized tribunal specifically designed to handle these matters which first attempts a resolution by way of mediation that is set to go ahead sometime in February. If that fails, an adjudicator appointed by the Human Rights Tribunal will decide the outcome.

And in this particular case Ms. McGregor is not seeking an award of damages or that the shop change the services (men's haricuts) offered.

She is asking the tribunal to force Terminal Barber Shop to offer its men’s haircuts to both genders, and suggests in her application that the shop post a sign indicating it serves both men and women. She is not seeking money.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1288023--woman-denied-haircut-goes-to-human-rights-tribunal-of-ontario

There are already rules in place to dismiss baseless claims under the rules of procedure for the tribunal:

RULE 19A SUMMARY HEARINGS



19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.



This is not one of them since prima facie there is a breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code. The owner of the barber shop is not disputing the factual underpinnings of the claim and admits he does not dispute McGregor’s complaint but says being forced to cut a woman’s hair would violate his freedom of religion and for no other reason.

“We live for our values. We are people who have values and we hold on to it. I am not going to change what the faith has stated to us to do. This is not extreme — this is just a basic value that we follow,” said Karim Saaden, co-owner of the Terminal Barber Shop.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1288023--woman-denied-haircut-goes-to-human-rights-tribunal-of-ontario

Just an opinion wet, just an opinion.
  • 0
Politeness is the first step to respect!

#220 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:36 PM

Just an opinion wet, just an opinion.

Based upon incorrect facts.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#221 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,213 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:02 PM

Kind of an ironic name considering the situation.. Faith mcgregor lol
  • 0

#222 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,931 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 03:10 PM

Completely different situations between a gym and a barber shop.

A women's only gym fits within the public decency exception while a barber shop does not.

The reason for refusal of service was based upon religion.

The reason for refusal could be because he eats babies, the point still stands.
  • 0

#223 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 19 November 2012 - 03:14 PM

For all those wondering what woman would go to a barber shop I know a couple that used to go to what me and some friends called "tenth avenue butchers" that were very much like this place.

The did it because the ones I am thinking of had long hair and if all they wanted was the end trimmed a little they liked the idea of popping in and getting it done in ten minute for ten buck instead of booking an appointment to get the same no brainer work done for sixty.
  • 0

#224 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 19 November 2012 - 03:16 PM

Kind of an ironic name considering the situation.. Faith mcgregor lol


Not really. Usually the most outspoken (and annoying) crusaders of political correctness are the spawn of religious types who then grow up into the ultimate rebels much to their parents (and frequently the rest of our) annoyance.
  • 0

#225 Raoul Duke

Raoul Duke

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,127 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 04

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:43 PM

On a side note, how awesome is religion again? You CAN'T cut a woman's hair because she's not related to you?

Honestly, think about that for a minute.

Edited by Raoul Duke, 19 November 2012 - 10:45 PM.

  • 0
FearandLoathingSig.jpg

#226 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,591 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:47 PM

Completely different situations between a gym and a barber shop.

A women's only gym fits within the public decency exception while a barber shop does not.

The reason for refusal of service was based upon religion.


How does a womens only gym actually fight within the public decency exception? I mean, its not like there are coed changing rooms...
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#227 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:20 PM

How does a womens only gym actually fight within the public decency exception? I mean, its not like there are coed changing rooms...


See:
Stopps v. Just Ladies Fitness (Metrotown) and D. (No. 2), 2005 BCHRT 359
www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Stopps_v_Just_Ladies_Fitness_(Metrotown)_and_D_(No_2)_2005_BCHRT_359.pdf

Stopps v. Just Ladies Fitness (Metrotown) and D. (No. 3), 2006 BCHRT 557
www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2006/pdf/nov/557_Stopps_v_Just_Ladies_Fitness_(Metrotown)_and_D_(No_3)_2006_BCHRT_557.pdf

Edited by Wetcoaster, 19 November 2012 - 11:29 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#228 CanuckinEdm

CanuckinEdm

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 06

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:04 AM

Total BS if you own a business it should be your right to serve whoever you want. Unless it it a escential service like education or health care.
  • 0

#229 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,591 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:45 AM

See:
Stopps v. Just Ladies Fitness (Metrotown) and D. (No. 2), 2005 BCHRT 359
www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Stopps_v_Just_Ladies_Fitness_(Metrotown)_and_D_(No_2)_2005_BCHRT_359.pdf

Stopps v. Just Ladies Fitness (Metrotown) and D. (No. 3), 2006 BCHRT 557
www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2006/pdf/nov/557_Stopps_v_Just_Ladies_Fitness_(Metrotown)_and_D_(No_3)_2006_BCHRT_557.pdf



hmmm, so this is what I got from the link...

[64] Dr. Creese said that many women have a “problematic relationship with their own bodies due to a poor self image”. This is because the dominate cultures of many Western societies, including Canada, tend to define female beauty within a limited range of norms, with an emphasis on thinness and certain beauty characteristics. Such body images are reinforced by the media. Women often turn to compulsive dieting and sometimes to plastic surgery. As a result of these body issues, women often curtail their physical 13
activity in public spaces. In this respect, women would feel that there bodies were subject to “public display” if they worked out in a co-ed gym. They would be uncomfortable, unduly self-conscious and might avoid working-out altogether.


[65] Dr. Creese said that men do not experience poor body image in the same way, or to the same extent, as women. How a man looks is not as important in defining their masculinity, although they are affected by the images they see in the media about men. For men, it is what they accomplish in other parts of their lives, such as their economic successes and the amount of power and authority they have in their workplace that are more important than their appearance. Dr. Creese said that if women had more economic security, or if there was a change in the general power dynamics between men and women, then women’s self-body image might not be a problem.


[67] Dr. Creese described the male gaze as one that contains an assessment or appraisal of a woman, which is different from how women look at each other. The male gaze is not just about assessing the positive attributes of a women; it might also convey that the fact that the woman is not “measuring-up”. Dr. Creese described the male gaze as being a form of “power”. Women generally do not sexualize how they look at other women but men often do. Women live in a world where they constantly experience a power differential. There are times when women will gaze at other women but, given that there is not the same power differential between two women as opposed to between a woman and a man, the impact is different. Dr. Creese agreed that not all men engage in the male gaze and not all men feel that they are more powerful than others, including women. Men also assess other men.

Ok, I kinda want to slap this expert witness.

[72] Ms. Chang likes working out with other women; these women cross all age groups and they are not self-conscious about being there, despite their weight or physical abilities. The women were doing the best they could and she felt motivated by this; it encouraged her to use the facilities more often. When she worked-out in a co-ed facility she felt pressured to “look good” when she arrived at the gym; she felt that she would be judged by the men otherwise. When she goes to Just Ladies, she goes “as is” and knows that it is not important. She feels comfortable at Just Ladies. She said that although women may show off, it is much less so than at a co-ed gym.

SHE felt pressured to look good? UGH. I gotta say, reading this had almost made me side with the dude, rather then the gym

[79] The determination of whether a distinction amounts to discrimination is to be analyzed in a contextual and purposive manner. Further, in considering whether there has
been violation of the Code, its purposes must be considered. These purposes are set out in s. 3 as follows:
(a) to foster a society in British Columbia in which there are no impediments to full and free participation in the economic, social, political and cultural life of British Columbia;
( B) to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and rights;
© to prevent discrimination prohibited by this Code;
(d) to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited by this Code;
(e) to provide a means of redress for those persons

Does the barber shop situation fulfill these? I'm not so sure

[86] Although this assessment is to be done from the perspective of the claimant, it is not sufficient for the claimant to only assert that his or her dignity has been adversely affected by the law in question. The Court said that it must also be satisfied that the claimant’s assertion that he was adversely treated is supported by “an objective assessment of the situation”. In considering all the circumstances, the question that must be asked is whether a reasonable person, in a similar circumstance, would find that the differential treatment had the effect of demeaning his dignity.

So applying this to the barber shop situation, does anyone think her being denied had the effect of demeaning her dignity?

[93] Mr. Stopps is entitled to the Code’s protections based on his sex. The only reason he was denied membership at Just Ladies was because he was a man. Therefore, this step in the prima facie analysis has been met.
[94] Whether he has suffered some disadvantage that warrants the Code’s protection is an issue I will consider under the second step of the analysis, to which I now turn.
Did Mr. Stopps suffer an adverse effect as a result of Just Ladies’ decision to deny him Membership?
[95] For the purposes of this complaint only, Just Ladies conceded that it provides a service customarily available to the public.
[96] Mr. Stopps argues that he was adversely affected by Just Ladies’ decision to deny him a membership and that he was discriminated against in the provision of a service.
[97] In this respect, it is important to consider the reasons why Mr. Stopps went to Just Ladies. In essence, he says that he wanted to improve his fitness level. He said that Just Ladies was the closest facility to his home that provided the necessary fitness programs and equipment and it had offered a 10-day free membership. He could use the 10-day trial period to determine if Just Ladies met his fitness requirements without incurring any financial costs.
[98] I accept that Mr. Stopps wanted to improve his level of fitness. Being denied access to a fitness facility might adversely affect his ability to meet this goal. However, he admitted that he had not regularly attended a gym prior to going to Just Ladies and had not sought to join another gym up to the date of the hearing. In my view, this brings into question the bona fides of Mr. Stopps’ reason for going to Just Ladies.

Again, applying this to the barber shop, I have to side with the barber.

[101] I find that Mr. Stopps had no intention of pursuing a fitness program or joining a fitness facility. As a result, he could not have suffered any adverse consequences as a result of being denied a membership at Just Ladies.
[102] The second reason that Mr. Stopps said he wanted to be a member of Just Ladies was because it was the closest facility to his home. He wanted to be able to walk to the gym as he saw this as part of his workout.
[103] The evidence was undisputed that Just Ladies was not the closest facility to Mr. Stopps’ residence. Fitness World is actually closer to where Mr. Stopps resides. Mr. Stopps provided no explanation as to why he did not go to Fitness World to see about a membership before going to, or after he had been denied a membership at, Just Ladies. If he wanted a facility close to his home, Fitness World was the closest facility. He should have investigated this option. He did not.



[107] Mr. Stopps seems to suggest that being denied a 10-day membership results in an adverse consequence to him. I disagree. If there was any adverse consequence, the consequence was minor; it only resulted in Mr. Stopps being denied a 10-day membership. In the circumstances of this case, and in the context of what Mr. Stopps was seeking, namely a membership in a fitness facility, he had other options available to him, which he did not pursue.

[108] I am unable to conclude that Mr. Stopps experienced an adverse effect in the denial of the membership at Just Ladies such that the protection of the Code should be triggered. Although ultimately he was denied a membership, seen in context, the denial did not adversely affect Mr. Stopps in his ability to participate in a fitness program close to his home at a fee that he could afford. Mr. Stopps was, and is still, able to participate in the social and cultural life of British Columbia. He is able to meet his goal of being fit and join any number of fitness facilities that would serve to meet his particular needs. From a

[119] Just Ladies argued that it was justified in denying Mr. Stopps a membership in its facility. In so doing, it relies on the three-part test set out in British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union (B.C.G.S.E.U.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 (“Meiorin”) and applied in British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868 (“Grismer”). In those cases, the Supreme Court of Canada held that to justify conduct, which might otherwise be discriminatory under s. 8 of the Code, a respondent must establish the following:
i) that they adopted a standard for a purpose or goal that is rationally connected to the function being performed;
ii) that they adopted a standard in good faith, in the belief that it is necessary for the fulfillment of the purpose or goal; and
iii) that the standard they adopted is reasonably necessary to accomplish their purpose or goal, in the sense that they cannot accommodate persons with the characteristics of the claimant without incurring undue hardship. (Grismer at para. 20)

i) barber shop fails because she asked for a mans haircut. If she wanted a perm, she would definitely be SOL.
ii) again their reason doesn't have anything to do with their business
iii) they might be able to claim this, if they have a lot of Muslim clients...


==================================

So now we get to the meat and potatoes....

[128] Just Ladies referred to a number of cases in other jurisdictions that have dealt with issues similar to those raised in this complaint. Although the focus in those decisions was on the issue of “public decency”, these cases illustrate why the maintenance of a women-only facility is reasonably justified under the Code.
[129] In Livingwell, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Com., 147 Pa. Commw. 116 (Commw. Ct. of Penn.), the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission found that an all-women health club facility, owned by Livingwell, discriminated on the basis of sex when it refused to allow men membership. In reversing the Commission’s decision, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania found that a defence of “customer gender privacy right” was available to Livingwell. In order to avail itself of this defence, Livingwell had to show that admitting men would undermine its business operation, that a protected privacy right existed for women even though intimate body parts were not exposed and that no reasonable alternative existed to protect these privacy interests while accommodating male members.
[130] In considering what was needed to establish a privacy interest, the Court said that it can arise “where one has a reasonable basis to be protected against embarrassment or suffer a loss of dignity because of the activity taking place”. (p. 7) The uncontraverted evidence of the female members of the club was that the primary reason that they were members was because the facility was women-only. If men were allowed, these women would not maintain their memberships, evidence confirmed by the president of Livingwell. Similar evidence was presented in this case.

If its "have a reasonable basis to be protected against embarrassment of suffer a loss of dignity because of the activities taking place" - then I'm starting to like the idea of a Mens only bar.

[131] The Commission argued that these women had no reasonable basis to feel embarrassed because society, as a whole, does not find it objectionable to exercise with the opposite sex. In answering this, the Court said:
… Privacy interests are not determined by the lowest common denominator of modesty that society considers appropriate. What is
30
determinative is whether a reasonable person would find that person’s claimed privacy interest legitimate and sincere, even though not commonly held. Nothing in the record supports, nor does the Commission seriously challenge that these women do not sincerely hold these beliefs or that a reasonable person would not find these beliefs legitimate.
Even if a privacy right exists, whether that privacy right is worthy of protection is determined by balancing that interest against any harm caused to the excluded men. The only harm the Commission advances is that the men will not be allowed to exercise at certain Livingwell locations. However, the Commission admits that there are other facilities just as convenient where men can exercise in a coed environment. Unlike gender discrimination that would result in the non-hiring of males, or where an exercise establishment has other facilities where business or “networking” is conducted, no harm exists to any male by being excluded from Livingwell’s facilities. (p. 7)

[143] Although the object of Just Ladies is not only to address the disadvantage of women, it does provide a safe space for women to work-out free from the male gaze and the dominate presence of men in the facility. It is not because they are in a state of undress or using the washroom facility that causes the hardship, but the resulting inability to be free from the presence of men while engaged in activities where they may feel judged, harassed and embarrassed. In this respect, Just Ladies provides a service that addresses the disadvantage women experience in one facet of their lives. It also serves to protect their privacy issues within that context. In Keyes, the Board of Inquiry said that it was appropriate that women have a safe space in which to express their views and the service provided by Pandora served to remedy the disadvantage experienced by them. (paras. 112 and 113). In conclusion the Board of Inquiry said:
…I am satisfied that the denial of access by Pandora to men does not cause material or substantial harm to men, particularly in comparison to the benefit to women of having a women’s only publication dealing with women’s equality issues from women’s perspective and providing a safe place for a wide variety of women to express such views. I am satisfied and I find that men have adequate opportunity to express their views and opinions in the mainstream media without entry into this women’s place. (para. 120)

[151] Section 8(2) of the Code provides a defence to discrimination in the provision of a service customarily available to the public if the discrimination relates to the maintenance of public decency. The Code does not define the term “public decency”. However, the law is clear that the statutory defences set out in the Code are to be narrowly construed: Zurich Insurance Co. v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.), [1992], 2 S.C.R. 321 at para. 18; Sheridan v. Sanctuary Investments Ltd. (No. 3) (1999), 33 C.H.R.R. D/467 (B. C. Trib.) at para. 106.
[152] In the cases referred to by Just Ladies, the focus was on those individuals working within organizations who may view, or assist, others of a different gender in varying states of undress or while those individuals were engaged in private activities such as using the washroom. In these cases, it was appropriate to consider the defence of “public decency”. In my view, this case does not raise those types of issues especially since co-ed facilities exist side-by-side with women-only facilities without difficulty. Just Ladies’ justification for its women-only policy was multi-faceted and not based solely on the issue of “public decency”.
[153] Although I was not persuaded that Just Ladies has established a defence of “public decency” under s. 8(2) of the Code, I dealt with those arguments, and jurisprudence referred to, above.

HOT DAMN! WETCOASTER IS WRONG! Becareful of posting links to curious people, they might end up reading them :P

Turns out this case wasn't won because of public decency

[159] In conclusion, Mr. Stopps’ complaint is dismissed pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Code.

37 (1) If the member or panel designated to hear a complaint determines that the complaint is not justified, the member or panel must dismiss the complaint.

So it was dimissed because the guy applying at a ladies only gym
i) was doing so just to stir poop
ii) was not demeaned in any way by being turned away
iii) had other options that were closer to home


It seems to me, if THIS case is used soley (obviously it wont, but hypothetically) to determine the out come of the barber shop... we should be siding with the Barber



Thanks Wetcoaster, that was actually a pretty interesting read.
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#230 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:54 AM

hmmm, so this is what I got from the link...

HOT DAMN! WETCOASTER IS WRONG! Becareful of posting links to curious people, they might end up reading them :P

Turns out this case wasn't won because of public decency

[159] In conclusion, Mr. Stopps’ complaint is dismissed pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Code.

37 (1) If the member or panel designated to hear a complaint determines that the complaint is not justified, the member or panel must dismiss the complaint.

So it was dimissed because the guy applying at a ladies only gym
i) was doing so just to stir poop
ii) was not demeaned in any way by being turned away
iii) had other options that were closer to home


It seems to me, if THIS case is used soley (obviously it wont, but hypothetically) to determine the out come of the barber shop... we should be siding with the Barber



Thanks Wetcoaster, that was actually a pretty interesting read.

Actually public decency was used as a basis along with reasoning akin to affirmative action.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#231 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,591 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:35 PM

Actually public decency was used as a basis along with reasoning akin to affirmative action.


But....

[152] In the cases referred to by Just Ladies, the focus was on those individuals working within organizations who may view, or assist, others of a different gender in varying states of undress or while those individuals were engaged in private activities such as using the washroom. In these cases, it was appropriate to consider the defence of “public decency”. In my view, this case does not raise those types of issues especially since co-ed facilities exist side-by-side with women-only facilities without difficulty. Just Ladies’ justification for its women-only policy was multi-faceted and not based solely on the issue of “public decency”.
[153] Although I was not persuaded that Just Ladies has established a defence of “public decency” under s. 8(2) of the Code, I dealt with those arguments, and jurisprudence referred to, above.


And the actual reason for the case being dismissed was that the complaint wasn't justified....

maybe my lawyer speak isn't good (well, lets say non-existent) but she said she wasn't persuaded they established a defense of public decency...
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#232 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:47 PM

But....

[152] In the cases referred to by Just Ladies, the focus was on those individuals working within organizations who may view, or assist, others of a different gender in varying states of undress or while those individuals were engaged in private activities such as using the washroom. In these cases, it was appropriate to consider the defence of “public decency”. In my view, this case does not raise those types of issues especially since co-ed facilities exist side-by-side with women-only facilities without difficulty. Just Ladies’ justification for its women-only policy was multi-faceted and not based solely on the issue of “public decency”.
[153] Although I was not persuaded that Just Ladies has established a defence of “public decency” under s. 8(2) of the Code, I dealt with those arguments, and jurisprudence referred to, above.


And the actual reason for the case being dismissed was that the complaint wasn't justified....

maybe my lawyer speak isn't good (well, lets say non-existent) but she said she wasn't persuaded they established a defense of public decency...

You need to look at the whole judgement and how the public decency cases were parsed and applied.

Like judges and other decision makers often do, they say one thing while actually doing it by another route. In the Stopps case case there is a lengthy examination of the line of cases which are referred to as "public decency" exceptions in human rights cases (and they are not as narrow as characterized) and from that review the decision draws a certain ratio (reasoning) but says it is not "public decency", It is the same reasoning that is normally referred to under the broad rubric of "public decency" except here the ruling added a little twist of affirmative action as well as women as an oppressed minority deserving of protection while not being "ogled" or stared at. It is standard sleight of hand in judicial reasoning.

Another example was the treatment of the ruling referring to the Supreme Court of Canada "Law analysis" from Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497 which was case dealing with application of Section 15 of the Charter (the equality provisions). After spending a great deal of time analyzing the case the decision notes that it is not applicable in that the Charter applies to governmental action not dealings between a private individuals and private businesses. However the decision then goes on to apply what is in essence the Law analysis to the facts at hand in a private setting.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#233 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:58 PM

[64] Dr. Creese said that many women have a “problematic relationship with their own bodies due to a poor self image”. This is because the dominate cultures of many Western societies, including Canada, tend to define female beauty within a limited range of norms, with an emphasis on thinness and certain beauty characteristics. Such body images are reinforced by the media. Women often turn to compulsive dieting and sometimes to plastic surgery. As a result of these body issues, women often curtail their physical 13
activity in public spaces. In this respect, women would feel that there bodies were subject to “public display” if they worked out in a co-ed gym. They would be uncomfortable, unduly self-conscious and might avoid working-out altogether.


[65] Dr. Creese said that men do not experience poor body image in the same way, or to the same extent, as women. How a man looks is not as important in defining their masculinity, although they are affected by the images they see in the media about men. For men, it is what they accomplish in other parts of their lives, such as their economic successes and the amount of power and authority they have in their workplace that are more important than their appearance. Dr. Creese said that if women had more economic security, or if there was a change in the general power dynamics between men and women, then women’s self-body image might not be a problem.


[67] Dr. Creese described the male gaze as one that contains an assessment or appraisal of a woman, which is different from how women look at each other. The male gaze is not just about assessing the positive attributes of a women; it might also convey that the fact that the woman is not “measuring-up”. Dr. Creese described the male gaze as being a form of “power”. Women generally do not sexualize how they look at other women but men often do. Women live in a world where they constantly experience a power differential. There are times when women will gaze at other women but, given that there is not the same power differential between two women as opposed to between a woman and a man, the impact is different. Dr. Creese agreed that not all men engage in the male gaze and not all men feel that they are more powerful than others, including women. Men also assess other men


Hmmm, by this logic, where the feelings of men and women get to be stereotyped....

It's typical that when in a saloon women often pressure men into going home instead of staying for another drink.

As well, men in saloon's where women are present often tend to change their behavior knowing that women are there. Rather than stick to sports or the stock market they will change their behavior to one suiting a female gaze.

Ergo to truly feel comfortable having a beer with the boys might as well be allowed to have a men's only saloon where wives can feel safe to store their husbands while they go shopping in a hussy free environment.

Must be nice to have the power to decide which sexual stereotypes or gender roles one gets to assume as true and use as a basis for legal decision making!
  • 0

#234 DonLever

DonLever

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,357 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 08

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:15 PM

No one has metioned the costs associated with ths case. The unfair costs I would say.

The complainant does not have to put up a dime, yet the defendant has to hire a lawyer. That's expensive.

How much does a lawyer charge anyway, Wetcoaster?

So the defendant has a huge whole in his pocket, the woman complaining pays nothing, gets all the publicity. Where is the fairness here, for just proving a point.

She should pay back back the legal fees if she loses but you know that will not happen.
  • 0

#235 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:28 PM

You need to look at the whole judgement and how the public decency cases were parsed and applied.

Like judges and other decision makers often do, they say one thing while actually doing it by another route. In the Stopps case case there is a lengthy examination of the line of cases which are referred to as "public decency" exceptions in human rights cases (and they are not as narrow as characterized) and from that review the decision draws a certain ratio (reasoning) but says it is not "public decency", It is the same reasoning that is normally referred to under the broad rubric of "public decency" except here the ruling added a little twist of affirmative action as well as women as an oppressed minority deserving of protection while not being "ogled" or stared at. It is standard sleight of hand in judicial reasoning.

Another example was the treatment of the ruling referring to the Supreme Court of Canada "Law analysis" from Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497 which was case dealing with application of Section 15 of the Charter (the equality provisions). After spending a great deal of time analyzing the case the decision notes that it is not applicable in that the Charter applies to governmental action not dealings between a private individuals and private businesses. However the decision then goes on to apply what is in essence the Law analysis to the facts at hand in a private setting.


Must also be nice to say one thing, do another, and have it enforced by law. If a sleight of hand is standard protocol how is the average joe with no legal training supposed to be equal with those than can afford the high priced help required to decipher what the rules actually are?
  • 0

#236 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:32 PM

No one has metioned the costs associated with ths case. The unfair costs I would say.

The complainant does not have to put up a dime, yet the defendant has to hire a lawyer. That's expensive.

How much does a lawyer charge anyway, Wetcoaster?

So the defendant has a huge whole in his pocket, the woman complaining pays nothing, gets all the publicity. Where is the fairness here, for just proving a point.

She should pay back back the legal fees if she loses but you know that will not happen.

The respondent like the complainant is not required to hire a a lawyer to argue this case.

I have no idea what this particular lawyer charges.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#237 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:34 PM

No one has metioned the costs associated with ths case. The unfair costs I would say.

The complainant does not have to put up a dime, yet the defendant has to hire a lawyer. That's expensive.

How much does a lawyer charge anyway, Wetcoaster?

So the defendant has a huge whole in his pocket, the woman complaining pays nothing, gets all the publicity. Where is the fairness here, for just proving a point.

She should pay back back the legal fees if she loses but you know that will not happen.


Better yet what if the person that has an issue with someone else happens to be able to afford a lawyer and can wage a war of attrition through repeated lawsuits to bully and intimidate someone into their position!

You know. Like say declare someone said something racist and if that person is not immediately fired and some freebies tossed my way then you can look forward to a very expensive lawsuit and public humiliation! No trial needed, just some on the spot frontier judgement!

Oh, and it's much worse than that. It's institutional. For example, if you ever need to aquire land from a gas station for a right of way it's standard practice that they will sue you and pursue every legal avenue to it's maximum extreme as a standard practice to maximize the cost of the transaction which ends up typically (where you can at least) resulting in going around. Too bad the houses on the other side don't have that kind of money and power.

Two systems. One for those with money or means to have access to legal help and one for those that do not.
  • 0

#238 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,243 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:37 PM

The respondent like the complainant is not required to hire a a lawyer to argue this case.

I have no idea what this particular lawyer charges.


It certainly would make a big difference to talk to a lawyer ahead of time so you knew what to expect, what points to bring up, and how to answer some expected questions in the proper manner. You might not NEED a lawyer but it certainly helps and could very well be considered stupid if going in blind. Like say if you want to continue your chosen profession while maintaining your religious customs.
  • 0

#239 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:54 PM

Better yet what if the person that has an issue with someone else happens to be able to afford a lawyer and can wage a war of attrition through repeated lawsuits to bully and intimidate someone into their position!

You know. Like say declare someone said something racist and if that person is not immediately fired and some freebies tossed my way then you can look forward to a very expensive lawsuit and public humiliation! No trial needed, just some on the spot frontier judgement!

Oh, and it's much worse than that. It's institutional. For example, if you ever need to aquire land from a gas station for a right of way it's standard practice that they will sue you and pursue every legal avenue to it's maximum extreme as a standard practice to maximize the cost of the transaction which ends up typically (where you can at least) resulting in going around. Too bad the houses on the other side don't have that kind of money and power.

Two systems. One for those with money or means to have access to legal help and one for those that do not.

It cuts both ways as we saw with the Mowat decision from the Supreme Court of Canada that ruled the Canadian Human Rights tribunal does not have the authority to award legal costs to a successful complainant.

However some provinces allow for the award of legal costs - Ontario is not one of them. Some as in BC allow it in limited circumstances.

Here is that case - Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General):
http://scc.lexum.org...m/7969/index.do

A ruling Friday by the Supreme Court of Canada that winners of human rights cases cannot recover their legal costs will “absolutely” discourage many complainants from coming forward, a human rights lawyer says.


In a key administrative law ruling involving a woman’s sexual harassment complaints against the military, the Supreme Court of Canada said Parliament did not intend to give the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal the power to assess and award thousands of dollars to cover individual legal bills.


Lawyer Andrew Raven said his client Donna Mowat, an ex-master corporal and military traffic technician, is “very disappointed with the result.”


Mowat lost on many of her complaints in 2005, but the human rights tribunal had granted her $4,000 plus interest in damages on one count of sexual harassment. It awarded $47,000 in legal costs — not the $196,000 she claimed — for that limited victory after a six-week challenge. In the end, she gets no legal costs covered.


The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld a Federal Court of Appeal conclusion that the tribunal only has the authority to decide compensation (up to a current maximum of $20,000) and expenses incurred during an infringement of rights, but not “legal costs.”


That term has a “distinct legal meaning,” said the high court, which is “compensation for legal expenses and services incurred in the litigation.”


Most provinces allow their provincial human rights tribunals to award “legal costs” or other extra costs, and specifically say so in their legislation.


Justices Louis LeBel and Thomas Cromwell said since 2003 the federal human rights commission, which brings complaints to an independent federal tribunal for adjudication, has restricted its advocacy to “cases that raised issues of systemic discrimination or new points of law” — as recommended by Justice Gerard LaForest, who led a review.


Yet the federal government never acted on LaForest’s recommendation to provide legal “clinic-type assistance” to complainants.


It’s unlikely the Harper government, which killed the Court Challenges Program and its funding for equality rights battles, would amend the law to fund human rights complainants.


But Raven thinks it should. He said the commission’s role is to argue the points “that they think reflect the public interest” which is not always “synonymous with the private interest of the complainant.”


Raven said the ruling is a blow to individuals who are often up against large, well-resourced employers and now know that “win, lose or draw they’re going to have to pay” the costs of lawyers or expert witnesses needed to mount a case.

http://www.thestar.c...s-supreme-court

Edited by Wetcoaster, 20 November 2012 - 03:55 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#240 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:01 PM

I went into McDonalds and asked for a Prime Rib yesterday. They turned me down! What the hell!
The Keg was across the street so I just went there instead, but still, what an outrage.


They make all sorts of beef products in there I don't see why I couldn't just get the Prime Rib.

Class action suit anyone?


The bottom line is that every business on the planet specializes in specific things. If a business chooses to serve one sort of clientele over another, that should be their prerogative. There is no unhealthy discrimination against women in this case. He gave a religious reason for not cutting the woman's hair, but there are also several other reasons he could have denied her service.

Either way you look at it this is bogus to the power of eleven.


The reason why they wouldnt serve you Rib is because the Rib was taken out to create Eve so you asking for the rib is sexist because it would deny the creation of the woman.

Serves you right being KICKED out with no rib.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.