Law Prof: Studies From 14 Years Ago Prove Today’s Human Rights Commissions Are Great

Emphasis ours.

StarPhoenix – There are good reasons why the Court of Queen’s Bench is not a good replacement option for the human rights tribunal.

Three comprehensive reviews of provincial human rights systems have said just that, for reasons of access to justice, expertise in human rights, and representativeness of different sections of the community. The Ontario Human Rights Code review task force, Achieving Equality: A Report on Human Rights Reform, 1992; B.C. Human Rights Review: Report on Human Rights in British Columbia, 1994; and the report of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, Renewing the Vision: Human Rights in Saskatchewan, 1996.

Nevermind The Country. What Will It Do To The Party?

Star Phoenix – It would be a shame if Judge David Arnot’s proposal to modernize the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission were to get lost in the mud and the blood and the smear that now dominate the legislature.

It would be a shame for this province and the country, but most of all it would be a shame for the Saskatchewan Party and the NDP, both of which are the progeny of farsighted Saskatchewan political leaders who brought Canada into the era of human rights.

Politician Bummed That Trumped Up Charges Might Cost Money

CBC – The provincial government says it’s considering a proposal to have human rights cases handled in the courts instead of before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal…

However, Frank Quennell, the NDP Opposition’s justice critic who raised the issue in the legislature, said if the government intends to “dissolve” the Tribunal, as he thinks it does, it means more people will have to pay for legal help to go to the courts to defend their basic human rights.

Currently, a lawyer from the commission often presents the complainant cases. Quennell said he’s worried that will change.

“Does the government intend to force Saskatchewan people to spend thousands of dollars to defend their human rights — and hire a lawyer to do so — in courts?”

Saskatchewan Human Rights Commish: Time To Take Cover

CKOM – The Government claims Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Commissioner is recommending the human rights tribunal here be scrapped. And it is being considered.

The Commissioner feels the perception of the tribunal is that it isn’t independent enough. Because of that Justice Minister Don Morgan is considering the change, “and its not seen as being independent or at arm’s length.”

What About While Writing A Letter? Eating Fish And Chips? Playing An Accordion?

Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission – No person should be treated differently while at school, at work, renting an apartment, purchasing a t-shirt at a shop, getting a coffee at a café, or buying a house, based on their gender identity.

If The Words, “So, You From Around Here?” Leave Your Lips, You’ve Had It

Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission – A Guide to Application Forms and Interviews:

That’s why the Code says employers can’t ask certain questions – those where the information might influence the selection process in a way that discriminates…

Before employment, a medical examination is not allowed. Employers can’t ask questions about an applicant’s medical history either…

[Drug] Testing identifies persons with disabilities and targets them for discriminatory treatment. Therefore, in most situations it will not be allowed under the Code…

Don’t ask about foreign addresses which would indicate national origin. Okay to ask about current and previous addresses in Canada and how long applicant stayed there…

5. Citizenship. Don’t ask about an applicant’s citizenship status – it would reveal applicant’s nationality, ancestry or place of origin. That includes questions about proof of citizenship or the date citizenship was received.

10. Sex. On the application form, don’t ask about the sex of an applicant.

11. Age. Before hiring, don’t ask for any record (like birth certificate) or other information that would reveal the applicant’s age…

Bandwagon. Don’t Fire Somebody Because Of Flu, Bigots

Click to enlarge.

Be Code Smart (Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission).

&

An Insult Can Lead To Depression, Suicide, Addiction, Separation, Joblessness, Homelessness, And A Life Of Crime

CBC – A Saskatchewan judge has ruled in favour of a First Nations man who says he was discriminated against when he was ejected from a Saskatoon restaurant in 2006.

The case concerns Leslie Tataquason, who was previously awarded $7,000 after a human rights tribunal found he was denied service at a Howard Johnson restaurant on the basis of his ancestry, contrary to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.

At the earlier hearing, Tataquason testified his wife worked at the Howard Johnson and that on June 8, 2006, while he was having coffee with her, manager John Pontes said “Can’t you see she’s working? Get out, this isn’t the Friendship Centre.”

Tataquason said he was deeply hurt, and spiralled into depression as a result. In the weeks after the incident, “he thought of suicide, fell into addictions, went through a separation from his wife, lost his job, received treatment from psychologists and became a frequenter of petty crime and homelessness.”

Elevators Not Enough At River Landing

[Star Phoenix] The public plaza of River Landing’s centrepiece will have outdoor access to able-bodied persons only.

Georgie Davis, who gets around in a wheelchair, said she was startled to learn she will have to ride one of two elevators inside the planned Urban Village to get to the raised plaza in the centre.

Four sets of outdoor steps are designed leading from the street to the plaza, but they don’t include ramps for persons with disabilities, cyclists or parents with strollers.

“I just thought they were taking a step backwards,” Davis said. “In this day and age, you would think (barrier-free) universal design would be a given, not a second thought. I believe it’s a form of segregation.”

…

Davis said she’s hoping changes are made before the project gets its final approval. Otherwise, she said she’ll consider a complaint to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

Man Distributing Flyers Smacked Down For 17 Large

[National Post] Should a man be forced to pay $17,500 to four individuals who felt offended by the flyers he distributed?

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will answer this question when it considers the appeal of William Whatcott this September.
In 2001 and 2002, Mr. Whatcott peacefully distributed flyers in Regina and Saskatoon. His flyers expressed opposition to teaching children in public schools about homosexuality, and also expressed, in polemical language, his religious objections to homosexual behaviour and the gay lifestyle. Some of the flyers were photocopies of a page from the gay magazine Perceptions, which included a personal classified ad stating “searching for boys/men for penpals, friendship, exchanging video, pics … Your age, look & nationality is not so relevant.” On the photocopied page, Mr. Whatcott wrote: “Saskatchewan’s largest gay magazine allows ads for men seeking boys!”

In response to complaints from four individuals whose feelings were hurt by the flyers, Mr. Whatcott was prosecuted under Saskatchewan’s human rights law, ordered to pay $17,500 to the complainants and ordered to refrain from distributing the same or similar flyers.

The Higher You Go, The More It Stinks

[Canwest] Teresa Hitchings, 31, filed a complaint with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission after she was terminated from her job as an order desk clerk at salon products company P.S.S. Professional Salon Services.

After a 2005 hearing, a human rights tribunal ruled in Hitchings’ favour after boss Don Campbell testified Hitchings likely would have received a letter of warning for being “a troublemaker” at work, had she not been on maternity leave.

The tribunal awarded her a total of $4,384 in lost wages and personal injuries suffered.

Campbell appealed, and a Queen’s Bench judge upheld the ruling in 2006.

But last December, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned that decision, saying the tribunal disregarded enough evidence to affect its ruling.

The human rights commission tried to fight back, applying for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but on Thursday, the country’s top court refused to hear the case. The court does not release reasons for refusal.

The rest.

When Human Rights Collide

Yet more from the Sex/Religion file. Noticing a trend yet?

[Star Phoenix] A Saskatchewan human rights tribunal has fined a Regina marriage commissioner $2,500 after finding he discriminated against a gay couple when he declined to perform their same-sex ceremony.

“I’m very disappointed in the decision,” Orville Nichols, who has performed nearly 2,000 marriages since 1983, said in an interview Friday. He had referred the couple to another marriage commissioner because his religious beliefs kept him from performing the ceremony.

The rest.

The Vision & Creativity Of Filling Out A Government Form

The YWCA celebrates the achievements of Saskatoon women at the Women of Distinction Awards on Tuesday, June 5, at TCU Place.

…

Women 2000 is a community-based group in Saskatoon. Its activism focuses on the hidden dimensions of women’s inequality as evidenced in what appear to be normal institutional policies and practices. In 2000, the group filed a complaint with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination in the women’s elite Huskie hockey program at the University of Saskatchewan. The vision, creativity and initiative these women demonstrated during their seven-year campaign to compel the university to more equitably support women’s hockey is an unprecedented achievement that will benefit a new generation of students and citizens.

The rest.

If It Works, An Excellent Way For Animal Abusers To Make Hay

What is it with Saskatchewan? The SHRC works overtime to keep Down With Everybody entertained.

REGINA — Officials in a Saskatchewan town are expected to explain to a human rights tribunal why they put down a woman’s three dogs.

Jacqueline Nash alleges her animals were destroyed because officials assumed she was too poor to pay fees related to their care at the Wolseley pound. A former animal control officer says town officials commented about Nash’s income and her ability to care for the dogs.

…

Under cross-examination today, Shirkey admitted that the dogs were dishevelled, had ticks and were missing some fur.

The rest.

Bonus Bucks

The Human Rights Commission submits that the reference to “any person or class of persons” is sufficiently broad to allow an award of damages to Ms. D. even though she is not named as a party. In support of this position, I was referred to the decision of a Saskatchewan board of inquiry in Saskatoon Indian and Métis Friendship Centre Inc. v. Millar’s Florist and Greenhouse Limited (1992), 20 C.H.R.R. D/456. In that decision, the board was considering s.31(7) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code which is very similar to s.34 8 of the Nova Scotia legislation. The complainant was the Saskatoon Indian and Métis Friendship Centre Inc., however, the Human Rights Commission was also seeking damages for the employee of the complainant who had been subject to the discriminatory treatment. That person was the main witness at the hearing with respect to the events in question.

The board of inquiry in the Saskatoon Indian and Métis Friendship Centre Inc. case interpreted the Saskatchewan legislation to include persons even though they were not named as complainants. I would agree with that analysis and interpret s.34 8 of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act as giving jurisdiction to award damages to Ms. D.

The Respondent argued that s.34 8 should be limited to those persons defined as parties to the proceeding in s.33. However, if that had been the intent of the legislature, they would have used the term “party” rather than “any person” in s.34(8).

The rest.

 

Only $600 To Hear Public Servants Speak? Bargain.

The rest.

Update: Maybe the cash is going towards new posters. Marilou McPhedran, Chief Commissioner of the SHRC, quit a while back. She found an even better paying gig at a university. Total time spent as Chief Commish of the SHRC: 6 months. Thanks for stopping by, Marilou.

Just Make It Go Away

The respondents agreed, in settling both complaints, to pay Chomiak $5,000 compensation for injury to feelings and self-respect and for legal costs incurred because of the defamation action. The respondents also agreed to provide copies of the commission’s sexual harassment prevention brochure to all current employees and all new employees hired within three years.

All the complaints were settled without any admission of liability by
the respondents.

The rest.

When Human Rights Collide

INTRODUCTION

1. On March 3, 2005 Orville Nichols launched a complaint against the Saskatchewan Department of Justice (hereinafter referred to as “the Department”). He alleged the Department discriminated against him on the basis of his religion in that he was required to perform same-sex marriages as a marriage commissioner.

But…

V. SUMMARY

30. In summary, the Chief Commissioner found that denying same-sex couples unfettered access to the public service of a marriage commissioner would be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The requirement that marriage commissioners perform same-sex marriages is not discriminatory and does not violate their religious freedoms…

VI. CONCLUSION

34. In summary, I find the decision of the Chief Commissioner was reasonable and I decline to direct an inquiry to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal.

DATED at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 25th day of October, 2006.

“Karen Prisciak”

Karen Prisciak, Q.C.,

Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal

The rest.

So Long Marilou, True Believer

The head of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission is stepping down to take a position at the University of Winnipeg.

Chief commissioner Marilou McPhedran had only been in the position since October of last year but she told reporters the opportunity at her alma mater in Manitoba was too good to pass up.

The rest.