No, The CJC did not fire Kinsella.
Caught in two really. Here we have a case from the BCHRT in which the complainant was ordered to pay costs (full decision, which I have not read yet, can be found here) to the respondents for a specious claim. But wait! According to The Ez, that isn't supposed to happen!
As well, the natural check on American-style over-litigation – the financial, time and emotional cost of suing, and the risk of costs being awarded to the defendant – were not in play. The government of Alberta carried the investigation against us, and, had the case not been dismissed, would have prosecuted us before a tribunal. The complainants didn’t have to spend a dime or a minute – and the law prohibited me from collecting costs when I won.
Actually, I thought Ezra had scored a legitimate point with this argument. And I am still unsure of how the various HRCs may or may not be allowed to ding a complainant if their case does not meet the standard. But apparently it can happen.