Trevor Jones wanted to buy a townhouse in Vancouver. But they had a restriction against pets exceeding 15 kg. That ruled out Jones's Labrador retriever, Chloe.
Jones claimed that he was going blind, and that the condo board was discriminating against him. He took the condo board to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. They agreed with him.
Trouble is, Chloe isn't a seeing eye dog.
So what, said the BCHRT. Ka-ching -- $12,000 for Jones's hurt feelings.
Sometimes you have to figure that Ezra Levant thinks his audience is too stupid to click through a link. The Vancouver Sun story he refs is far less distorted than his own retelling of the tale. But if you want the long version, the BCHRT file is here, from which we discover a number of interesting facts. Firstly, not only did Jones claim to be going blind...he was going blind!!! Secondly, not only were Mr. Jones feelings hurt, but he was forced to move into a less suitable strata unit (what they call condos out there) than the one he wanted, and has taken a few serious falls in the time since (Chloe has unfortunately passed away). Thirdly, while Chloe was not registered as a seeing eye dog, Mr. Jones had obtained a letter from his doctor testifying to the dog's role in helping Mr. Jones get around.
Conclusion? A Strata corporation tried to fuck over a blind guy and got tagged for it. Now it looks like Ezra is trying to do the same thing in print.
Ezra should tott up all the settlements he thinks cannot be justified from human rights mediation (that, could of course, mean 'all of them' but that's not very scientific) and compare them to all the money The Western Standard got from the publications assistance program.
ReplyDeleteAnd actually, that doesn't make much sense, since a lot of those settlements wouldn't have been paid out from public funds.
God, what a mean bitch he is.
Give the guy a break. He can hardly justify his position by being honest.
ReplyDeleteHe obviously missed that class in law school where they taught students that their legal arguments must be based on facts.
Jeez you guys have an unhealthy obssession with Ezra.
ReplyDeleteIf the best you can do is bash Ez and Macleans over the PAP program (which all Canadian publishers are eligible for, like health care) then any criticisms you have of either party is on awfully shakey ground; kind of like HRCs are in too many instances.
Oh and gayle, your point about legal arguments and facts is one that you should be reminding Barbara Hall and her ninnies about, particularly considering she heads a government agency lavishly funded by taxpayers.
Carry on with your character assassinations guys and gals. :D
Jeez you guys have an unhealthy obssession with Ezra.
ReplyDeleteNo, I think CanWest/Global does...or did, at any rate, so much so that it felt it necessary to elevate him to the ranks of people Canadians are supposed to have heard of.
I'm sure his depraved character and immorality were evident long ago. Had I never once seen him on the public airwaves (which belong to the public, remember), I doubt I'd ever have cared about Ezra "It's the Stupid Charter!" Levant.
Now, now... He's only 9, after all.
ReplyDelete...too late to flush him now.
A propos of nothing, the "in" gift this year for prospective "conservative" parents is knitting needles (and yarn). Tell them it's for making baby booties. They won't get it.
= What an utter piece of shit you are paul. Why don't you do the world a favour and off yourself?= - reality bites
ReplyDeleteAre you the guy ti-guy calls when his sarcastic wit fails him (which it has been lately)?
Heck, insults like yours wouldn't even scare off a real nine year old.
C'mon rb, you internet tough guys should be able to do much better then that with your insults. I'm disappointed, really.
You think you're worth "A" material, Paulie?
ReplyDeleteHow conceited. Or in the words of Nuala O'Faolain (actually one her critics, which she delighted in quoting): "A loathsome example of preening self-regard."
Now, go wipe your nose...and stop holding yourself there!
LOL. I prefer Robert Louis Stevenson:
ReplyDelete"I regard you with an indifference bordering on aversion."
This is a bit like the infamous hand-washing case--a read of that judgement, too, revealed something quite different from "HR Tribunal says it's OK to serve customers with dirty hands!"
ReplyDeleteI swear I don't know if it's deliberate lying, self-delusion or reading incomprehension, but at this point if one of the speech-warriors told me the sky was blue I'd go out and take a look for myself.