Hudak's Proposed Changes To OHRT Would Drive Up Costs

From Ontario News Watch,  human rights lawyer Andrew Pinto:

Critics of the system, citing a backlog of 4,000 cases, have said they want the tribunal run more like a court. 

But the rules of evidence used in courts could require complainants to hire lawyers, as well as pay doctors and other expert witnesses to testify in person, said Pinto.

Under the current system, those who have lodged a complaint with the province's human rights tribunal can submit documents signed by their doctors as evidence, he explained.

We don't know much about Hudak's plan, other than that his "reforms" are supposedly intended to clear-up the 4,000 case backlog.  Cost issues aside, I can't see how requiring expert witnesses to appear in person would speed matters along.  In fact, one of the means by which Hudak would cut eliminate "frivolous complaints" would be to restore the Ontario human rights regime to its pre-2008 state, when cases were screened by the Ontario Human Rights Commission before going to the tribunal.  This is arguably a better way of doing things, but since the '08 changes were billed as time-saving measures designed to speed up the process, returning to the old ways will almost certainly not do anything about that back-log.

Hudak On Human Rights...Approaching Coherence, Or No?

Walker Morrow, "The Kid", supplies us with a Youtube of Tim Hudak's address to the Nepean Chamber of Congress, and a transcript of the moment (at about the12:30 minute mark on the clip) when Hudak backs down from his promise to eliminate the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. 

Hudy says:

"We will empower the Tribunal to dismiss frivolous applications at a preliminary stage, by restoring the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code that were taken out. We will create new standards for the Human Rights Tribunal, so the process follows clear rules similar to those used in the courts, and we will consult with experts who will work in the system to develop ways to improve the quality and the legal expertise of Tribunal adjudicators. And finally, we will review the Commission and Tribunal to ensure the efficient use of your tax dollars, the same process each and every government agency, board, and commission will be subjected to under a PC government, and ensure those dollars are used to support the most vulnerable in our society."

The provisions that Hudak refers to were changed in 2008, when it was decided that any complaints should go straight to the tribunal rather than through the intermediary of  the Ontario Human Rights Commission.  This move was controversial at the time, but  billed as a time-saving maneuver:  cases would be resolved more quickly by removing a step in the process.  So while there is an argument to be made for returning to the old ways, claiming (as Hudak has also  done) that it will help clear up the back-log of 4,000 unresolved complaints is ridiculous.  If anything, his proposed reforms will have the opposite effect.

And of course this is not the kind of change Randy Hillier supporters wanted when they threw their support to Hudak at the 2009 PCPO leadership convention.  They wanted the Tribunal axed.  Assuming you believe Hudak will do no more he says he will, his plan amounts to mere tinkering around the edges. 

Wiselaw On Audmax

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal seems to have really blown the call on this case:

A Mississauga businesswoman whose home was ordered seized to pay an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal award to a former employee can keep her house — for now.

The Superior Court struck down the “fatally flawed” decision as so unfair to defendant Maxcine Telfer — who represented herself in the hearing — that it was “simply not possible to logically follow the pathway taken by the adjudicator.”

Luckily, we have legal eagle Christopher Bird around to discuss the larger implications for the OHRT and other rights tribunals around the country:

Human rights tribunals in Ontario (and across the rest of Canada, for that matter) have been the subject of intense criticism in the past, with many complaining that HRT decisions such as Ms. Telfer's were not treated with the appropriate seriousness such matters merited.

Certainly, Audmax will serve as fodder for that line of argument. Others have suggested that HRTs are themselves a waste of state resources which would be better allocated to the traditional court system; while Audmax demonstrates that HRTs can be flawed in execution, it does not necessarily follow from the decision that the system must therefore be scrapped.

What Audmax ultimately demonstrates to the reader is that Divisional Court is willing to consider with the utmost seriousness whether HRT outcomes are merited, that they are willing to review them where they feel they are incorrect or unfair, and that although HRTs decisions have been statutorily protected, they are not ironclad.

This is probably for the best. The Courts' willingness to review flawed administrative rulings is ultimately necessary to preserve trust in the system.

So there you have it.

Comes The Dawn

I wanted to take another crack at the results of an Ipsos poll that came out yesterday. It asked Ontario voters:

Would you consider voting for the Ontario PC Party in the next election if its newly elected leader supported scrapping Ontario's human rights tribunal?

...and they basically responded (75%) with a hearty "Hell no!". Some PCPO supporters are just coming to realize what's happening with their leadership race. From the BT forum:

Its a very stuipid political plan. While the plan may resonate with an element of the base, and make you party leader, its something the Liberals will beat you over the head iwth in a general election.

[...]

Promising to `scrap`them is a huge strategic mistake which gives our opposition a huge target in the next election. I would question the leadership ability of anybody who promises to scrap them.

From Christian Conservative:

It's still bothering me, I thought it had been all sorted out, but I heard Tim talking about the HRC issue again. To me, it's the third rail of this race... you touch it and you're dead.

And (just to sum up) what has happened is that two of the four leadership candidates (alleged front runner Tom Hudak and rural seperatist Randy Hillier), who have vowed to abolish the tribunal, have rendered themselves unelectable in Ontario. I would further argue that Frank Klees' more modest proposal, to allow "Whites Only" signs and "No Irish Need Apply" want ads back in the province, would prove similarly unpalatable to Ontario voters should he become PCPO leader.

That leaves us with Christine Elliot--moderate, female--the McGuinty government's worst nightmare (and Warren Kinsella's!). But, no! She may be among the front runner's at this point, but Christine is too damn Liberal and incorrectly gendered for the PCPO base. Watch an "anyone but Christine" movement to appear between now and the convention. Whispers of rebellion are already in the air!

So in the end we will wind up with the Ontario Conservative Party embracing a totally toxic policy, making Kinsella's job in the McGuinty war-room next time out trivially easy, and a Liberal government in Ontario from now until the cows come home.

I remember a case on our side of the fence, when the federal libs ran on a "tax on everything". We knuckled down and maintained a brave face and prayed that the whole damn thing wouldn't go nuclear. Fun stuff! Soon it will be the turn of my Ontario conservative brothers to learn what happens when you walk up to one of the third rails of Canadian politics and start licking it.

PS. A bit of a mini-kerfuffle blew up last when it was revealed that he Elliot campaign paid for the poll in question. Mind you, IPSOS has a rep to maintain and probably wouldn't juice its questions too severely, and in any case (see 1st link above), Elliot's people have released the poll. Other than the use of the term "scrap", which Hudak and Hillier have employed on several occasions, nothing seems too untoward about it.

Frank Klees Will Lift Prohibition On Racist Signs?

At least I think that's what he's proposing:


(Queen’s Park) Newmarket-Aurora MPP and PC Leadership Candidate Frank Klees tabled a Private Member’s Bill that is an essential first step to refocusing the Ontario Human Rights Commission on its original mandate and it received First Reading in the Ontario Legislature today.

The Bill, entitled the “Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2009” will remove Section 13 from the Ontario Human Rights Act. This is the section that Klees and many observers of the Human Rights Commission and its companion, the Human Rights Tribunal, point to as the section of the Act that has given rise to what Klees refers to as the “over-reach” of the HRC Commission into matters dealing with freedom of expression and freedom of speech.


Actually, though, this is incorrect. As I have written previously, section 13.1 of the Ontario Code prohibits you from publishing materials that announce "an intention to discriminate". It reads:

A right under Part I is infringed by a person who publishes or displays before the public or causes the publication or display before the public of any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, or other similar representation that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right under Part I or that is intended by the person to incite the infringement of a right under Part I. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 13 (1).

But 13.1 does not cover broader forms of free expression, as Barbara Hall noted in her critique of Mark Steyn's writing in Macleans:

Section 13 of the Code makes it illegal to display or publish certain kinds of offensive material. But its limits on freedom of expression are narrow. For the Code to apply, the offending item must be a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other similar representation that indicates an intent to infringe, or incite others to infringe, a right under the Code. Therefore, a sign would fall within this section, but a five-page article conveying the same message would not.

So, in Klees Ontario, would it become possible to have signs like "No blacks need apply" hanging from your shop window? Or, as I wondered here, has Mr. Klees simply confused the federal with the provincial human rights code?

Or, is he assuming that Ontario PC rank and filers, the folks whose votes he is trolling for in his quest to become party leader, are too stupid to distinguish the one from the other?

News Flash! Not All Ontario PCs Crazy!

Mr. Bibicis suggested the tribunal issue could dominate the next provincial election campaign, just as the Progressive Conservatives' plan to extend public funding to religious schools became the overwhelming issue in the 2007 election.

"I think [Mr. Hudak's] policy proposal could lead to a one-issue election and I don't want that to be the one and only thing focused on," Mr. Bibicis said.

Common sense is not entirely dead among the Ontario PC leadership candidates.

Note that Ontario does not have a section 13 analogue, although you are not allowed to publish material announcing an intention to discriminate (like signs reading "No blacks need apply" and that kind of thing). Since there is no other one element of the Ontario code that excites Speechys the way a hate speech provision would, PC candidates, if they want to go trolling for the Speechy vote, have to take the more radical approach of a Hillier or a Hudak (ie. abolish the whole thing).

Frank Klees: If Elected Ontario Premier, I Will Change Federal Legislation

Human Rights Commission

The Human Rights commission is not working as intended. It needs to be fixed, not annihilated. People need access to a system that will help them against wrongs without having to enter into our expensive legal system.

But the abuses must stop. Section 13 needs to be repealed. Giving the Commission the right to investigate the views and opinions of the citizens of Ontario threatens the freedom of expression and is counter to the importance of that right in Canadian society. Freedom of expression is a core value of democracy from which all other rights naturally flow. Without that, our democratic system of government itself is at risk.

The message that needs to be sent is clear - the PC Party of Ontario is inclusive, not reactionary, and the Human Rights Commission needs to be refocused on it original mandate.

Either Mr. Klees mistakenly believes he has some ability to change Section 13 of the CHRA,or he is thinking of the interpretive section of the Ontario Code, where 13.1 prohibits you from publishing materials announcing an intention to discriminate: Signs Reading "No Blacks Need Apply", and the like.

Option #1 seems most likely. Klees seems to think there is only one commision, and in any case, the Ontario Commision has recently handed off any investigative duties to the Ontario Tribunal.

That's what you get announcing policy on Facebook.

In any case, they're all Randy Hillier now.

You Must Pay For Your Ticket To That Train Wreck: Ontario Tories Split On Human Rights Tribunals!

The Ontario PC Party will be hosting four candidate debates....Debate tickets are ten dollars and will be selected by random draw.

Meanwhile, a few adults within with Ontario Tories are wondering about the wisdom of front-runner Tim Hudak modelling his campaign platform on that of right-wing yahoo Randy Hillier in his call for abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal:

"I think they're going to look at this and say, 'you're pulling another John Tory move. You picked a hot-button issue that's going to blow up in our faces just as the school thing did,' " [the anonymous Tory insider] said.

For what its worth, you can see Hudak shifting right on this issue over time. In August he was insisting that the Tribunal clear its backlog by ignoring the free speech cases on its plate (I don't have numbers but I imagine they are low to miniscule); now he wants to chuck the whole human rights process over-board and replace it with "a court-based system operating under the rules of evidence" with "specially trained judges".

Put more specifically by Clark Savolain of the Hudak campaign:

To protect the human rights of all Ontarians, he would transition the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Tribunal construct to a court-based system, similar to the existing Domestic Violence and Family Law courts.

Some pretty obvious short-comings to this idea:

Sorry, so do you expect to provide funding or support to legitimate victims of discrimination so they can make claims in civil court? For example, if an employer tells me he will only hire me if I perform sexual favours, right now, I could go to the Human Rights Tribunal and claim gender-based discrimination, and sexual harassment. Are you going to provide the legal support so I can file a similar claim or do you expect all claimants to hire their own lawyers at a rate of $300 or so an hour? Isn’t an open system where claimants can go as individuals provide much more access to justice?

Or:

I consider myself a Conservative and a supporter of Tim. Up until the past two years, I never paid much attention to the Human Rights Tribunal or Commission, or really even the Code because it never affected me. That was before my husband was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder 2 at the age of 44.

[...]

We believe the employer, the Union and the arbitrator violated my husband’s human rights. We have now filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Tim has spoken publicly about assisting the middle-class family. We are it! We cannot afford a lawyer that costs $350/hour nor are we eligible for legal support. Where can we be heard if not the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario? What does Tim suggest we do?

Don't know if Kinsella will be operating the McGuinty war-room next time around, but I suspect he's chuckling away somewhere in some dark cave even now. Who cares whether or not the next Tory leader is Randy Hillier, as long as that leader embraces the Hillier agenda?

A Second Stripper Emerges

November 7, 2008 09:25 AM - A second adult dancer has come forward to file a human rights complaint against the owner of a Mississauga strip club, alleging she too was fired because of her age.

[...]

Sanderson, who used the stage name Bridgette, has been dancing since 2001. She worked at Locomotion for seven months. But, on June 13, she claims she was terminated because she received some bad reviews from customers who called her "old and ugly."

Ouch!

Luckily, there are men's-club aficionados somewhere along the air-port strip with a little more class. Bridgette has found other work.

And, as for me, it looks like I've found a new cause. If Nazis were involved somehow, I'd be in heaven.

Human Rights Battle Moves To The Strip Club, Part II

I'm a bubbly blond with a good personality. The boobs and the blond hair, usually you can't go wrong in a strip club with those two things.

The link contains additional information, including remarks from Ms. Ouwroulis on her case (in the comments) and this new picture.

Meanwhile, commentary from the Ottawa Citizen.

Please Let Her Win At The OHRT

It would give people a reason to visit Mississauga.

Anyway, you should never be judged on your age, only your talents and work ethic.