B.C. Liberals shake up human-rights tribunal
The chair, Heather MacNaughton, will lose her post, causing some to worry about more changes to come
B.C. has lost human-rights protections, according to advocate Shelagh Day.
The B.C. government has declined to reappoint the chair of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Heather MacNaughton, as well as another tribunal member, Judith Parrack. This has some human-rights experts concerned about what this means for the future of the nine-member quasi-judicial body, which issues legally binding decisions.
MacNaughton wasn’t available for comment, but hers and Parrack’s departures were confirmed to the Georgia Straight by Bill Black, an internationally renowned human-rights expert and professor emeritus at the UBC law school. Their terms end on July 31.
“I think Heather did a superb job,” Black said by phone.
MacNaughton, a former chair of the Ontario Human Rights Board of Inquiry, was appointed chair of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in 2000. When then–attorney general Geoff Plant abolished the B.C. Human Rights Commission in 2003, MacNaughton created a model by which complainants could go directly to the tribunal.
“She made the direct-access model work—where you don’t go through a commission—as well as it’s capable of working,” Black said. “She insisted on a merit process of hiring tribunal members.”
Parrack, a former lawyer with the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre, was appointed to the tribunal in 2004.
On June 30, the British Columbia Law Institute announced that the Ministry of Labour had asked it to conduct legal research into workplace dispute-resolution mechanisms in B.C. Currently, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal can issue rulings when employees file discrimination complaints against their employers.
Less than two weeks later, on July 12, the B.C. government posted an advertisement for a new part-time chair of the tribunal on the Web site of the Board Resourcing and Development Office. Black pointed out that hiring part-time chairs for human-rights tribunals hasn’t worked very well in other provinces.
“People don’t get the expertise,” he said. “Sometimes there can be major turnover.”
Vancouver lawyer Lindsay Lyster resigned from the tribunal in March. In a phone interview with the Straight, she said there is “a great deal of uncertainty” about how human-rights cases will be dealt with in the future.
“I think the public should be asking questions,” Lyster stated. “What are the government’s intentions with respect to the future of the protection of human rights in this province? What mechanisms do they intend to have in place to ensure that people have access to justice in the form of human rights? I have no idea what the answers to these questions might be. But what I do know is those questions need to be asked because the things that I am seeing are disturbing to me.”
Shelagh Day, senior editor of the Canadian Human Rights Reporter, told the Straight by phone that the B.C. Liberal government has already done a “lot of damage to human-rights institutions in this province” by abolishing the B.C. Human Rights Commission. “I’m very concerned about what’s happening to human-rights complainants and what will happen to them in the future in terms of legal representation,” Day said.
Attorney General Mike de Jong did not return a phone call from the Straight by deadline. The B.C. Law Institute declined the Straight’s request for an interview on what its review of workplace dispute-resolution mechanisms might involve.
Former attorney general Plant, who is on the institute’s board, works at the Vancouver law firm Heenan Blaikie. One of his partners in the firm, lawyer Peter Gall, has coauthored a paper calling for a new tribunal that would deal with labour relations, human rights, and employment standards.
In a phone interview with the Straight, Gall said that such a tribunal would be more efficient because it would eliminate overlap in the jurisdictions of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, the B.C. Labour Relations Board, and the Employment Standards Tribunal.
“I’m just heartened that the government is—at least to the extent of sending it out for comment [through the B.C. Law Institute]—looking at this,” Gall said. “I don’t know whether they’ll ever do anything.”
When asked if he ever raises the issue with Plant at his law firm, Gall replied, “I pound away at him all the time. I say to him, ”˜Geoff, why didn’t you do this when you were the attorney general?’ He said he had enough on his plate.”
Day said she disagrees with Gall’s proposal because human-rights tribunal members bring a very different perspective than labour adjudicators, who she said are mainly concerned with “labour peace”.
Black said he thinks it’s a “bad idea” to create a “super-tribunal” to deal with human rights, labour relations, and employment standards. He pointed out that members of human-rights tribunals have expertise in this area, which might not necessarily be the case with a labour arbitrator.
“In a labour model, you have two strong advocates on either side: the union and the employer,” Black added. “And that isn’t true in human rights. In other words, how would an individual who thought they were being discriminated against by an employer be able to take on that kind of thing?”
He also pointed out that people who aren’t represented by a lawyer, whether they are complainants or small-business respondents, have a far smaller chance of winning. He also worries about what would happen to human-rights complaints that don’t deal with employment, such as those that involve housing and public services.
“I don’t like dividing responsibility for human rights,” Black said.
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Google
Comments
The only linkage they have with Human Rights is their name. They should be abolished.
This kind of stuff belongs in the courts, not in front of an unaccountable tribunal.
The New Democrazy Party will have you think they are better than the Liberals, they aren't. Camero talks about Mining and Lumber wanting more control over labour, he's wrong, they don't want to be taxed to death like the BC NDP like to do. Take a look at how low the income tax is, once NDP is elected it'll rise twofold.
These illegal kangaroo courts are being used to destroy the few legitimate civil liberties and human rights we have left.
Please read "Shakedown" by Ezra Levant before forming an opinion on Human Rights Tribunals. The biggest problem is uneducated people supporting them because the name sounds very moral and 'socially just'
I beg of you, it's just one little book, just go to the library and read it. I guarantee that no matter your political ideology you will find it absolutely shocking how corrupt these things are.
Can we all just put down the right-wing/left-wing pom-poms for a few hours and educate ourselves?
The tribunal is set up to balance the relations between the strong and the weak. Consequently, the strong despise it.
It's telling which side the BC Liberals are on through their efforts to destroy the institutions in this province which adjudicate human rights.
Rod Smelser
Small claims is $25,000 limit - entrance fee $165.00 - simply waive the fee for plaintiffs if the matter is Human Rights related -- let the 'victim' tell the judge ---------------- a real judge --.
BC Liberals will go looking for more money for their lawyer friends.
Rod Smelser "
People who want to keep the "Human Rights" Kangaroo courts simply want to turn the clock back to 1930's Soviet Russia.
People who want to keep the "Human Rights" Kangaroo courts simply want to turn the clock back to 1930's Soviet Russia.
==================================
You're claiming that human rights legislation, which prevents discrimination in employment and housing and the sales of goods and services to the public, amounts to communism? This kind of totally unbelievable nonsense would have been laughed at ten or fifteen years ago.
But the inroads into the public mind made by dishonest newspapers like the National Post, and by openly bigotted online chat rooms like Kate McMillan's SmallDeadAnimals, have slowly had the effect of making this kind of neo-Nazi rhetoric seem normal to a disturbingly large number of people.
Rod Smelser
... I am a business owner and I cannot run my business effectively, there are no human rights for business owners in BC!!! ... the labor laws that are too unrealistic and that depress business must be changed. Believe me you would never fully understand what I am talking about unless you have been dragged though a depressing 1 year long labor board dispute by an employee that was destroying your business ... Thank you liberals GOD BLESS YOU!!!
===============================
Do you have any idea what you're saying?
You claim that life under the legislation this BC Liberal Govt has in place is unbearable for small business owners like you. But then you turn around and say "God Bless" those very same Liberals.
Are you a bit confused? Or is your post just a complete and utter scam?
Rod Smelser
thanks for the non partisan reading tips there birdy. great choice. ezra levant. a real objective pick my friend. i guess i should recommend some tom flanagan or someone else that is a product of the fraser institute.
prick.
Maybe if you judged books by their content and not the unrelated history of the author, you'd make fewer jackass comments.
Personally, I think Ezra is a total ass and I disagree with 90% of his views. That doesn't change the FACTS presented in his book. I read lots of books by people I despise. I can't stand Noam Chomsky's opinions but he presents facts incredibly well, so I read his work. Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky is another good example, you see I have this crazy fetish for understanding things before I support or criticize them.
I bash the Fraser Institute all the time, but If you really think they're out to get you, all the more reason to read Tom Flanagan. You might want to read their documents regarding decriminalization of marijuana and monetary policy as well. If you were playing a football game and one of your teammates handed you the other team's playbook, you wouldn't want to have a look inside? Would you throw it on the ground in disgust and cry out "I hate the other team, I don't wanna read anything they touched!" That's the level of logic you have displayed so far.
Please don't end up spending your life worrying about the left and right wings, while the actual bird(y) the wings are connected to eats up your freedom and vomits it into the mouths of it's young.
re: RodSmelser "...neo-Nazi rhetoric..."
If you had read even the first few chapters of Shakedown you'd know how ironic and hilarious bringing up "neo-Nazi rhetoric" is within a defense of Canada's human rights circus.
These tribunals/commissions have been caught hacking into the internet accounts of regular people who just happened to live near the tribunals/commissions, in order to post inflammatory racist rhetoric anonymously on neo-nazi message boards, to entrap targeted people into responding.
In my experience of following these things, these kangaroo courts have very little to do with those rosy things you talk about, and everything to do with petty feuds, advancing radical leftist agenda, and character assassinations.
When your so called "Human Rights" are enforced by an unaccountable, unelected, corrupt body which judges you on the basis of "guilty until proven innocent" after you have been denounced...get the picture yet?
Like glen p robbins says, waive the fee for small claims courts, and tell it to a REAL judge. Alas, a little too reasonable for "Human Rights" fanatics, I'm afraid.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to catch up on my reading!
And then there's the whining supposed small business owner, basically complaining that it encroaches on his rights that he can't hire and fire employees any which way he sees fit. Sure, I have no problem believe that you, of all people, know "full well that in order to get productivity we need to treat our good workers with dignity and respect". Seriously, though, have you ever even taken note of employees' rights anywhere outside Canada? Compared to most European countries, Canadian full-time employees on average get about half the benefits, a third of the days off per year, and employers need to give them less than a quarter less notice before letting them go. And don't even talk about the paid sick leave. Your regular employee has only 10-14 days off per year, sees no money from your after being sick for more than a few days straight, you're not required by law to pay them more than the most basic benefits out of your own, i.e. your business' pocket, and even despite all that, if you're not a total dunce, you can still legally get rid of them within a month, tops.
The fact that even this sweet-sweet deal (for the employer, that is) isn't even enough for some people tells me everything I need to know. Why don't all of you just hobble off and shake your fingers at long-haired teenagers or whatever else it is you do for fun these days. That would certainly be preferable to being bombarded by this propaganda.
In unionized environments, workers sometimes find that BOTH union & its members AND management contribute to a hositle work environment where harassment of women, men of colour, queers, etc is tolerated/condoned/practised. This is not a union management problem and could not be appropriately addressed in a workplace tribunal.
Second, if the workplace issues are referred to a supertribunal, what do you think will happen to complaints of discrimination in the provision of services or rental accommodations? The government hates it that its citizens can complain if the services they provide are being provided in a discriminatory fashion. "But we're the government," the defence typically goes, "And what we do is according to the laws of the land." If services are removed, or government services are removed, from the scope of things that the human rights tribunal deals with, it will be a huge loss to the ability of people whose rights are stepped on by government to get a remedy.
Governments are naturally concerned about votes. Human rights are never popular with the people whose human rights are not being violated at the moment, even though permitting the violation of one group's human rights means that the violation of the rights of a group of which you are a member is not far behind.
I believe that we are to be judged, as a society, as a country, as a measure of where humanity has come - at least on its western path. And the measure of our morality, and our success, is the same: that is, the degree to which among our vast collective resources we take care of and respect each other.
Some people suggest that human rights issues should be decided not by a tribunal but by courts. That might be a good idea. Human rights tribunals were set up in the first place as a way to minimize the cost of human rights complaints to employers/service providers/ etc instead of having to go to court.
As a result the award of damages in human rights cases is very small compared to damages in the court system.
Part of the reason that the decisions of human rights tribunals are regarded as 'ridiculous' to many people is because people in the majority routinely find the choices, practices, etc of minority groups stupid or ridiculous. It is one way of maintaining social control to convince people that a particular group is ridiculous or stupid or otherwise not deserving of respect.
I don't actually think that respect for human rights is a left/right issue. Some people in each group think that their agenda is more important than the rights of some groups. They would of course disagree about which groups. Most people in Canada believe in and value the Charter of Rights and our human rights legislation.
I hope.
As for suggested viewing or reading, how about this film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_History_X
Rod Smelser
...this is CAN-A-DA...
maybe you should file a human rights complaint and get the movie changed to Canadian History X. Should be worth a couple of grand, anyway.
But I really wonder how many right wingnuts could endure the kind of society they SAY they want....living as they do with the cushions provided by left-wing social policies and not giving them a second thought.
RickW
I've just found an 18 page document authored by Peter Gall and two other people that would appear to be a draft of the document he said has been disseminated for comment. This one has no date or other information to indicate when, why, or for whom it was written. I highly recommend reading it. It appears they have in mind possibly elinating the HRT altogether, while creating what might turn out to be a Super Star Chamber.
http://www.cba.org/cba/cle/pdf/Gall_Peter.pdf
On the other hand I find it difficult to imagine our government bureaucrats and politicians stumbling their way through such an ambitious transition.
Gawd save us from the "experts".
That is how so-called human rights boards are able to so
thoroughly violate not only the law, but the rights of so
many people - their academic arrogance renders them
incapable of accepting that they are wrong. After all,
the are "experts"! What do us mere worker bees know?!
Glen
"Human rights? You mean the human right of a restaurant worker to refuse to wash her hands, get fired, sue and win? Or the human right of two lesbian hecklers not to be offended? Ditto that the muslims who sued Mark Steyn, Macleans and free speech, all at once... on your dime!"
What is your point? That lawyers know how to manipulate the law?
RickW
It's the members of the commission who decides what "cases" to hear and what ones to reject, not the lawyers. Look at he original documents sent to the BCHRT in the Mark Steyn case. The "complaint" was basically written on a napkin in about 30 seconds. Seriously, have a look and then consider that the BCHRT also looked at that document and decided that it was reasonable for Steyn to be sued. It's really rather pathetic and shameful.
Better phone Pattison for a job Gordon.
============================
Do you think Jimmy would make him report to Glen?
Rod Smelser
"Seriously, have a look and then consider that the BCHRT also looked at that document and decided that it was reasonable for Steyn to be sued."
Nothing "shameful" about a lawsuit. That's what our society runs on (albeit as a minor version of what drives the US). There's especially nothing "shameful" about countering the inflammatory rhetoric spouted by the likes of Steyn.
RickW
And then there are SLAPP suits..........a travesty of justice if ever there was one. And to counter this shameful flouting of the law, some ordinary citizens at least can take advantage of the law as it stands in regards to the Steyns of this world.
RickW
RickW
I am convinced that human rights tribunal system in Canada is a good idea gone terribly wrong! It's time it was tossed and good minds put to finding a real workable solution.
The BCRT recently ruled to dismiss my claim of discrimination due to disability. The ruling states yes I am with a disability, and yes the termination has affected me greatly, but no I did not fully prove, nor can they accept the disability as being the reason I was terminated. They also find it is not their duty to rule on whether this is a wrongful dismissal.
While I am not in full agreement with the BCHR's decision as disappointing as it is mostly due to seeing key evidence disregarded/forgotten, or used inaccurately, while coming to the decision, -moving me possibly towards an appeal or at the very least Rule 32.1, I am VERY thankful to have had the opportunity to disclose and make some personal sense out of the immense suffering I experienced while enduring patiently, thinking I was in the long process of facilitating accomodation with my employer since gaining a disability from a work place injury here in BC.
A final note here is the WCB once stated in their claim files regarding my injury "work place accomodation is the employer's duty and if the claimant is not receiving assistance of such from the employer, it is an area for the BCRT."