The RCMP has a good track record and they “Always get their man”
LOL
I could list off dozens of scandals, controversies and examples of corruption or extreme incompetence from the RCMP, but since you focused on their investigative skills I'll just say they are sorely lacking in that department and the reasons are quite obvious. In the United States, for example, they have the FBI and other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies where they hire people directly into complex investigative roles, and as a result in the recruitment and selection stage they actively seek people who are reasonably well educated and intelligent, and capable of performing such work. In the RCMP, by contrast, they hire everyone to start in patrol and then they promote "bros" who mindlessly follow orders and get along with their dysfunctional internal culture to such investigative roles. In other words, they end up actively selecting for people who *lack* critical thinking ability. The barely literate email from an RCMP officer that was posted in this thread is very much the norm for them, both in terms of the quality of writing and dismissive and unhelpful response.
If the RCMP are such crack investigators, explain the Highway of Tears to me.
I thought the BCHRT didn't require a lawyer to open a complaint but DOES require one to defend against an accusation. That's why Jonny uses them to extort immigrant salon operators.
It would be a shame if some Langley immigrant fast food workers turned the BCHRT into a weapon to seek redress against Yaniv's blatant racism.
Respondents aren't
required to hire lawyers. They are allowed to self-represent if they so desire.
The issue is that actually filing a complaint is effortless and free, and subjects of complaint are potentially on the hook for thousands of dollars in "compensation," while the complainant faces no such consequences if they lose. Note that even when JY was ordered to pay costs, it was a pathetic $150, and even that is an extreme outcome and complainants being ordered to pay costs by the Tribunal is almost unheard of (the decision explicitly said it was being done as a punitive measure).
Basically, respondents "have" to hire lawyers in practice much of the time, because it's more expensive for them not to. Whereas that's never true for complainants.