Megathread British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) - All initial BCHRT related material goes here, including updates on current hearings.

AbraCadaver said:
They demand we all say they’re indistinguishable from bio women, then throw a fit when they can only get trans women as dates because they want a real set of girly bits to mongle. The hypocrisy is hilarious.
Click to expand...

And their motives are so utterly transparent to everyone that they'd be comical if they weren't so damn gross, inside and out. It's mind boggling that these weirdos have anyone defending their autogynephilia as legitimate transgenderism instead of recognizing that they're simply maladjusted perverts who failed as men.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Executive Koala, Clockwork_PurBle, Silence of the Troons and 6 others
Gustav Schuchardt said:
It's raised $10K in 14 days. Three months is about 90 days, so it should easily get to the $25K they're trying to raise given the media storm over this case, and the fact that almost everyone thinks Yaniv is in the wrong.
Click to expand...

The funds should be put in a trust, to protect against the possibility of a judgement in favour of Yaniv, so that IF it wins, it won't be able to touch the funds raised. I'm sure an estate/trust lawyer would be more than happy to do it pro bono.

You don't want a dime of it to go to the fakir, so this would be prudent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: just a banana, Next Task, Silence of the Troons and 6 others
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: lolwut, Troon Anthropologist, Silence of the Troons and 2 others
2nd_time_user said:
This article is excellent. "There is no human right to genital waxing." Hits hard as to BCHRT's role in enabling this.

Copypasta

Chris Selley: B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is the real villain of the Jessica Yaniv farce
There is no need for a ruling from any court as to whether anyone should be compelled to touch another person’s genitals for hair removal. The answer is no


The case of Jessica Yaniv, the self-identified transgender woman who has pursued more than a dozen estheticians for redress at the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal over their refusal to wax her male genitalia and their environs, has occasioned some genuine and understandable concerns among trans rights activists. Neither the intense, offensive ridiculousness of Yaniv’s request nor the mounting allegations against her of racism and predatory behaviour toward children in various social media posts and private conversations released to media (which she insists were authored by impersonators), nor her run-in with the Langley RCMP on Tuesday (she says she was arrested for owning a prohibited weapon, minutes after brandishing a Taser on a podcast), should be any boon to transphobia. But it’s not hard to see how they could be.

Yaniv’s motives are, at the very least, questionable. In a May ruling, tribunal member Devyn Cousineau noted Yaniv had withdrawn three complaints in a row as soon as the respondent filed a defence — ostensibly over concerns she would be identified, but these are, after all, public proceedings. Cousineau raised the prospect of Yaniv being a “vexatious litigant,” and declined to classify her as such only “at this stage” (noting instead she was a “frequent litigant”). All in all, many clearly believe it’s best just to ignore the whole thing.

If Yaniv’s stunt weren’t screwing up other people’s lives, that might be a defensible approach. But it is screwing up other people’s lives, notably those of the recent immigrant women Yaniv targeted, who have neither the time nor the money to indulge this peculiarly Canadian ceremony. At least one woman claims to have abandoned her salon business as a result of Yaniv’s aggression. Some have reportedly already settled, which is outrageous whether or not money changed hands: The idea of compromising with someone who wants to force a woman to touch her male genitals — to touch any genitals at all, one might argue! — is repugnant. The idea of a state body facilitating such an agreement beggars belief.

Among those who are grudgingly paying attention, many have resorted to a sort of “both sides are wrong” argument: Yes, Jessica Yaniv seems to be an awful person, but so are the people taking such transphobic delight in the ongoing proceedings. That may be true, but it misses the point. Far too little attention is being paid to the real villain of this black farce, which is obviously the tribunal itself. There are a lot of creeps out there who would wreck your life and take your money without a moment’s thought. The government is supposed to make life more difficult for them, not easier. The real story here is that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal did anything with Yaniv’s endless complaints except crumple them up and throw them in the garbage.

There is an argument floating around social media that the tribunal has no choice but to hear every case that arrives in its mailbox. In legal parlance, that’s known as “wrong.” The tribunal dismissed six per cent of complaints in 2017-18 without so much as a hearing. By contrast, in her May ruling, Cousineau explained just how critical an issue Yaniv — flawed complainant though she might be — had raised.

“The substantive issue … is an important one,” she wrote. “Waxing can be critical gender-affirming care for transgender women. At the same time, it is a very intimate service that is sometimes performed by women who are themselves vulnerable. (Yaniv’s) complaints raise a novel issue around the rights and obligations of transgender women and service providers in these circumstances. There is a public interest in having the issue resolved.”

In legal parlance, that’s known as “bananas.” There is no need for any precedent or ruling from any court as to whether anyone should be compelled to touch another person’s genitals for the purposes of hair removal. The answer is no. Next question, please.

There are cases of people refusing service to customers where it can get tricky: How is declining to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple different than a lunch counter turning away black patrons? How is a university that prohibits sexual relations between same-sex couples different than one that prohibits mixed-race couples? This is not one of those cases. If an aesthetician doesn’t want to wax your junk, you’re just going to have to go to a different aesthetician. There’s no law that says it. There doesn’t need to be a law. It’s just a natural part of living in modern Western civilization. There is no human right to genital waxing.

That the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal can’t understand this is evidence there is something terribly amiss. Many conservatives and libertarian types have been convinced of this for a very long time — the list of bizarre and outlandish complaints that get “mediated” and “settled” and ruled upon by provincial human rights apparatuses, instead of quite rightly ripped to shreds, is endless. Now, perhaps, it’s progressives’ turn to demand change. The more the merrier. Whatever the outcome of this case, vulnerable people have suffered needlessly — and you can bet legions of other potentially “frequent litigants” have taken note.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to violate the power levelling...but...

There is quite literally no reasonable accountability structure for the BCHRT.

The ombudservice will ONLY accept complaints from people who were affected (ie: the respondents who already suffered the results of the tribunal's judgment)

This is unusual for an ombudservice. They are normally avenues for public concern. Not for the super special BCHRT. The ombudservice could ONLY recommend goung to the jurisdictional MLA (elected Member of the provincial legislature) in this case, for Langley, maybe central Vancouver. This is very much a "fuck off" recommendation.

The other alternative is to complain TO THE TRIBUNAL. Observe the website, it's a tight little cluster of Law grads with specialties in SJW. Since BC only recently resurrected their tribunal, this is a government department desperate to prove their relevance. Circling the wagons around Cousineau is guaranteed. So much so that making a complaint is ill advised.

The decisions of the tribunal can be appealed. It goes to appellate court. In other words. You need a lawyer. A good one. You're taking on the Crown, who acted within a DISMALLY ambiguous policy that does NOT clarify the overarching legal mandate. Because the norm in government in to avoid committing to anything, many government departments are able to abuse citizens through overreach.

I guess this is sperging. Boy, did the HRT pique the interest of the wrong autistic-adjacent graduate student.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Informative
Reactions: Kiwi Lime Pie, TheBlackVolga, heathercho and 8 others
Sevenatenine said:
I am not trying to violate the power levelling...but...

There is quite literally no reasonable accountability structure for the BCHRT.

The ombudservice will ONLY accept complaints from people who were affected (ie: the respondents who already suffered the results of the tribunal's judgment)

This is unusual for an ombudservice. They are normally avenues for public concern. Not for the super special BCHRT. The ombudservice could ONLY recommend goung to the jurisdictional MLA (elected Member of the provincial legislature) in this case, for Langley, maybe central Vancouver. This is very much a "fuck off" recommendation.

The other alternative is to complain TO THE TRIBUNAL. Observe the website, it's a tight little cluster of Law grads with specialties in SJW. Since BC only recently resurrected their tribunal, this is a government department desperate to prove their relevance. Circling the wagons around Cousineau is guaranteed. So much so that making a complaint is ill advised.

The decisions of the tribunal can be appealed. It goes to appellate court. In other words. You need a lawyer. A good one. You're taking on the Crown, who acted within a DISMALLY ambiguous policy that does NOT clarify the overarching legal mandate. Because the norm in government in to avoid committing to anything, many government departments are able to abuse citizens through overreach.

I guess this is sperging. Boy, did the HRT pique the interest of the wrong autistic-adjacent graduate student.
Click to expand...
This is not powerlevelling. Power leveling is maybe easier to understand if you say it like, "Don't reveal your power level". It's about personal information.

This is a great informative post not powerlevelling at all. Thanks.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: heathercho, Gustav Schuchardt, MysteriousStranger and 3 others
Choose carefully said:
Out of interest, what would you consider a reasonable accountability structure?
Click to expand...
Mandatory judicial review (like a quality audit) on the judgments.

Nail down the jurisdictional boundary with the provincial code. In cases where there is no case law for theory, it's an automatic bump up to real court. There's too much ambiguity in the codes...but philosophically the tribunals are not meant to write law. They should NOT be on the cutting edge of ANY legal question.

Members need to have a more rigorous professional standard, with some teeth for the law society/bar association to levy sanctions in the event of overstep. Some of the Alberta members aren't even lawyers.

I would have more with more focused review.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Koby_Fish, Kiwi Lime Pie, Tranny Slapfight and 3 others
Choose carefully said:
Where do you see the funding for this mandatory judicial review coming from?
Click to expand...
They won't need as many sitting members, but the considerable backlog in the real court system will be the bottleneck.

If Canada is serious about a human rights tribunal, it needs a budget and oversight. Otherwise...

HRT cases in Alberta take 2-4 years. Civil is more like 3-5. As far as I can tell, the only requirement for members is a PD course. We can do without our tribunal, and should.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Koby_Fish
Sevenatenine said:
They won't need as many sitting members, but the considerable backlog in the real court system will be the bottleneck.

If Canada is serious about a human rights tribunal, it needs a budget and oversight. Otherwise...

HRT cases in Alberta take 2-4 years. Civil is more like 3-5. As far as I can tell, the only requirement for members is a PD course. We can do without our tribunal, and should.
Click to expand...
Interesting, but you didn't answer my question. Where do you see the funding for mandatory judicial review of HRT cases coming from?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Koby_Fish
Choose carefully said:
Interesting, but you didn't answer my question. Where do you see the funding for mandatory judicial review of HRT cases coming from?
Click to expand...

The same place the funding for the current "on demand" review comes from. There are no real limits on the number of cases that a Judicial Review can be requested for.

Let's see...


I think that this operating budget and org chart are informative. Actually, this is a decent report. They made over 400 decisions last year and over 1500 complaints. They send many to mediation. I dislike very much that this agency provides mediation, apparently free of charge. They are accepting too many complaints, and some of what gets to mediation is a travesty. 3 or 4 people screening, multiple case managers...this department is too big, it was sized for "demand" not "quality".

So, I would cut half the salaries and re-allocate for professional services. We are also going to look at the compensation profiles for all of those positions and reduce them to reflect that this is JV court. They are SUPPOSED to apply existing law, not be revolutionary.

Now, not sure that transfer is possible (do you just buy judges' time?) But that's where an initial quality plan would start.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Koby_Fish
Collections Agent said:
They've already messed with both ends, as Yaniv is on record saying trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete in sports with natural born women.
Click to expand...

Yes and know, what JonboYaniv said was that MTF troons should not be competing with unadulterated females, and went into the who part where he was claiming to be on hormone adjustment therapy so his Testosterone is as low as a natural born female.

He ignored the fact that musculoskeletal development is different for males and females. He altered the argument so the question became solely about hormones, and ignored the points about muscle and bone density, amongst others (I'm not too well versed on the full list of biological contraindications, but I sure as hell know a lot more than JY) who is very juvenile in his dealing with complex information.

He sees one element and makes it all about that one thing. Like "Gender Affirming Care" which is from my research travails only used in reference to Healthcare. There are four tiers to healthcare in use:
  1. Primary
  2. Secondary
  3. Tertiary
  4. Quaternary
And none of these cover Personal Services Establishments like those of Aestheticians. They just don't, they govern, or apply to, the activities of Public Services providers, like Healthcare and any of the myriad other government agencies. They have NO standing for regulating Personal Services providers, like an Aesthetician. The only reason the little shit got this far is because the achilles heel of government in Canada is how it deals with the mentally disadvantaged, or those whom are deemed by white shirts to be mentally disadvantaged.

The BCHRT (whenever I see HRT on its own, I automatically think of our Hostage Rescue Team) seeded the kid's virgin unploughed mind with the whole idea that having a Brazilian is an appropriate subject on which to apply "Gender Affirming Care" principles. These principles are summarized by TransCare BC, which is a section of the Provincial Health Services Authority, for use in relation to Hospitals, Doctors, and Registered/Licensed Healthcare Providers, with the stated mission of Improving specialized health services for BC:
PHSA has a unique role in BC's health authority system: to ensure that BC residents have access to a coordinated provincial network of high-quality specialized health-care services.
Click to expand...

A Registered Aesthetician is bound by Health BC and its Guidelines For Personal Services Establishments much like a restaurant or barbershop is bound to maintain sanitary equipment. An Aesthetician is not a Healthcare Provider, and not subject to the "Gender Affirming Care" principles as set out by the Provincial Health Services Authority.

A personal service establishment (PSE) in British Columbia is a business in which a person (e.g., an esthetician or tattoo artist) provides a personal service to or on the body of another person. The use and diversity of personal services have increased, creating a need for guidance to promote a healthy means for conducting these services.
Click to expand...

There are only 5 mentions of Estheticians on Government of BC website here and it's only used in relation to Personal Service Establishments and NOT in relation to Healthcare Providers. So I don't think the BCHRT would even have jurisdiction. However for the sake of argument, lat's say it does have jurisdiction.
Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018 talks about offenses, such as:
Offences 47.22
(1) A person who wilfully does any of the following commits an offence:
(a) makes a false statement to, or misleads or attempts to mislead, the commissioner in the exercise of powers or performance of duties under this Code;​
(b) obstructs the commissioner in the exercise of powers or performance of duties under this Code.​
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable,
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $25 000, and​
(b) for a second or subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $100 000.​
Click to expand...

A person overseeing a tribunal hearing (Cousineau) is a delegate deputized by the commissioner, and both Yaniv's have made false statements with the purpose of misleading the tribunal and garner a beneficial judgement. @Jonathan "Jessica" Yaniv has also stated to the court that he has an exceptional income (which should have precluded him from utilizing the Access to Justice mechanism) so we can reasonably expect a fine of $25,000.

Kiwis have also recognized that he's aggressively attempted to prevent public participation by his opening with redaction of his name [JY] and threats of physical violence against individuals in his building. Both he and his mother have threatened to call the police on members of the public for factitious offences in what is a clear violation of the Criminal Code, but we have to understand that the BC Prosecution and Surrey RCMP are useless and are unlikely to pursue criminal charges against this duo of lolcow and buffalol.

So what might happen is, if some enterprising law student(s) in the region (check UBC) touches the poo and represents (probono) certain individuals in the community, including but not limited to @WGkitty and reporters for TheRebel.media, in filing an Anti-SLAPP suit using the recently reanimated Anti-SLAPP legislation. The funny thing is that the mental-midget Cousineau actually should have acknowledged the defence of the respondents when their counsel clearly stated that their refusal of service was protected under the Charter, because the tribunal has no jurisdiction over constitutional questions or rights and freedoms issues so the douche-tard really needs to be sanctioned, because the jv-court has been far too slow in acknowledging its lack of jurisdiction.

The MOMENT it became clear that this was a Constitutional Question, the defence should have petitioned to have the proceedings continued in a courty of competent jurisdiction, because the issue is on its face, calling a Constitutional Question. Shame on Devyn Cousineau for not realizing this, she's a total fuckin tard. Why is she so tard-tastic?

Devyn Cousineau was appointed as a full-time member of the Tribunal on November 1, 2017. She obtained a law degree at the University of Victoria (2006) and an Honours Bachelor of Arts degree at McGill University (2003). Prior to her appointment as a member, Ms. Cousineau served as legal counsel for the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
Click to expand...

She's a fuckin' NEWBIE who's trying to use this case as a jumping-off precedent for her glorious career as Devyn, Social Justice Warrior! Her footprint is here. The hubris with her is great, and I think she's a bigger narcissist than JonboYaniv, just she has sufficient intelligence to conceal it.

This is degrading into a rant, so I'll sign off. Do with it as thou wilt.

Reference:
Guidelines For Personal Service Establishments
Gender-affirming Care for Trans, Two-Spirit, and Gender Diverse Patients in BC: A Primary Care Toolkit
Health Professions Act (BC)
Administrative Tribunals Act (BC)
Protection of Public Participation Act (BC)
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada)
 
  • Informative
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: schatze, Breaker of Swains, buke_phalus and 33 others
JYaniv said:
Yes and know, what JonboYaniv said was that MTF troons should not be competing with unadulterated females, and went into the who part where he was claiming to be on hormone adjustment therapy so his Testosterone is as low as a natural born female.

He ignored the fact that musculoskeletal development is different for males and females. He altered the argument so the question became solely about hormones, and ignored the points about muscle and bone density, amongst others (I'm not too well versed on the full list of biological contraindications, but I sure as hell know a lot more than JY) who is very juvenile in his dealing with complex information.

He sees one element and makes it all about that one thing. Like "Gender Affirming Care" which is from my research travails only used in reference to Healthcare. There are four tiers to healthcare in use:
  1. Primary
  2. Secondary
  3. Tertiary
  4. Quaternary
And none of these cover Personal Services Establishments like those of Aestheticians. They just don't, they govern, or apply to, the activities of Public Services providers, like Healthcare and any of the myriad other government agencies. They have NO standing for regulating Personal Services providers, like an Aesthetician. The only reason the little shit got this far is because the achilles heel of government in Canada is how it deals with the mentally disadvantaged, or those whom are deemed by white shirts to be mentally disadvantaged.

The BCHRT (whenever I see HRT on its own, I automatically think of our Hostage Rescue Team) seeded the kid's virgin unploughed mind with the whole idea that having a Brazilian is an appropriate subject on which to apply "Gender Affirming Care" principles. These principles are summarized by TransCare BC, which is a section of the Provincial Health Services Authority, for use in relation to Hospitals, Doctors, and Registered/Licensed Healthcare Providers, with the stated mission of Improving specialized health services for BC:


A Registered Aesthetician is bound by Health BC and its Guidelines For Personal Services Establishments much like a restaurant or barbershop is bound to maintain sanitary equipment. An Aesthetician is not a Healthcare Provider, and not subject to the "Gender Affirming Care" principles as set out by the Provincial Health Services Authority.



There are only 5 mentions of Estheticians on Government of BC website here and it's only used in relation to Personal Service Establishments and NOT in relation to Healthcare Providers. So I don't think the BCHRT would even have jurisdiction. However for the sake of argument, lat's say it does have jurisdiction.
Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018 talks about offenses, such as:


A person overseeing a tribunal hearing (Cousineau) is a delegate deputized by the commissioner, and both Yaniv's have made false statements with the purpose of misleading the tribunal and garner a beneficial judgement. @Jonathan "Jessica" Yaniv has also stated to the court that he has an exceptional income (which should have precluded him from utilizing the Access to Justice mechanism) so we can reasonably expect a fine of $25,000.

Kiwis have also recognized that he's aggressively attempted to prevent public participation by his opening with redaction of his name [JY] and threats of physical violence against individuals in his building. Both he and his mother have threatened to call the police on members of the public for factitious offences in what is a clear violation of the Criminal Code, but we have to understand that the BC Prosecution and Surrey RCMP are useless and are unlikely to pursue criminal charges against this duo of lolcow and buffalol.

So what might happen is, if some enterprising law student(s) in the region (check UBC) touches the poo and represents (probono) certain individuals in the community, including but not limited to @WGkitty and reporters for TheRebel.media, in filing an Anti-SLAPP suit using the recently reanimated Anti-SLAPP legislation. The funny thing is that the mental-midget Cousineau actually should have acknowledged the defence of the respondents when their counsel clearly stated that their refusal of service was protected under the Charter, because the tribunal has no jurisdiction over constitutional questions or rights and freedoms issues so the douche-tard really needs to be sanctioned, because the jv-court has been far too slow in acknowledging its lack of jurisdiction.

The MOMENT it became clear that this was a Constitutional Question, the defence should have petitioned to have the proceedings continued in a courty of competent jurisdiction, because the issue is on its face, calling a Constitutional Question. Shame on Devyn Cousineau for not realizing this, she's a total fuckin tard. Why is she so tard-tastic?



She's a fuckin' NEWBIE who's trying to use this case as a jumping-off precedent for her glorious career as Devyn, Social Justice Warrior! Her footprint is here. The hubris with her is great, and I think she's a bigger narcissist than JonboYaniv, just she has sufficient intelligence to conceal it.

This is degrading into a rant, so I'll sign off. Do with it as thou wilt.

Reference:
Guidelines For Personal Service Establishments
Gender-affirming Care for Trans, Two-Spirit, and Gender Diverse Patients in BC: A Primary Care Toolkit
Health Professions Act (BC)
Administrative Tribunals Act (BC)
Protection of Public Participation Act (BC)
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada)
Click to expand...
I appreciated this rant.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: Behavioral Sink, Breaker of Swains, Tranny Slapfight and 11 others
Kiwi Lime Pie said:
If Yaniv were to file BCHRT complaints against any of these studios, they need to mention in their response that Yaniv was denied service for lying during the appointment-setting and/or coming into their establishment and making racist comments towards the immigrant owners/employees -- especially with Yaniv's lies and racism on the record in the latest BCHRT hearings documented by goinglikeelsie.


It wouldn't surprise me if Yaniv logged out or used a private window to browse anonymously just to make it look like they haven't been back since. Yaniv's thirst for attention and lack of both self and impulse control is too great to keep them away form here for any extended time. Also, there's a certain irony in people such as Yaniv publicly and vocally denouncing the 'Farms as a site of hate while regularly lurking it or -- in Yaniv's case -- actually registering as a user here. :story:
Click to expand...
Oh he’s most certainly been here since then, lurking anon to try in vain to discover WGKitty’s identity, while his mother screeches cat noises in the background.

It’s so unfair when, after years of veiled threats against others involving surveillance and knowledge of private and home details, suddenly you’re the one under the uncomfortably close microscope.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Gunslinger, Tranny Slapfight, glass_houses and 6 others
2nd_time_user said:
Me too. That is some @Cato level detail right there.
Click to expand...

I really appreciate the kind words, although I can't say the same about being associated with the post in question. I'm sorry that I'm going to leave you unsmiling with my response to it.

JYaniv said:
Like "Gender Affirming Care" which is from my research travails only used in reference to Healthcare. There are four tiers to healthcare in use:
  1. Primary
  2. Secondary
  3. Tertiary
  4. Quaternary
And none of these cover Personal Services Establishments like those of Aestheticians. They just don't, they govern, or apply to, the activities of Public Services providers, like Healthcare and any of the myriad other government agencies. They have NO standing for regulating Personal Services providers, like an Aesthetician. The only reason the little shit got this far is because the achilles heel of government in Canada is how it deals with the mentally disadvantaged, or those whom are deemed by white shirts to be mentally disadvantaged.

The BCHRT (whenever I see HRT on its own, I automatically think of our Hostage Rescue Team) seeded the kid's virgin unploughed mind with the whole idea that having a Brazilian is an appropriate subject on which to apply "Gender Affirming Care" principles. These principles are summarized by TransCare BC, which is a section of the Provincial Health Services Authority, for use in relation to Hospitals, Doctors, and Registered/Licensed Healthcare Providers, with the stated mission of Improving specialized health services for BC:

A Registered Aesthetician is bound by Health BC and its Guidelines For Personal Services Establishments much like a restaurant or barbershop is bound to maintain sanitary equipment. An Aesthetician is not a Healthcare Provider, and not subject to the "Gender Affirming Care" principles as set out by the Provincial Health Services Authority.

There are only 5 mentions of Estheticians on Government of BC website here and it's only used in relation to Personal Service Establishments and NOT in relation to Healthcare Providers. So I don't think the BCHRT would even have jurisdiction. However for the sake of argument, lat's say it does have jurisdiction.
Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018 talks about offenses, such as:
Click to expand...

I legitimately can't even understand what you're talking about here, but as pointed out by @2nd_time_user, Devyn Cousineau herself used the phrase in her judgement. I'm open to correction, but I didn't even think Yaniv used it until Cousineau did (then he started using it in every other sentence).

Regardless, I've never seen anybody--Yaniv, the tribunal, any of the defendants--argue that this has anything whatsoever to do with healthcare. The phrase was not intended to invoke such a suggestion, but merely to suggest that access to waxing services is of importance to MtF transpeople (you can certainly disagree with this sentiment, but that is what Cousineau was saying). This is a complaint about alleged discrimination in the context of providing a service. That's all there is to it, and it indeed does fall under the purview of the tribunal. Everything you've mentioned here is completely irrelevant to this case.

JYaniv said:
So what might happen is, if some enterprising law student(s) in the region (check UBC) touches the poo and represents (probono) certain individuals in the community, including but not limited to @WGkitty and reporters for TheRebel.media, in filing an Anti-SLAPP suit using the recently reanimated Anti-SLAPP legislation.
Click to expand...

Law students can't, on their own, engage in any practice of law beyond what the general public is permitted to do. They do legal work as articling students under qualified lawyers, or through authorized organizations like LSLAP (where they still fall under the insurance of their supervising lawyers). They need to be very careful about providing legal advice on their own, or they could end their careers before they get started. And I'm sure that The Rebel is capable of hiring qualified legal representation as needed and they don't need the help of student volunteers.

JYaniv said:
The funny thing is that the mental-midget Cousineau actually should have acknowledged the defence of the respondents when their counsel clearly stated that their refusal of service was protected under the Charter, because the tribunal has no jurisdiction over constitutional questions or rights and freedoms issues so the douche-tard really needs to be sanctioned, because the jv-court has been far too slow in acknowledging its lack of jurisdiction.

The MOMENT it became clear that this was a Constitutional Question, the defence should have petitioned to have the proceedings continued in a courty of competent jurisdiction, because the issue is on its face, calling a Constitutional Question. Shame on Devyn Cousineau for not realizing this, she's a total fuckin tard. Why is she so tard-tastic?

She's a fuckin' NEWBIE who's trying to use this case as a jumping-off precedent for her glorious career as Devyn, Social Justice Warrior! Her footprint is here. The hubris with her is great, and I think she's a bigger narcissist than JonboYaniv, just she has sufficient intelligence to conceal it.
Click to expand...

While there are many valid criticisms (and even insults) one could direct at Cousineau, she's not an idiot. She clerked at the Supreme Court of Canada. While I hate to be in a position where I sound like I'm defending Cousineau specifically or the BCHRT generally, I would suggest to those reading this thread that it's highly unlikely that Cousineau is getting basic facts of law completely incorrect and some random person on Kiwi Farms is able to do some Internet search and discover this. The problem with the Yaniv situation isn't that nothing he's claiming has any basis in Canadian law to be considered at all--the problem, and the absurdity here, is quite the opposite.

Moving on to address the quoted part of the post: the Tribunal doesn't have jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of code provisions, however they not only can, but they are required to, properly consider Charter values in applying the Human Rights Code.

"A direction in the legislation that a tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions relating to the Charter should not be viewed as a direction that the tribunal should ignore Charter values. [...] This was, in my view, the required approach for the Tribunal: to apply the test for discrimination to the facts of the case with Charter values in mind." - Ismail v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2013 BCSC 1079 (CanLII)

So basically, if someone wants to argue that a section of the Human Rights Code is unconstitutional under the Charter, that's outside the scope of what the Tribunal can decide (but no, this wouldn't mean they'd have to immediately refer the case upwards--they would make their decision without considering the argument, and the BCSC would decided on the constitutionality of the section on appeal). But if someone wants to invoke free expression (a Charter right), for example, the Tribunal would have to take it into consideration.

If the Tribunal was required to drop any case in which Charter rights came up, they'd have no cases left to decide, as freedom of association, freedom of expression, etc, come in to play in nearly all human rights complaints.
 
  • Informative
  • Winner
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Behavioral Sink, Breaker of Swains, Norman B. Normal and 16 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back