Scotty Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Perhaps there should be a permanent thread on this topic. I have to say that one of my disappointments with the Harper government has been their refusal to get involved in matters of principal such as the state to which human rights tribunals have fallen. One expects little but cowardice from Dalton McGuinty's government but the federal conservatives are supposed to be somewhat more robust in their concern for real Canadian values. Basically, an immigrant was fired after six weeks on the job for a variety of reasons, and took her small employer to the HRT. She was given full legal representation at no cost. The defendant, of course, got nothing. The HRT ordered the (very)small business owner to pay the plaintiff $36,000. And when she couldn't afford it, the complainant's legal team put a lien on her house, then went to the sheriff and ordered it seized to pay their client. In the case below, the tribunal's findings were considered to egregiously unfair that the courts threw the decision out, then ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 legal bills (before the court) to the defendant. Not to worry, though, for the complainant won't have to pay a cent. The Ontario government program which provided her with free legal services will also pay the award. But now there'll be another human rights tribunal hearing - which the Ontario government will again provide full legal services to the complainant for, before another adjudicator. I think that when HRTs have the power to issue massive fines of this kind of level, to take people's houses or businesses away, then they become def facto courts, and the defendant before them ought to be supplied with full legal representation. In addition, the biases and incompetence of the adjudicators has to be examined. As I understand it, they are basically drawn from the 'human rights industry' and most have little or no real training. Superor Court rules HR Hearing was unfair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) Sounds like the legal system is working. (by that I mean they are probably making money from this) (why is the government paying themselves a "bad deal" for the government) the clear loosers here are the boss and employee. The real loss is wasted time. What was the employee fired over? Edited February 6, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Sounds like the legal system is working. (by that I mean they are probably making money from this) (why is the government paying themselves a "bad deal" for the government) the clear loosers here are the boss and employee. The real loss is wasted time. What was the employee fired over? Too bad HRT's are out of control. The government isn't paying itself, it's paying legions of lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Sounds like the legal system is working. (by that I mean they are probably making money from this) (why is the government paying themselves a "bad deal" for the government) the clear loosers here are the boss and employee. The real loss is wasted time. What was the employee fired over? A number of things. It`s all in the cite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Too bad HRT's are out of control. The government isn't paying itself, it's paying legions of lawyers. nothin worse for the government than an out of work lawyer. ends up costing more in the long run. Edited February 7, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 I have often defended the HRTs here, but I'm now convinced that they're out of their depth legally in cases like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Such "situation" occur mostly just when woman is involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 nothin worse for the government than an out of work lawyer. ends up costing more in the long run. There's no doubt the Charter has put more money in more lawyers pockets than anything else in Canadian history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 And yet, we don't even have right to property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 The HRT sometimes looks more like an institutional abuse of the Charter of Rights than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I have often defended the HRTs here, but I'm now convinced that they're out of their depth legally in cases like this. Not nearly as out of their depth as the poor schmucks who have to pay for their own defence costs, while complainants(and the Tribunal itself) have basically unlimited resources to purchase legal help. And that, for me, is a major problem. If I am indigent and charged with a crime, the state can and does help. Not with the HRTs, yet the HRT has some fearsome penalties they can impose, just like a true court. That is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) What was the employee fired over? A number of things. It`s all in the cite. Yeah but the article in the opening posting doesn't really go into much detail. - The main complaint was that she was suspected of snooping in other people's desks, improperly handling files, and using her cell phone at work. - The employee claimed she did not feel 'comfortable' with the required dress code (e.g. skirt, heels, etc.) as a "traditional muslim woman"; instead, on at least one day she wore leggings, a tight short skirt, and an ankle bracelet (So, she wasn't dressed in either the required business attire, OR traditional Muslim clothing.) Edited to add: one of the problems is that the employee claimed she'd never dress in the way described; however, the owner was not allowed to bring in any witnesses to support her case. - And the microwaving? The employee claimed that she felt singled out over her use of the microwave, but apparently the owner was sensitive to smells, so all employees were avoiding the microwave http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Fx1VY37O2TIJ:onlinedb.lancasterhouse.com/images/up-OHRT_Audmax.pdf+Seema+Saadi+telfer+desk+leggings&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESixAq4UrBqdTE4zKmnep1D8EQ_q5jMk58NtD1lJWfEWs4QfYKF3Wa5VAuXeSYFn3Wmu1tt6EsXrEYzSmKsEHhAly-rqNcYAi0xCnIHLYI5erNFtO14QvsY4cXi4LEkGLzsQqUCL&sig=AHIEtbQV53SA50kv5J6r_uqrHeG15iPUUg http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-case-of-the-smelly-lunch/article1892245/ Edited February 8, 2011 by segnosaur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 The HRT sometimes looks more like an institutional abuse of the Charter of Rights than anything else. A country which was built on a justice system that presumed innocence until proved guilty has built a parallel system that does exactly the opposite. Shame on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) A country which was built on a justice system that presumed innocence until proved guilty has built a parallel system that does exactly the opposite. Shame on us. Well, in fairness, because it's not a criminal matter, it isn't wrong per say (under the law, anyway). OHS administrative penalty hearings usually work the same way. Edited February 9, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Well, in fairness, because it's not a criminal matter, it isn't wrong per say (under the law, anyway). OHS administrative penalty hearings usually work the same way. Fairness! Ya right. Couldn't have picked a worse word to descibe this mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Fairness! Ya right. Couldn't have picked a worse word to descibe this mess. Maybe you,re right...lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.