JY Hearing Condensed for Clarity
This transcript was taken at the Human Rights Tribunal Case #17587 , Jessiva Yaniv VS Marcia Da Silva on Wednesday July 17, 2019. I did my best to be as thorough and detailed as possible. That being said I couldn’t possibly type as fast as people talk. There were times when I indicate my lack of ability to keep up and need to move on with “etc. etc.”. I tried to edit and condense to make it as clear as possible.
I do not have any association with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom, other than being a great admirer of their work. If you would like to donate you can do so here:
https://www.jccf.ca/donate-to-jccf/
Feel free to reach out to me via Twitter @hastosayitpod OR Instagram @someonehastosayitpod
For clarity:
JY = Jessica Yaniv aka Claimant
MD = Marcia Da Silva aka MD
JC = Jay JC aka Lawyer for MD
MY = Miriam Yaniv aka mother of JY
DC = Devyn Cousineau aka Tribunal DC (judge)
JCCF = Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom, JC is employed by this non profit firm
GI = Gender Identity
Gallery = Audience present at the tribunal
SS = Screenshot
All my personal thoughts and interjections will be indicated in italics
- Supposed to start at 930
- Woman asked for pen
- I gave her my extra
- Learned is JY’s MY
- It is now her pen
- She offered to give me back pen
- I said she could keep it
- A member of the Gallery let MY know not to photograph her
- They exchange words
- 10am - We have started
- Intros - nothing exciting
- Preliminary Issues
- No sending / receiving communications during hearing
- DC emphasizes to JY to turn off wifi
- DC brings up two complaints against JY MY
- Complaints about conduct including threats and yelling
- DC says that any misconduct will not be accepted today. Will be removed
- Woman who was threatened says she wishes MY to be removed for threats
- DC denies
- MY asks about why people are allowed to report
- DC says that will be addressed later
- DC says there has been an application to lift publication ban
- Application says JY gender is not private
- JY is herself tweeting about the case
- There is a high number of complaints by JY
- Her racist tweets undermines
- Because there are multiple complaints there is a public interest in knowing her identity
- JY responds:
- Because of JCCF JY is receiving “thousands of tweets”
- Says people can not use religion to discriminate against others
- Says she speaks on behalf of LGBTQ
- Number of issues she has raised in Langley
- Says she has not tweeted about case
- Her phone rings while she is talking
- DC again asks phone to be turned off
- JY seems to disregard this
- Says no one can refuse service based on religion or nationality. Why against her?
- Someone tweeted and asked why Sikh Indian women to perform service knowing they won’t do it?
- She says their religion is being used to discriminate against them
- She is talking about her tweets but it appears she is skimming over the details of these tweets to avoid the worst parts. She is getting out of breath
- She tweeted about the right for the CBSA to do citizenship checks on the road.
- Bring up A & W case - says she believes employees should need to speak English
- DC brings up a tweet that JY hasn’t touched on where she sends out screen shot about another case
- Because she has tweeted about that why does she deserve privacy protection?
- JY emphasizes that she has received threats and thats why she needs the media ban
- DC emphasizes her tweets are public
- JY charges JCCF with “outing her”
- (I dont understand this logic because she clearly was out by contacting these ladies but anyway)
- JY says once her identity was exposed she wasn’t sure what she was supposed to do
- JC says
- JY has contradicted herself many times
- JY has said she identified as a woman since she was 6
- Has tweeted, posted on online forums, etc many many times about her GI - long before complaints were brought up.
- JY has repeatedly blamed the justice center
- MD is accused of making fake profiles
- Absolutely untrue according to MD
- It is not in client’s best interest to create fake profiles and tweets
- Points to gallery - MD / JC can not control what people say online
- Categorically denies that they have done anything to expose JY’s identity
- Admits a small transcript was posted unredacted by accident, when mistake was realized was taken down
- Lindsey Shepard does not work for or represent JCCF
- There was an exchange between JY and Lindsey Shepard on twitter
- Emphasized JCCF has no connection to Lindsey Shepard
- JY continues to look for women of color to try and get services from then only to bring up complaints
- It is JCCF position that JY chose to make complaints against people of obvious immigrant decent, and the public should be aware of this.
- MD has lost her job and suffered emotionally from this complaint
- JY has changed name to publicly identify as a woman.
- DC points out this ban is based on harassment
- JC says the original ban was based on keeping GI secret
- This is a high stakes case
- JY seeking money, and is discriminating against immigrants
- JY asks if she can address
- DC says no
- JY says JC was allowed to talk for 10 minutes - this isn’t fair.
- DC shuts her down
- JC says JY has added MY to witness list at last moment
- JC says witnesses must be given far in advance, not the night before
- Asks why she was allowed to testify yesterday despite last minute addition
- MY approaches table
- DC asks her to leave table
- JC does not argue against witness as long as he is given the opportunity to cross examine
- Will cross examine
- DC:
- JY filed complaint April 2018
- Has changed named from Jonathan to Jessica
- Alleges discriminated against for Brazilian wax
- Claims this is a violation of her rights
- Were her rights violated?
- What is remedy if they were?
- Using evidence used in other complaints
- Combining closing arguments
- As explained yesterday
- May use evidence heard in all complaints to make decisions
- No evidence that JC is not privy to will be used
- 3 more hearings - July 26
- At EOD they will discuss scheduling closing arguments, including cost applications
- Are there any other prelim events that need to be addressed?
- JY:
- Online tweets were sent by an observer in the gallery. There has been a tweet that connects JY to Amy and on Amy’s account there are retweets that clearly identify JY
- Remove JC for all proceedings because there is misconduct from JC and he does not have a legal right to represent MD
- Doesn’t believe JC has the right to practice law
- Alleges JC did not put the real name of MD on court documents
- DC suggests it is an incredibly serious thing to accuse a lawyer of not being qualified, and the bar is incredibly high to prove this.
- DC asks if JY has any evidence this is true
- JY withdraws application to remove JC
- JY applies to withdraw reply by MD because JC submitted paperwork with incorrect name.
- DC denies this request
- DC: “MD has right to pick her legal council.”
- DC dismisses MY until testimony is done since she is being called as a witness until JY is done testifying
- JC emphasizes expert witness testimony still applies
- JY opening statement
- Thank you for being here
- Relying on case law
- Mamilla vs vancouver lesbian connections
- Sheridan vs Sentury investment
- Among others
- DC stops JY
- Asks to just send list - not list them all out loud
- JY’s argument is MD has rendered service that are customarily provided to the public
- MD posted a facebook ad for Brazilian waxes
- Because facebook is public - this is a public service
- There were no Terms of Service
- Because of this, she can not discriminate
- And that it is evident that religion is being applied subjectively and randomly as a non bonafide excuse
- This is neo-nazism
- In another court case it was determined that every service has its own public and once that public is defined the HRA prevents discrimination
The DC looks as bored and sick of JY’s shit as the rest of us
- JY:
- “Public” can constitute a very small group or a very large group
- Respondents are responsible for council’s conduct
- Tribunal has held this belief in the affirmative
- References case to back up claim
- Discrimination of a transsexual counts as discrimination based on sex
- Quotes a bunch more shit.. basically repeating herself
- It is evident that MD has discriminated against JY based on her GI
- Spews off a ton more cases which allegedly support her complaint
- In regards to publication ban
- The visibility of ones transgender status puts one at risk of violence
- Wants to clarify because it was posted online that JY does not have a taser at the hearing
- (Kristina’s personal thought: It is worth noting that people think JY might have a weapon due to her tweet which stated “Who says I am unarmed?”
- JC points out this is argument not opening statement
- DC lets JY proceed
- Talks about more cases… blah blah blah
- Ignorance of the law is not a defense
- Being a woman is very important to me
- People refute this fact everyday
- Is a LGBTQ advocate
- Has always been a diva and has been partial to traditionally girly thing
- When JY was 6, a specialist diagnosed JY as a girl
- Professional had never heard of this, but said to embrace it
- DC asks JY to wrap it up
- JY states that only family and very close friends new about gender identity
- Was scared of hatred, and that hatred is real
- JC Opening statement
- MD was operating out of her home at the time of JY complaint
- Has 3 small kids, is pregnant
- Sought no controversy
- Does not hate JY
- Any contention that the refusal of service makes her a nazi is the latest in a longline of unfounded and offensive statement, and objected to
- JY responds the denial of service from certain cultural group MAY be considered Neo-nazism
- In law there is a recognized difference in biological sex and gender
- Sex is biological
- GI is somebody who identifies as a sex
- To identify as something it must be identifiable
- The service is physiological
- JY has male genitals
- This case is about whether or not the state can compel or punish MD for refusing to handle male genitals
- MD never waxed male genitals
- not comfortable waxing male genitals
- husband not comfortable with her waxing male genitals
- Handling male genitals 20+ minutes can lead to an erection
- In original complaint, JY had male name, appearance
- When JY originally approached MD she used a fake profile to appear as a pregnant biological female
- Once she had MD info she began to text MD
- Sent a real photo of herself to MD
- When MD discovered JY had male genitalia, she let JY know waxing male genitalia was not something she was prepared to do
- Because of complaint she closed her business and lost source of income
- A finding that MD has done something wrong in this case regarding providing services she is not comfortable doing is a finding that estheticians must perform intimate services they are not ready to do.
- DC: We will take a brief break. Back at 11:15
- JY asks about submitting evidence refuting something JC said
- DC states this will be dealt with later
- JC clarifies the misuse of name on paperwork for his client.
- JY is sworn in
- DC:
- JY you are about to give evidence
- Must give the whole truth
- A breach of this promise is a violation of the law
- JY:
- States she has been really really sick lately, might take breaks
- 1st exhibit: (exhibit 24)
- SS of Facebook profile
- Wants to mention she can see MD is from Brazil, and her name lead her to believe she is an instructor
- Facebook page for instructor Marcia Cornova (spell check)
- Kristina clarification: From what I understand Marcia’s last name on Facebook “Cornova” is a reference to some form of Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu. That is why it is not Di Silva
- JY decides to combine to SS into one exhibit
- One is a desktop view / other is mobile view of the Facebook conversation
- JY: Thankfully this is a simple conversation.
- JY clicked on the ad, sent a message to MD I am interested in getting your brazillian wax. MD marked listing as sold.
- JY states her memory is shot due to concussions.
- It is JY recollection there were 2-3 ads on Facebook for Brazilian waxes.
- All ads were marked as sold
- What this shows JY is MD and other MDs are presuming me as male based on name and picture. However, as DC has addressed, a person’s GI is their own.
- “That is a statement that I want to focus on. With all due respect MD - I look at you and dont know your GI. Your GI is what belongs to you. That is the definition under human rights code.What I am personally seeing with this. MD saw my picture and name, and denied the service based on this.”
- “What the hell is going on? This is the same day I approached other businesses asking for services, and was denied. I was getting angry.”
- Contacted good friend Mia Strait told her I am upset and am just looking for service here.
- JY asks Mia Strait “Can you reach out to person and book a service for me?”
- I find it interesting Mia Strait is not present at the hearing to be a witness
- JY asked Mia to get the phone number.
- Mia contacted MD and gave her JY’s information.
- JY admits she has not seen the exchange between Mia and MD
- MD claims this exchange did not occur
- JY received address of MD
- Text from MD to JY: “Text me when you’re almost here.”
- JY texted Thanks I will see you at 4pm for my brazillian. I am a transgender woman.
- MD replies:
- Okay.
- Based on this, JY figured she would be receiving the service.
- Replied: Thanks I was born a man, and am now a woman. Just want to clarify I will be getting the service.
- MD replies: Stop messaging me if you are not going to come. If you aren’t coming that is okay. (Not direct quote, but JY’s reading).
- On your profile you don’t appear transgender since you appear pregnant. If you want to play around stop texting me. (Again, not direct quote but JY’s reading)
- JY takes photo at the time of text because she had just got her makeup done.
- MD replies:
- Oh I thought you were joking. I don’t have a problem doing a wax, but I can’t on you. My husband would not be comfortable.
- JY says she hears this excuse often.
- When JY received text she was half way there but decided to turn around.
- Claims address MD gave was an invalid address.
- Doesn’t understand why MD gave a fake address.
- There is nothing at the location.
- MD does not reside there.
- Wasted the tribunals time because the address turned out to be incorrect.
- Tribunal couldn’t serve MD based on invalid address
- Going back to first exhibit.
- JY got upset she was given an invalid address because has been given false addresses in the past
- Three complaints had to be withdrawn because the wrong addresses were given
- JY decided to try and get info herself
- Reached out to business indicated on MD profile to let them know MD refused service and JY did not appreciate that.
- Spoke to business over live chat on website
- Business confirmed employment
- JY used work address to establish communication
- JY says she used a fake/burner number to text MD
- They had heated exchange
- MD makes JY aware she has reported this to the police and wants no further communication.
- JY ceases communication
- JY has problem with MD presuming GI.
- Your GI is your own.
- People should not assume others GI.
- JY couldn’t presume to know MD GI (even though she is very visibly pregnant)
- “We live in a very different age. You cant assume GI, you must ask them.”
- Concludes JY evidence
- JC commences questioning JY
- JC: When you originally reached out to MD, that was April 20, 2018?
- JY:I dont remember exact date
- JC: You have filed exhibits. Including exhibit 24. You had a look at the Facebook page before asking for services. Could you tell she was Brazillian?
- JY says he has non problem with Brazilians as his grandfather is Brazilians.
- Can not know someones ethnicity based on looking at them
- JC: At the bottom of the ss, it states MD is from Brazil
- JY says she had no way of knowing
- JC: Regarding exhibit 26
- Clarifies date
- JC: “You had messaged MD from your account?
- JY:Yes
- JC: Why did you use a picture on your Facebook profile that wasn’t you?
- JY:I don’t recall. Facebook marketplace does not allow people to use Facebook marketplace to respond to ad with profiles less than two years.
- JC: How did you obtain her phone number?
- JY:I did not obtain her phone number. I had a friend reach out to book the service.
- JC: Was that friend you?
- JY:No
- JC: You’ve stated you had fake profiles in the past.
- JY:Mia is a real person.
- JC: You might have reached out under the name Jessica
- JY:I don’t recall. It is possible but I doubt it
- JC: When you contacted MD with her phone number, it is possible you got her number when you reached out with an account under the name Jessica?
- JY:No. She messaged me first. My friend gave her my phone number and she texted me.
- JC: When MD messaged you with address and time at 11:27 why did you get into your car long before the appointment and begin the journey to the appt.
- JY:I take transit. I asked my friend to reach out to MD and request. It would take three hours by transit to get to appointment
- JC reminds JY that she is undernoath.
- JY
larifies that sometime around 11:27 she headed towards her appointment in Surrey.
- JC: When you are traveling to public transit to travel to Surrey from your personal residence, how long does it take to get there?
- JY tries to use phone to answer.
- DC says put down phone.
- JY clarifies she was downtown.. not at her personal residence and maintains that she thought it would take awhile to get to Surrey.
- JY accuses JC of putting stickers on property where she lives
- JC denies
This is one of SO MANY instances where JY throws out wild / offtopic accusations of which DC does not give any pushback
- JC: When you say that MD gave you a false address. What basis do you make that claim?
- JY: On the basis that I used the address she gave me for the tribunal. They couldn’t deliver her paperwork at that address.
- JC: You have never been to this address?
- JY:No
- JC: So how do you know she deceived you?
- JY:I used this address to file complaint, and the complaint was sent back to me.
- JC: You don’t know this is a fake address?
- JY:The tribunal has stated this is an illegitimate address
- JC: Is it possible that this is a residential address?
- JY:What I know is what the tribunal told me, which is that its a fake address
- JC: You are accusing MD of misleading you. This is the address of a building. Is it possible that this is the address where MD resides.
- JY:No. If you live in a condo you have a unit number. This is an incomplete address. For instance some condos have 300+ units. If you give someone an address with no unit number I am not going to go knock on all units til I find them.
- JC: Is it possible that MD was going to give you the unit number when you arrived?
- JY:It doesn’t matter. She posted on Facebook. It is a public service. If MD was having a private event such as a waxing party or club, that is member exclusive, closed off to the public then yes, MD would be at liberty to not post the address.
- DC asked the question again: Is it possible that MD was going to give you the unit number when you arrived?
- JY: Yes it is possible
- JC: You said to MD I was born a man, but am now a woman. It has been hard. Is that true?
- JY: Yes
- JC: When you requested a brazillian were you aware that a brazillian is the waxing of a female genital area as testified by professional witness
- JY: Yes and as I have stated I am female. And I have received brazillian waxes. And you know that.
- JC: I do not know that. I don’t follow you around. It is your testimony you have male genitals. You are requesting a service on a female genital area when you have male genitalia. What service were you requesting?
- JY:A brazillian wax.
- JC: Not a “brozillian”
- JY:No
- JC: You expect MD to wax your male parts
- JY:Incorrect
- JC: You expect MD to wax your male parts. In this case your expectation was that MD would wax your male parts in her residence.
- JY:Incorrect. I am intersex.
- JC: Please explain what you mean by intersex?
- JY is argumentative, but doesn’t answer the question
- DC tells her to be cooperative
- JY means being intersex means being both male and female
- JC: At no point in this hearing you have uniformly stated you have male genitalia/
- JY:No I have not. Show me where I said that.
- JC: I am not here to answer your questions. But you have stated to claimants you have claimed you have male parts. You were expecting somebody in their personal residence to have you in a state of undress and work on your genitals for a prolonged period of time. Your evidence as filed in all related proceedings is that you have male parts.
- JY: True
- JC: What you are telling the tribunal is that you have a vulva?
- JY:I am not going to answer that.
- JC: I am not going to permit you to weasel out of this. You have informed this tribunal that you have evidence that you have male parts. Is it your evidence that you have a vulva / external female genitalia.
- JY:I have said I am intersex. I will not talk about my genitals
- JC: You have accused someone of discriminating against you based on a service she does not provide. You have asked her to wax your genitalia. Which is a penis and testicals.
- JY:I never asked her to wax a penis. I asked for a brazillian.
- JC: Words have meaning. A brazillian means something. You asked for a service where someone is going to work on your genitalia. You are refusing to answer a question regarding this complaint.
- DC asks to clarify if JY expected her to wax a penis or vulva
- JY indicates she has a vulva
- JC: Your evidence before this tribunal thus far has said that you have male genitalia. Externally, you are asking someone to work on your genitals. Your evidence is that you have a vulva? Do you understand what that is?
- JY: yes it is the external skin around the vagina
- JC: No it is the skin around a biological females sex organ. At no point in time have you said you have a vulva. And I would put it to you that this is a lie.
- JY: I maintain I have a vulva. I will not go further
- JC: Are you willing to submit to an independent medical exam to prove you were born intersex?
- DC says she will not require that
- JY: If a person was embarrassed by something would they advertise it? How can we know a person’s genitals just by looking at them? Questions if JC is accusing JY of lying
- JC: I put to you that you are saying you have external female sex organs. It is the first time it has been brought up. Is that true or false.
- JY:It is not false. Do you understand what intersex means?
- DC states it is not the duty of mr. JC to answer JY’s questions.
- JY: With intersex conditions one thing works and one thing doesn’t.
- JC: Back to exhibit one. ¾ of the way down the page you say. Awesome okay. Quoting JY: “I have not gone through surgery. I still have male parts.” - So you did not tell her you had external female genitalia?
- JY:No I did not. If I said I was intersex she wouldn’t have understood. If they are refusing to do a wax because of their religion they are not going to do it regardless. Im going to put it to you this way: Someone has stated online that she is intersex. We don’t know whats going on with her, and that’s not our business. Your client would deny her service. Whats going on with these complaints is setting a precedent based on human rights vs religion. If DC decides in favor against the LGBTQ it can be extremely dangerous. What you are saying is someone can walk into a restaurant, such as a pizza shop, they can be denied service because now it is in the human rights code. If DC says this is okay, it will give leeway for anyone to refuse service just because they want to.
- It is shocking to me that JC did not push back on this point. Comparing making a pizza for someone to touching someones genitalia is wildly illogical.
- JC: Back to exhibit one:
- JC: You say I am a transwoman.
- JY interrupts: Just so you know. I haven’t gone through surgery.
- JC: So your surgery is scheduled?
- JY:Yes
- JC: What surgery is scheduled?
- JY:I am not answering this. It is not appropriate.
- JC: There is a long list of half truths, and misleadings. Are you willing to provide the tribunal with any documents of your genitalia?
- JY: Nothing is scheduled yet. Its a complicated process. I will not provide anything. I don’t think you understand JC how much is involved in transgenderism. Everything involved. Hormones (etc. etc.)
- JC: At the moment I am just trying to determine if you are telling the truth. Exhibit #9
- JY interrupts to say the person in the ss is not her.
- JC: There is a long string of ss regarding tampons, on Facebook forums. I am going to ask about this statement in the middle.
- JY states again it was not her who said that
- JC reads messages, gist of messages is that someone asking about change rooms, menstruation, pads, etc.
- JC: This is an individual on the internet with your photo, whether or not the statement is true or false.
- JY: I never sent this - so it is false. There has been loads of fake profiles created of me. On reddit, askfm, you know the whole list
- JC: I do not know the whole list
- JY: Lindsey Shepard is an employee of the JCCF and I got her banned from twitter.
- JC: Lindsey is not an employee of the JC. Is it your position that someone should be forced to wax biological male genitalia in their residence. Compelled by the state?
- JY:If a service is posted publicly they can not discriminate based on sex or GI.
- JC: You complained about a wax on your arm that burned you on your Facebook.
- JY:I dont know how you got access to my private Facebook page, but it wasn’t a burn it was an allergic reaction. The waxing location in question was disgusting, feces and blood on the walls. I got sick and reported this location.
- JC: Is it relevant to you as a customer whether or not MD does has any experience whatsoever waxing male genitalia?
- JY:No it is not relevant. You’ve stated she does not have the supplies. However, waxing supplies are simple. Common things like hard, soft wax etc.
- JC: It is relevant because you were previously burned by bad wax. If MD burnt you through inexperience, would you then file a complaint against MD?
- JY goes off on unrelated tangent
- DC redirects JY to answer question.
- JY goes on and on but still isn’t answering the question.
- JC reiterates question.
- JY says if you are in a car accident you don’t immediately call police. You check to make sure the other person is okay etc.
- Again, I have no idea how this is relevant, but it was the answer
- JC reiterates the question again
- JY: Anything is possible
- 12:30 DC asks to break for lunch
- Scheduling conflicts discussed.
- MD must leave soon
- JY complains about this
- It is determined MD will testify before lunch due to time constraints
- MD is sworn in
- Just want to note that MD is not a native English speaker. Her answers will reflect this.
- JC: This is your opportunity to tell the tribunal what happened. Please start with when you began to be an esthetician
- MD: I start end of March 2018. Started with my friends. I am a mother. I have three kids. Expecting fourth. Husband is working. Daytime not at home. I had decided to put ad on Facebook marketplace where I saw similar ads. I posted ad for brazillian wax doing a promo to try and get clients. Promo was for $25 instead of $35. The promo ended so I marked it as sold.
- JC: You were working out of your personal residence and your husband was at work. The address you provided is where you live?
- MD: Yes
- JC: And it was your intention to provide unit number once JY was in the area?
- MD: Yes. Then I got a private message from JY.
- JC: Was the initial profile photo a picture of JY?
- MD: No. When JY asked about booking appt I gave her personal phone number. When I received JY’s message I was busy.
- JC: Why did you not provide unit number in initial address?
- MD: For safety. Normally they text when they are close and I go down stairs and get them.
- JC: What happened next?
- MD: She started messaging me. I say it’s no problem. JY booked appt at 4 pm. MD gives address. JY starts texting her personal phone number. This was weird because MD didn’t give JY her personal phone number. Your profile photo showed you as a woman. You are playing around with me. I don’t have time for this. JY knows that she works at home and has a family. I say okay I spoke to my husband and he said if you don’t feel safe then don’t do it. The problem is not that she is transgender, but it was because she was lying and acting weird. I did not feel comfortable.
- JC: Do you have experience / are you comfortable waxing male genitalia?
- MD: No. After I said I wouldn’t wax her she got upset. She started contacting my boss at my other job telling him that she was afraid for me to work on the business since the business has a lot of kids and today kids are different.
- MD boss ask for evidence. Boss determines MD has done nothing wrong. JY had MD Facebook page shut down by saying she was using a fake name. MD had to send Facebook her government ID to prove ID. MD was very upset the tribunal contacted her work address. MD called tribunal to clarify address.
- Later someone named Jessica contacted MD saying she had an appt with MD asking for her unit number. MD says if you have been to my house you know my unit number. She blocked her.
- JY contacted her again, asking what her problem is with LGBT. MD stated I have no problem with LGBT. Blocked her.
- MD states she felt harassed. She was worried her kids weren’t safe walking home from school. She contacted the police. The police asked MD to call her. MD called and stated she felt harassed and to cease all communication.
- JY said MD does not know the law in this country and she is going to take this further.
- MD hangs up. The police saw the exchange. They said if she hears from her or sees her around her home to call police and they will deal with it.
- Then found out she had made a HRT complaint.
- JC: What happened to your business?
- MD: I closed it. I felt scared to have people in my home due to all the harassment.
- JC: Have you been trained to wax male genitalia.
- MD: No
- DC questioning MD:
- DC: You said your husband didn’t feel comfortable with you providing the service
- MD: Since I was home alone, I wasn’t comfortable receiving someone who appears as a man. I was alone and I have young children.
- Just to clarify: You don’t have a problem with her being trans, but with the way she was messaging you and lying made you uncomfortable. What are all the reasons you were uncomfortable?
- MD: When you book an appt. You call and set the time. She kept messaging me and giving me her whole history. I thought it was very weird. To me trans is someone who has a surgery. She told me she was trans so I thought it was fine she had female parts. I called my husband and explained the situation. He said to cancel if I was nervous.
- What is the setup in your home for services?
- MD: I have a room with everything I need for wax. Has a door, supplies etc.
- You’ve given this evidence that you work at home and your kids are there. What do you rely on to tell you whether or not a client should be allowed there?
- MD: It was my first time waxing a stranger. It was my first time advertising my service. First time gaining unknown clients. I never received any clients from the ad. When she messaged me saying she had been there before I knew she was lying because I had not had anyone over yet. I had never received anybody.
- So you have never had a stranger in your home for a wax?
- MD: No that was the first message and after that I closed down
- Just to be clear - what is your understanding of what JY meant when she said she was trans?
- MD: That she had surgery.
- DC: And what were you expecting to wax?
- MD: Female genitalia
- JC: When you advertised waxing service your intention was to wax biological female genitalia?
- MD: Yes.
- JC: Exclusively female?
- MD: Yes
- JY begins questioning. - Thanks MD for coming
- JY: JC indicates you only wax female. But I am female, so why are you specifically excluding transgenders?
- DC clarifies questions, why doesn’t she wax females with a penis?
- JY: If you wax females, why not transgender?
- MD: I am not not waxing you because you are transgender, I don’t wax male parts.
- JY: You stated I texted you, but you texted me first
- They are arguing about this. Back and forth
- DC asks why JY didn’t provide evidence to MD. JY says it wasn’t relevant.
- MD: I was confused because you were texting me your whole history.
- DC: I suggest you find the text conversation between you and Mia during break. MD can not testify on a conversation she wasn’t apart of.
- JY: You stated that you had no issue with me being transgender?
- MD: Yes
- DC states they have a different understandings of what it means to be transgender.
- JY: Transgender means someone who doesn’t identify as the sex they were born as.
- JY: Would you do service on a transgender person?
- MD: I would on a transgender who has had surgery.
- Would you do waxing on a F2M transgender person?
- MD: I do not understand.
- DC clarifies that JY must speak in terms MD understands which is genitalia.
- JY tries desperately to make it about being transgender.
- MD clarifies it’s about genitalia - not about transgender.
- JY is still desperately trying to make it about transgender by using someone named Taylor.
- MD says I don’t pick my clients based on name
- DC: I do not find hypotheticals relevant
- JY shows a phone screen with a photo of a woman
- MD says the picture she shows is a photo of the woman who originally messaged her named Jessica.
- MD says it has been a year she is not 100% sure it is her, but they look very similar
- DC asks for a photo of Mia to clarify
- JY shows a different photo
- MD says it is a different photo of a different person
- DC asks are they the same person?
- MD states it is not the same person.
- JY: the person I just showed you, her name is Taylor, would you wax her?
- MD: I am not sure
- Personal thought - the DC is allowing a disgusting amount of leeway to JY
- DC asks JY to provide both photos during lunch break
- MD states the blonde lady who was pregnant was the original person who messaged her.
- DC: JY showed photo of Taylor to MD, then you showed a photo of Mia to MD and MD states that first photo is the original person who messaged her asking for service.
- JC: Whoever initially contacted MD provided JY with MD phone number. What MD is saying is that the person who contacted her originally is the person in the photo that JY just showed.
- JY: Photo is just of her head, how would you know she is pregnant?
- MD: I didn’t say it was 100% her. I said they looked very similar.
- JY shows MD a photo.
- MD: Says that is not the original photo you just showed me.
- JC insists she show the photo again
- MD: Reiterates they look very similar to the first person who messaged her
- JY: Based on the name and photo that is how you decide to do a service?
- MD: You tried to contact me through Facebook, I told you the promo is done. Other profile messages me and asks. I agree to do both services.
- JY: I reached out to you. You marked the promo as sold. The next thing that happened is my friend Mia messaged you and asked for service. What I know is there was a request made for service, a time, and then my friend gave MD my phone number.
- DC clarifies question
- MY walks in and hands DC iPad
- DC says I can not have this and goes to hand it to JY
- JC says it must be turned off as they could be sharing messages this way.
- DC closes ipad and hands to JY
- DC again clarifies question
- MD: I spoke to a couple of people about the promo. Since this happened the second day I posted, I took down the ad. I started talking to other people. You told me you were upset I denied the service. Then you asked your friend to reach out to me? How can Mia reach me before I sent you a text with my address?
- JY: You posted an ad, I reached out to you. Then you marked the ad as sold?
- MD: Correct, but it had nothing to do with you.
- JY repeats herself.
- DC says don’t do that.
- JY: You posted an ad for wax. I then asked for service. Then you took down the ad?
- MD: Yes, but I took it down not because of you. I took the ad down because the promo was too cheap. What JY was saying before that, was that she reached out to her friend to contact me. The time line doesn’t make sense
- JY: What I want to clarify is that when I clicked the button it initiated the conversation?
- MD: We never had a conversation. It was marked as sold.
- JY: *Brings up exhibit showing a ss* Is that a conversation?
- MD: No
- Well I disagree.
- MD: This is when you went further and start sending my address to your friends.
- JY: When somebody asks you for service from a Facebook ad, where does it show up on your phone? When I clicked “is this available?” Where does it show up?
- MD: On Facebook chat
- JY: But Facebook chat is a conversation app
- JY: Next I talked to my friend Mia and asked her to reach out to you correct?
- DC clarifies MD wouldn’t know what went on in a conversation between JY and Mia and can not answer
- JY: Would you agree that when you click on sold, it shuts down the ad?
- MD: Yes
- JY: When something is closed it closes the conversation?
- MD: Yes. And clearly you could still contact me because you got my information and contacted my employer.
- JY: You stated that I kept messaging you?
- MD: To get the address, correct
- JY: What you stated earlier is that you were busy, and that I kept messaging you over and over.
- MD: Yes
- JY: Explain to me how two messages are overwhelming?
- MD: I sent the address. Then you kept messaging me. Telling me your history. I was born male. I am a trans woman. It has been Hard.
- JY: So four messages is overwhelming?
- MD: I stopped responding to your messages and told you to stop playing with me. You sent me a photo of yourself. I called my husband because the photo on facebook was different from the photo you sent. You went to my Facebook. You called my work. Spoke to my boss. Tried to get me fired.
- JY denies trying to get her fired.
- MD: You had my Facebook shut down
- JY denies this.
- JY: Does Facebook tell you who reports your profile?
- MD: No.
- JY: How do you know it was me?
- MD: Because you were texting me my name was fake
- JY continues to deny she reported the profile
- JC: Where did you obtain JY’s phone number?
- MD: Someone named Jessica on Facebook
- JC: The person who you believe is Jessica, is that the photo JY showed you?
- MD: They look very very similar
- JC tries to show photo
- JY States that the selfies of herself are irrelevant.
- DC clarifies it is relevant.
- JC: Approaches MD with photo of JY appearing as a male
- JC: Is this the person who contacted you on Facebook?
- MD: Yes. When I went to the police I started to search who is threatening me at my work. I have texts asking for my unit number. Started looking for Jonathan Yaniv. That is when she saw the male appearing photo and she wondering why this strange person was contacting her. I felt threatened because she contacted my boss. The texts from a different number for the unit number. I contacted the police.
- MD answers in the affirmative that male photo of JY is the same person she found on twitter.
- JC: What language are you most comfortable using?
- Portugese - My native tongue.
- Break at 1:30
- I walked back into the room just before 2:30
- JY is eating five guys and complains about her blood sugar to DC
- DC aks JY if she needs to stop for the day
- After a lot of himming and hawing JY says she can continue
- We commence at 2:30
- Several things have been submitted during break
- JY has forgotten an exhibit. She is trying to submit it.
- The DC has stated because MD has left for the day it’s hard to accept it.
- JY goes back and forth on whether or not she wants it submitted.
- JC steps out to speak with MD who has left to see what to do about this.
- The exhibit she is trying to submit is basically as follows:
- JY states she was incorrect before. She did message again saying she would pay full price when the promo was taken down. MD said she didn’t do Brazilians on men. JY again insists she is a girl. MD says lol. That is the end of the exchange.
- This is a mockery of the legal system. You can not introduce evidence willy nilly
- JC: It seems to me that there is a continuity problem with this screenshot. Ext 25 page 1 starts out with 5:47 pm, page 2 says 11:59 pm. The time on this is 8:18 am.
- JY: I took the ss on my computer and then later I took ss with my phone. Explains the time at the top is of the ss, not the time the message was sent.
- JC: I can not agree to the inclusion of this.
- JY: When she removed the ad it removed the picture as well. Takes the picture off the ad, and puts the general profile.
- DC declines to admit the new evidence.
- DC: Same problem with a second exhibit they want to submit. Displaying texts with “Mia” setting up the exchange with MD. Here we have the same issue it wasn’t disclosed until now. It
- Seems the DC is sick of this shit
- Gives JC the chance to read the potential new exhibit.
- JC: This ss here on the second page is clearly from a thread that is not in evidence. “Sorry I cannot do”
- There is a baby here - surprisingly quiet.
- We are all sitting here in silence wondering how much of our tax dollars are being wasted on this bull shit.
- JC: This is a document that alleges to be from someone named Mia Strait. This document wasn’t disclosed. It is talking about a separate case in the beginning against another property. JY and Mia are colluding to make a human rights complaint. I do not think it is fair to include it.
- DC asks how it involves MD?
- JC: Notes the ID is the same as the last document that was not submitted a moment ago. It appears to be the same profile. My client should have the opportunity say even sent those messages. Whether they come from her. And what she meant by them. They should not be admitted in the back with no opportunity to explain herself.
- DC gives YC the opportunity to respond.
- YC falsely states that MD asked to see these screen shots.
- JC argues they could have been falsified - he doesn’t use falsified thats my word.
- DC says: It is too late.
- JY: All this shows Mr. JC is there was communication with Mia after I communicated with your client, and that is how she got my phone number.
- DC declines to admit is because MD is not present to review it, get legal advice, and give testimony, prepare cross examination.
- DC marks two photos as evidence because MD gave testimony relating to them.
- JY asks why the photos are relevant
- DC says because the photo was shown to MD and she gave testimony about it
- DC submits two photos exhibits 27 and 28. 27 is a photo of two women. Ext 28 is a photo of a woman allegedly named Taylor.
- JY states she has concerns that MD did not disclose she would need to leave early.
- DC notes the concern.
- JY withdraws application to ban Amy from the trial
- JY says a person in the gallery has broken the media ban.
- JY is saying there are ss that show proof that Lindsey Shepard works for JC
- JY says she doesn’t appreciate lying
- JC laughs
- JC starts cross examination of JY
- JC: You have said that you reviewed MD Facebook profile prior to asking about the service. You had a good look at the profile?
- JY: I reached out to MD and I got the rejection. I looked at the profile to see who I was dealing with. I took a ss of her profile.
- JC: You’ve made a number of comments about immigrants. You could tell that MD was a different ethnic background?
- JY: I want to say something here. 90% of people here are from an immigrant background. As I have stated. The issues I have are with people who use culture and religion who abuse, harass and refuse service.
- JC: So is MD ethnicity’s relevant?
- JY goes on a tangent that isn’t really relevant and doesn’t answer the question.
- JC: You have filed an application for cost regarding something Lindsey Shepard said.
- JY: That is something to deal with costs
- JC: There was a convo that occurred between JY and Lindsey Shepard and you have brought up facts that occurred on twitter.
- DC says file later as it pertains to cost
- JC: You’re in possession of the materials which were filed regarding the files with application ban. Is there anything in the application that you are saying you didn’t say on twitter.
- JY: As I have stated my mom has gone on my twitter on my behalf. My mom has said whatever she wants on my twitter.
- JC: Is your mother the only person who uses your twitter?
- JY: Yes
- JC: Do you have multiple Facebook accounts?
- JY: I only have one
- JC: We established previously you had other accounts/
- JY: They have since been shut down.
- DC gives JY the opportunity to speak
- JY talks about Lindsey Shepard in a way that is completely irrelevant to what is going on now
- DC stops JY because it pertains to cost
- DC brings in MY for testimony
- MY sworn in
- DC emphasizes this is about evidence which pertains to how this has affected JY.
- MY says she is deaf and English is her second language.
- JY: Was I born as a boy, a girl or both?
- MY: Both
- JY: So I am intersex?
- MY: Yes
- JY: What has my GI always been?
- MY: Female
- JY: What age did I have my first period?
- MY: 13/14
- JY: Did I want to be a princess?
- MY: Yes
- JY: When I was little did I dress like a girl or boy
- MY: Depends on the occasion. When we were out and about it was male. When we were in family parties I let you do the girl clothes?
- JY: When I was little did I gravitate towards girl toys or boy toes
- MY: You never had gun. You had like barbie dolls
- JY: This is a little embarrassing. Since approx age 6 I have expressed my internal GI as female, as well as at home in family events. While I wasn’t fluid, my public presentation was male. Is it true my GI was a secret I wished to keep to myself until I was compelled to come out due to JCCF?
- JY: Was it true my GI was a secret?
- MY: Yes
- JY: Was I intimidated by the release of my identity by JCCF?
- MY: Yes
- DC interrupts to say previously JY had objected to JC line of questioning because JY past life was irrelevant
- JC: She is also leading the witness
- DC agrees she asking leading questions
- JY: Could you explain why a womans identity could make a threat to another woman?
- MY: Why would a GI be a threat to another woman?
- JY: Please explain the impact that the rejection of services of MD and other MDs have had on me emotionally and mentally?
- JC clarifies MY can only comment on her observations.
- MY wishes to talk freely.
- MY: it has been extremely impactful. It has destroyed life. The issue of GI JY life, my life, my sisters life, and extended family. They are involved. They are very concerned about me. They want me to come home *unclear what home is* This is after 35 years being happy living in Canada. Just giving it up.
- JY: What have you observed as the impact on me?
- *MY gets very emotional* MY: I am not going there. Everyone can see the impact. I am not talking about impact physical and emotional. They can see the scooter. I am done. I am not going there.
- JY: How important is to me my body image and receiving gender affirming care?
- JC: JY has talked about the impact personally. This is using a testimony of family DCs to bootstrap the evidence of JY on the same point. The witness can talk about her observations regarding facts. She can’t talk about the way JY feels internally.
- DC states, she will listen and weigh it out.
- **I again roll my eyes at DC’s lack holding JY accountable**
- MY: I will not comment any medical information. JY’s emotion is not relevant.
- JY: Do you consider hair cuts and waxing gender affirming care to further validate my GI.
- JC: Objection
- MY: no one should be denied hair cuts, wax’s based on GI.
- JY: I am with you a lot. Have there been instances of discrimination. Please describe those instances.
- MY: You never disclosed it to me until I was in the car and you said mom this is what I am exposed to everyday.
- JY: Like at Tim Hortons?
- JC objects. This is not relevant.
- DC: It is not relevant.
- MY: Let me talk
- JY shakes head no
- JY: Can you describe the in person harassment I receive when seeking service?
- MY: The customer service should not be allowed to discriminate.
- JC’s jaw is on the floor. He is in disbelief this shit show is allowed to go on. As am I.
- MY continues to emphasize that customer service people should not be allowed to discriminate. Whether male, female or “whatever”
- JY: Admits next question is going to be objected.
- JY: When people migrate to Canada they are required to align with Canadian culture and values. You have seen what happened to me today. Including today with the cab that tried to screw me out off $40. Is it right for them to be able to do this?
- MY: I am an immigrant. When I came to canada I had a big book to go by to become a citizen. I had to learn language, culture. I was tested on English comprehension. I don’t know the guidelines today to come to Canada. They are probably different. I am jewish. I don’t impose my beliefs on others. I practice in synagogue.
- DC says that we have gotten too far away from where we should be
- MY: I am an immigrant
- DC: I understand that. Are there any more questions that are relevant.
- JY: You have been with me when MD discriminated against me online. Describe your reaction when seeing the refusal of services from all these waxing service providers. And describe my emotions when getting refused services
- MY: I can see your emotion now.
- JY: Describe my emotion when it happened
- MY: I know you. I know your emotion now.
- Addressing JC - MY: You don’t know me or my life.
- DC states that she knows JC is withholding objections and appreciates it.
- The baby is still being quiet and I am still amazed
- JY: something that has come up online recently is that I am a racist. Am I a racist?
- JC: Objection
- MY gesturing to JC: I heard what you were saying
- JC: MY can only testify on her experience. Not bootstrap JY’s evidence
- MY: I believe refusal of service on JY was based on their belief and culture. And I don’t think this court should be in existence. Won’t pay tax dollars for this.
- DC: That is not relevant
- MY: My question to the court is human rights vs religious rights
- JY: Mom as you know, the people who have discriminated against me are etc. etc
- DC is upset about JC laughter over questions.
- DC is a fucking joke
- JC points out the question is ridiculous
- DC tells JY people can only give evidence about things they have heard, seen, and experienced.
- DC and JY are arguing about whether or not she can ask a question
- JY: Are my complaints submitted because it is known that ethnic groups typically provide these services?
- MY: No
- JY: Were you on my twitter when I was laying in bed recovering from a seizure?
- MY: Yes
- DC says to show MY exhibit to clarify.
- JY: Did you write this tweet?
- MY: Yes
- JY: So I can refuse service to people from india? I can’t. There is no difference.
- JC: I object. I was not permitted to cross examine on these exhibits. JY is being allowed to now say that MY wrote these tweets in reference to the application for the publication ban. Those tweets emanate from a twitter account that JY acknowledges belongs to JY. What is now happening is a reneging on the record from the materials that came on that account. I was not given the opportunity to cross examine. I was not permitted to ask questions about this to JY.
- DC: I don’t need to hear anymore about these tweets. I am shutting down the line of questioning. You have a couple more minutes. Keep in mind you told JC that MY would only be testifying about the impact.
- JY: That is everything
- DC explains cross examination
- JC: Before I get into this. Put on the record there are 100s of tweets and ss that I could have filed in this case regarding the tweets and materials which purport to come on the subject of menstruation, pads, ejactulation, all sorts of things. I was prohibited due to relevance. What happened all the questions I was not permitted to ask, are now allowed to be asked by JY to MY. I ought to be able to ask questions on the subject of the statements of JY regarding periods, etc from JY to MD. JY said they were on their period during the request for service. Now JY has put that in issue with the witness. What ought to happen is a cross examination of JY be reopened. We go back to explore the issue of credibility on menstruation and tampons. I should be able to file rebuttal evidence to the contentions made by the witness. It is relevant to my clients defense.
- DC agrees but find it necessary to reopen cross examination.
- How do you make a complaint against a DC? - google later
- DC emphasizes she will not use irrelevant information in her decision
- JC begins cross examination of MY
- JC: Thanks for being here. My question is you said you heard it was an issue of whether or not JY is racist? Do you recall saying that?
- MY: Yes
- JC: Did you discuss JY’s evidence over the lunch break with JY?
- MY: no. I heard in the court room
- JC: Yesterday did you comment that your tax dollars should not be used for an interpreter for the defendant yesterday?
- My: Yes. I do not have a translator.
- JC: Why do you object?
- MY: Because we are Canadian. When you come to canada you learn the language. If you aren’t Canadian this court room is not your platform
- JC: Because people in Canada must speak English?
- MY: Yes
- JC: And you object to people of different cultures and religions relying on their culture and religion to not provide a service to wax male genitals?
- MY: You can not come to canada, pretend to become Canadian and force your culture on me.
- JC: What do you mean by a minority?
- MY: Culture, and religion
- JC: Which culture?
- MY: East Indian. They are rejecting JY. Forcing their belief and their culture on the white people. That we will become a minority. And you can call me racist, I am not.
- JC: Why is it your perspective that people who have their own culture and religion should not have protection from the state regarding the provision of an intimate service.
- MY: I do not have protection. I am jewish. I go to synagogue. I get antisemetic comments. I still go to synagogue.
- JC: I think that is terrible if you have been exposed to antisemitism. But why does an Indian person who is providing a service in their home not be protected by the state?
- DC stops JC
- JC: I am asking because part of the impetus of the application for lifting the publication ban is the fact that JY has made racist statements ---in my own words
- DC: I understand the argument.
- JY spews more bull shit that is totally irrelevant. Something about Vietnamese women doing nails. Etc. Etc. There is no way to get around the culture that does these services.
- JC: Is it your position that my client is a nazi?
- MY: I didnt call her a nazi. I said my tax dollars are wasted because of your client is forcing her belief and culture on us.
- JC: How is client forcing belief?
- MY: Refusing service. << talks about the holocaust etc. etc.
- JC: JY raised this subject. For the sake of my client I want to understand your comments about nazis is relevant.
- MY: You said your client doesnt have protection of the state. I do not have protection from neo-nazis.
- JY: Asks to chop a photo in half to remove a person from a photo.
- DC declines. Labels ext 29.
- JC: You’ve been called as a witness regarding the complaint that has been made. What roll did you play in launching those complaints?
- MY: I did not launch a complaint. I didnt even know about the discrimination besides seeing a distraught daughter that I couldn’t pinpoint why she was distressed. I am a mother and I raised JY as a male/female / transgeender.. I can read jy like the palm of my hand. Does that make sense?
- JC: Yes
- MY: I could not pinpoint why she was so distraught/unwell. Until this came about to come forward and say mom I am transgender and this is what is happening.
- JC: you identified cultures that provide a service. Jy said Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Korean. Your position. Is there any other identifiable group that should be compelled to provide a service irrespective of their culture and religious beliefs.
- MY: Yes
- JC: Why shouldn’t people be able to deny service based on religious when JY wants to be able to impose her genitals on other people?
- MY admits she heard JY’s testimony.
- JC: Do you understand that this case about a refusal of service is about genitals?
- MY: Yes
- JC: So how are JY’s genitals not relevant?
- MY goes on about how its not relevant and largely makes no sense but touches on the fact that waxers should have to serve all “women”.
- JC looks utterly defeated.
- JC has no further questions
- JY makes more inappropriate comments that for some inexplicable DC allows
- DC: Would you like to do closing arguments in person or in writing
- JY: Based on my health I dont know where I will be tomorrow. In the interest of fairness I would like to do a written closing.
- JC: Written is fine.
- DC: Closing submissions should pertain to the three with JC. Cost application arguments should be submitted at the same time. Can only add additional exhibits for cost application.
- JY: Wants to bring application against president of the JCCF regarding him writing “defamatory” statements about JY on the Post Millennial and other sites. I am seeking a cease and desist order that the JCCF be prohibited from speaking about the case.
- DC replies she has no jurisdiction over Mr. Carpay / JCCF
- Scheduling submissions: DC proposes you have your closing submissions in by July 31st.
- JY hesitates
- DC offers August 2nd
- JY says she has doctors appts
- DC offers August 6th at EOD (4:30PST)
- JC will have until August 27th to respond
- JY has until September 6th for reply
- Blah blah blah useless back and forth
- DC brings up publication ban:
- A publication ban is an exception
- It’s only warranted when a persons private issues outweighs the publics interest
- It was an interim measure
- Lifting the publication ban
- Jy tweeted too much
- Commented on people who are ethnic
- By JY’s own evidence JY is an advocate
- Read full decision here:
- http://www.bchrt.gov.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/jul/147_Yaniv_v_Various_Waxing_Salons_2019_BCHRT_147.pdf
Published by
Google Drive–
Report Abuse–Updated automatically every 5 minutes
www.youtube.com
