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

[AnOminous]

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.

I think she's actually deliberately and maliciously circumventing basic principles of due process because she fanatically adheres to a subversive ideology that quite literally wants to do away with these fundamental legal protections for people she views as evil, to benefit those she views as "marginalized" or otherwise having protectable interests superior to those of the majority.

I do not think she is stupid. I think she is a terrible, shitty person who should not be allowed to continue to do what she is doing.

"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.

And this is nonsensical and is the core contradiction in terms that the HRT represents. It lacks the adjudicative competence to make decisions on constitutional matters, but yet, its sole purpose is to make decisions concerning things that are fundamentally constitutional in nature.

This is nonsense. A tribunal that lacks the core competencies to make these decisions shouldn't be in the position of doing just that, whatever linguistic legerdemain they engage in to pretend they aren't.

 

[JYaniv]

I legitimately can't even understand what you're talking about here.. 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..
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.

Feedback is appreciated, as we should all understand. I'm not really willing to spend time bickering with other farmers, so I won't with the exception of clarifying that I stated defence counsel should have made it clear that this was a Constitutional Question, and thusly requiring the weight of a court of competent jurisdiction.

The MOMENT it became clear that this was a Constitutional Question, the defence should have petitioned to have the proceedings continued in a court 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?

I personally understand how Canadian SJT tribunals (jv-courts are shit, have a very limited scope, and broadening the scope is damn near impossible at that level because she'll claim 'I don't have jurisdiction to address that issue' and refuse to pass it off to a court of competent jurisdiction for ego reasons) and bureaucracy in general have a tendency to maintain the presently 'vogue' status quo. To go with the herd is relatively, and that looks like what Cousineau has caved to, by going with the prevailing winds, or the values of the Little Socialism (NDP up north is like an Ocasio-Cortez wet dream) regime of British Columbia.
However, I raise my eyebrow at @Cato and his eagerness to side with the "social justice" opinion when it validates his ego, but I understand his argument. As far as you guys know, my +xp stack doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about. I'm an untouchable, unknowable mystery, wrapped in an enigma... like a high coliform sandwich.
That's fine.. but we can just look at the continued ignorance of the complainant being endorsed as Cousineau bent over backwards for, and even chose to enable, the self-represented litigant that I kinda think she's hoping to use it as a stepping stone to move onto bigger and better things outside of Uber Cuba. I don't have transcripts from the SJT, but from all reports that's how it is goes down.

Think for yourselves, and if anybody has boots on the ground in the Yaniv region, it might be helpful cultivate a relationship with the courts he's going to be at in dealing with his Criminal matters. This'll be either the Provincial Summary (Criminal) in Surrey, or the Provincial Supreme (Criminal) in Vancouver. I'd say to cultivate with Surrey RCMP, but they sound a bit wishy-washy; it comes down to social engineering though, so don't expect results right away. And, I'm not counselling any action per se, just hoping we get more fresh high-lactose sustenance from the BuffaLOL after he gets detained.

So I respect your distaste for me @Cato and I look forward to you trying to perforate my posts in the future. I added those reference links in the hopes that the other farmers might be able to follow along if they researched a bit, but it's not my +xp stack.

 

[Tranny Fanny]

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.

My understanding is that they have and have basically been ignored. It's a weird time. Apparently it's OK to be racist if you identify as something you are not.

 

[SevenEightNine]

I think she's actually deliberately and maliciously circumventing basic principles of due process because she fanatically adheres to a subversive ideology that quite literally wants to do away with these fundamental legal protections for people she views as evil, to benefit those she views as "marginalized" or otherwise having protectable interests superior to those of the majority.

I do not think she is stupid. I think she is a terrible, shitty person who should not be allowed to continue to do what she is doing.



And this is nonsensical and is the core contradiction in terms that the HRT represents. It lacks the adjudicative competence to make decisions on constitutional matters, but yet, its sole purpose is to make decisions concerning things that are fundamentally constitutional in nature.

This is nonsense. A tribunal that lacks the core competencies to make these decisions shouldn't be in the position of doing just that, whatever linguistic legerdemain they engage in to pretend they aren't.

Is "legerdemain" like "sleight of hand"?

That was an aside, I tend to agree with your point. The HRT is quickly proving itself to be some weird combination of useless (gets between adults who should know better and legitimates childishness by offering free mediation) and too powerful, taking cases (like this one) that contain the thread of a legitimate legal question, but decide if quasi judicially, in a fraught process missing any of the controls (largely the ones around due process, presumption of innocence, etc)

Cousineau is definitely smart, and definitely using this (and likely other cases) to build her career as a hero of social justice. Who doesn't want to be important, and fight a righteous fight? She just has no real oversight. The public, and the people harmed in this process, they have no levers. They need to get either politicians or else hire attorneys to get a real independent look at this whole twisted situation, and lawyers DO NOT LIKE to attack this type of conduct.

 

[Philosophy Phil]

Feedback is appreciated, as we should all understand. I'm not really willing to spend time bickering with other farmers, so I won't with the exception of clarifying that I stated defence counsel should have made it clear that this was a Constitutional Question, and thusly requiring the weight of a court of competent jurisdiction.



I personally understand how Canadian SJT tribunals (jv-courts are shit, have a very limited scope, and broadening the scope is damn near impossible at that level because she'll claim 'I don't have jurisdiction to address that issue' and refuse to pass it off to a court of competent jurisdiction for ego reasons) and bureaucracy in general have a tendency to maintain the presently 'vogue' status quo. To go with the herd is relatively, and that looks like what Cousineau has caved to, by going with the prevailing winds, or the values of the Little Socialism (NDP up north is like an Ocasio-Cortez wet dream) regime of British Columbia.
However, I raise my eyebrow at @Cato and his eagerness to side with the "social justice" opinion when it validates his ego, but I understand his argument. As far as you guys know, my +xp stack doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about. I'm an untouchable, unknowable mystery, wrapped in an enigma... like a high coliform sandwich.
That's fine.. but we can just look at the continued ignorance of the complainant being endorsed as Cousineau bent over backwards for, and even chose to enable, the self-represented litigant that I kinda think she's hoping to use it as a stepping stone to move onto bigger and better things outside of Uber Cuba. I don't have transcripts from the SJT, but from all reports that's how it is goes down.

Think for yourselves, and if anybody has boots on the ground in the Yaniv region, it might be helpful cultivate a relationship with the courts he's going to be at in dealing with his Criminal matters. This'll be either the Provincial Summary (Criminal) in Surrey, or the Provincial Supreme (Criminal) in Vancouver. I'd say to cultivate with Surrey RCMP, but they sound a bit wishy-washy; it comes down to social engineering though, so don't expect results right away. And, I'm not counselling any action per se, just hoping we get more fresh high-lactose sustenance from the BuffaLOL after he gets detained.

So I respect your distaste for me @Cato and I look forward to you trying to perforate my posts in the future. I added those reference links in the hopes that the other farmers might be able to follow along if they researched a bit, but it's not my +xp stack.

That's kind of my thought process on this. Or just post a tonne of signs in and around the area that it frequents with just the word MEOW! on them.

My gut is telling me there is something off about both of you.
I don't know what it is, but something seems off.

 

[Chad Nasty]

My gut is telling me there is something off about both of you.
I don't know what it is, but something seems off.

Something's off about every autist on foxdick farms

 

[Cato]

And this is nonsensical and is the core contradiction in terms that the HRT represents. It lacks the adjudicative competence to make decisions on constitutional matters, but yet, its sole purpose is to make decisions concerning things that are fundamentally constitutional in nature.

This is nonsense. A tribunal that lacks the core competencies to make these decisions shouldn't be in the position of doing just that, whatever linguistic legerdemain they engage in to pretend they aren't.

I agree with your post, but this sort of weirdness is typical in Canadian law.

I cited a case specific to the BC Human Rights Tribunal, but the broader law in Canada about how administrative tribunals are to apply the Charter was articulated in Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12

I know that you're an American lawyer and you're used to your Bill of Rights being sacrosanct, but as you can see here, our Charter is sadly treated as a polite suggestion. It acts as "a reminder that some values [...] cannot be violated lightly," but administrative decision-makers are given deference (because someone like Devyn is treated as an expert on oppression, of course!), and when an individual's rights are violated, fuck 'em.

 

[Philosophy Phil]

Something's off about every autist on foxdick farms

Ah. Thats true.
I don't know, maybe its my nerves considering the cow in question that regularly uses socks and has a wide array of domains to use.
I don't have as many tools as the higher ups do here, so most of the time I rely on gut instincts and old fashioned detective work.
I might be wrong, but then again, my gut won't stop aching. John is a shameless attention whore, nothing gets him harder than getting away with things, infiltrating and becoming "One of us" smirking behind his ego "Aha, I have distracted them with this decoy, now I'll squirm in." That sort of thing is John's repetoire. Out him and cut off his head, and he'll grow 7 more back, because for him it is Obsession, it is Pleasure. Nothing gives him greater joy than that he has gotten away with something.

Again, my nerves are shot, and I have a tendency to jump the gun...but I am very well aware of the fact that John has a sock here on Kiwifarms and is using it to monitor all discussion on himself, along with WGKitty to figure out which neighbour it is. Do I have evidence? No.Don't have the means for that. All I have is a gut feeling, and a psychological profile. Sorry if my guts lean toward anyone not affiliated.

 

[AnOminous]

View attachment 885243

I know that you're an American lawyer and you're used to your Bill of Rights being sacrosanct, but as you can see here, our Charter is sadly treated as a polite suggestion. It acts as "a reminder that some values [...] cannot be violated lightly," but administrative decision-makers are given deference (because someone like Devyn is treated as an expert on oppression, of course!), and when an individual's rights are violated, fuck 'em.

I'm aware of the notwithstanding clause, and that thing appears to be a giant trap. It also doesn't appear to have been sprung, as such, and it shouldn't be underestimated that U.S. courts are entirely capable of violating the Constitution themselves, but there isn't anything quite on the level of a "unless we feel like it" clause that means you can just ignore it.

Where the tribunal here is screwing up, imo, is not in not judging the constitutionality of the laws it applies. An administrative body would not be allowed to do that here, either, and the degree to which a trial court can do it is circumscribed. Where it is screwing up is in its near total contempt for the rights of the individuals brought before it. There appears to be not even a scintilla of due process before going medieval on Yaniv's victims.

Apparently, the tribunal has some discretion in what cases it prosecutes, and does not always take every case, but the fact they chose to abuse their discretion in this case in this way is really a huge warning signal that whatever deliberative process they're using is completely broken.

 

[Ctrl+Alt+Rt]

Adding on to what Cato said...

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.

You're misunderstanding the nature of the hearing. Yaniv is not arguing that the aestheticians have a duty to perform Gender-Affirming Care as healthcare providers. Yaniv is arguing that his human rights as guaranteed under the Human Rights Act are being violated by being denied gender-appropriate services on the basis of gender identity. That is, a service for women should be provided to all women and not denied on any protected basis: not to black women (race), Haitian immigrant women (ethnic origin), Hindu women (religion), women over 30 (age), lesbian women (sexual orientation), deaf women (disability), or transwomen (gender identity).

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.

For that you need to establish that they misled or made false statements. afaik it was decided that questions or evidence about the nature of Yaniv's internal organs were not germane to the hearing and was therefore not pursued. So the statements he made were not proven false. Also, Yaniv was self-represented and in one place made an oopsie and said Miriam was representing him, so not sure what you mean by abusing the access to justice mechanism.

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.

You don't file anti-SLAPP suits. Anti-SLAPP legislation enables judges to toss out existing lawsuits that are meant to silence critics/journalists and have no hope of being won. This is not applicable because Yaniv hasn't sued WGKitty or The Rebel. Yet.

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?

A constitutional question is a legal issue involving interpretation of the Constitution rather than interpretation of a statute. The Canadian Human Rights Act is a statute. It protects religious rights, sex-based rights, and gender identity rights – it incorporates Charter rights – and it's up to the BCHRT to balance them. If the JCCF thinks the decision that the BCHRT hands down eventually is unconstitutional, they can apply for a judicial review with the BC Supreme Court. Also, BCHRT are bound by legal precedent but cannot set legal precedent for the courts.

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.

It's exceptional to construe judicial Member impartiality in allowing parties to present their complaint for a sjw agenda.

 

[AbraCadaver]

Ah. Thats true.
I don't know, maybe its my nerves considering the cow in question that regularly uses socks and has a wide array of domains to use.
I don't have as many tools as the higher ups do here, so most of the time I rely on gut instincts and old fashioned detective work.
I might be wrong, but then again, my gut won't stop aching. John is a shameless attention whore, nothing gets him harder than getting away with things, infiltrating and becoming "One of us" smirking behind his ego "Aha, I have distracted them with this decoy, now I'll squirm in." That sort of thing is John's repetoire. Out him and cut off his head, and he'll grow 7 more back, because for him it is Obsession, it is Pleasure. Nothing gives him greater joy than that he has gotten away with something.

Again, my nerves are shot, and I have a tendency to jump the gun...but I am very well aware of the fact that John has a sock here on Kiwifarms and is using it to monitor all discussion on himself, along with WGKitty to figure out which neighbour it is. Do I have evidence? No.Don't have the means for that. All I have is a gut feeling, and a psychological profile. Sorry if my guts lean toward anyone not affiliated.

Your gut needs to take a break from this site and maybe get a snack, mate

If your nerves are shot from following the antics of a fat piggly manboy in a dress and his manic fuckbuddy mother, you are doing kiwi farms wrong

Also yaniv types like a twelve year old and cannot possibly be either of those two.

 

[SourDiesel]

I'm aware of the notwithstanding clause, and that thing appears to be a giant trap. It also doesn't appear to have been sprung, as such, and it shouldn't be underestimated that U.S. courts are entirely capable of violating the Constitution themselves, but there isn't anything quite on the level of a "unless we feel like it" clause that means you can just ignore it.

Where the tribunal here is screwing up, imo, is not in not judging the constitutionality of the laws it applies. An administrative body would not be allowed to do that here, either, and the degree to which a trial court can do it is circumscribed. Where it is screwing up is in its near total contempt for the rights of the individuals brought before it. There appears to be not even a scintilla of due process before going medieval on Yaniv's victims.

Apparently, the tribunal has some discretion in what cases it prosecutes, and does not always take every case, but the fact they chose to abuse their discretion in this case in this way is really a huge warning signal that whatever deliberative process they're using is completely broken.

Doug Ford recently invoked the notwithstanding clause in Ontario to shut down an election in Toronto while campaigning was already well underway in order to completely change the ridings and lower the number of councillors. The entire Toronto election was a complete mess, no one knew wtf was going on. To try and stop or postpone it, it was argued that the last minute interference caused so much chaos that a fair election was impossible so Ford overrode the right to a fair election. It was huge deal.

 

[Cato]

I'm aware of the notwithstanding clause, and that thing appears to be a giant trap. It also doesn't appear to have been sprung, as such, and it shouldn't be underestimated that U.S. courts are entirely capable of violating the Constitution themselves, but there isn't anything quite on the level of a "unless we feel like it" clause that means you can just ignore it.

Where the tribunal here is screwing up, imo, is not in not judging the constitutionality of the laws it applies. An administrative body would not be allowed to do that here, either, and the degree to which a trial court can do it is circumscribed. Where it is screwing up is in its near total contempt for the rights of the individuals brought before it. There appears to be not even a scintilla of due process before going medieval on Yaniv's victims.

Apparently, the tribunal has some discretion in what cases it prosecutes, and does not always take every case, but the fact they chose to abuse their discretion in this case in this way is really a huge warning signal that whatever deliberative process they're using is completely broken.

What I was getting at though, and perhaps I didn't articulate it well, was that principles of Dore actually enable administrative tribunals to give even less consideration to the Charter than courts. The notwithstanding and limitations clauses are things in either case, but in actual courts there is what's called the Oakes test to determine whether a Charter infringement is justifiable. It is a formal, multi-stage test that--although it has its own issues--tends to be applied rather rigorously.

Dore abandoned the Oakes test application to administrative tribunal decisions, in favour of a "flexible" approach and deference to tribunal decision-makers. It established that the standard of review for an administrative tribunal decision is reasonableness, not correctness. In other words (@AnOminous I realize you presumably know what that means, but I'm elaborating for laypeople reading this thread), higher courts won't due a full analysis of the cases (including an Oakes test) decided by administrative tribunals to reach their own conclusion as to what the correct outcome is. Rather, they act with deference towards administrative tribunals and will only intervene if the tribunal decision is unreasonable.

In effect, tribunals can get away with Charter violations that even trial and appellate level courts can't. I was trying to say that things are even more fucked up than you realize.

 

[AnOminous]

In other words (@AnOminous I realize you presumably know what that means, but I'm elaborating for laypeople reading this thread), higher courts won't due a full analysis of the cases (including an Oakes test) decided by administrative tribunals to reach their own conclusion as to what the correct outcome is. Rather, they act with deference towards administrative tribunals and will only intervene if the tribunal decision is unreasonable.

In other words, tribunals can get away with Charter violations that even trial and appellate level courts can't. I was trying to say that things are even more fucked up than you realize.

Thanks for the extra details since I was aware that the judicial review of administrative decisions wasn't as robust as it is in the U.S., but didn't know the exact details. In the U.S., courts also defer to administrative quasi-courts, but only to their factual findings when they've been made as part of an actual process. Their interpretation of the law is de novo, and if they're wrong about a constitutional issue, they're just plain wrong.

(There's also deference to the agency's findings about the law that governs it but that's a different issue than adjudicating individual cases.)

 

[Cato]

Thanks for the extra details since I was aware that the judicial review of administrative decisions wasn't as robust as it is in the U.S., but didn't know the exact details.

Cheers; I'm always happy to lawsperg with you!

In the U.S., courts also defer to administrative quasi-courts, but only to their factual findings when they've been made as part of an actual process. Their interpretation of the law is de novo, and if they're wrong about a constitutional issue, they're just plain wrong.

That's more or less how things work with actual courts here in Canada. The standard of review for questions of fact is palpable and overriding error, while for questions of law it's correctness.

 

[IMayUseSpaces]

Holy fuck, what an absolute fucking waste of taxpayer dollars. This is a joke.

 

[Cato]

Holy fuck, what an absolute fucking waste of taxpayer dollars. This is a joke.

You'll be pleased to note that the tribunal members are well compensated for their efforts (figures represent base salary only, not full remuneration):

 

[IMayUseSpaces]

You'll be pleased to note that the tribunal members are well compensated for their efforts (figures represent base salary only, not full remuneration):

View attachment 885387

Perfect, money well spent. Canada should probably divert even more taxpayer funds from feckless ventures such as 'providing for veterans', or 'infrastructure' to ensure these paragons of virtue are better compensated. I love when cabals of smarmy arrogant elitist leftists are paid more money than some people will see in an entire lifetime to sit on their asses all day drinking coffee and taking upwards of a year to adjudicate whether or not a grown man is entitled to force females to fondle his genitals, and whether or not he should be given a large sum of cash when his efforts were rebuffed.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Interesting, but you didn't answer my question. Where do you see the funding for mandatory judicial review of HRT cases coming from?

We could just get both parties on The Killstream have people grill them and then decide who needs to be fined/imprisoned/executed etc via a chat vote.

Wouldn't cost nothing.

 

[simulated goat]

Salient moments:

Are those chicken filets stuck on backwards, or does Yaniv wear maxipads on his shoulderblades to soak up excess perspiration?

And how about that ladylike posture. #girlspreading

My guess is a too tight bra (likely doesn't wear properly fitting ones, just ones he finds 'sexy' and can manage to hook ). That and male pattern fat. That's why it looks odd.