The first Lynch Mob of August gets underway:
First: We dodged one here. We all know that human rights cases do not consider the intent of the respondent when deciding upon culpability. In the appeal of Burgess vs Stephen W. Huk Professional Corporation, the complainant also demanded that the onus shouldn’t be on the complainant to prove that the respondent knew about the existence of the “protected ground” to begin with:
The Tribunal (Brenda Chomey) emphasized the fundamental principle of human rights law that it is not necessary for the complainant to prove that discrimination was intentional. Further, working on the basis that pregnancy is a form of gender discrimination (Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd.,  1 S.C.R. 1219), the Tribunal held that the onus was on the complainant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that pregnancy was a factor in the termination of the employment. The Tribunal was careful to note that pregnancy need only be one factor, and not necessarily even the primary factor in the termination. The Tribunal found that Ms. Burgess was pregnant and a practising Mormon at the date of her termination. The Tribunal also held that in order to be successful in her claim that her pregnancy and/or religious observances were factors in the employment termination, Ms. Burgess had to be able to show that the respondent (Dr. Huk) had knowledge of those facts.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the complainant couldn’t prove that the respondent had knowledge of the protected grounds. Fortunately, the Court of Queen’s Bench upheld this decision, protecting all of us from a possible flood of stealth complaints:
Justice Moreau concluded that the Tribunal had applied the correct legal test and that the respondent’s knowledge or imputed knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the discrimination claim must be established by the complainant as part of her prima facie case. Evidence of the respondent’s knowledge may be direct or circumstantial.
Second: This is what the Human Rights system would inevitably be used for – indignant soccer moms:
The parents claimed that the Guildford Athletic Club, which operates a soccer league, discriminated against the girl on the basis of race, colour, and ancestry.
This was based on the girl being “consistently benched” and playing for only 10 to 12 minutes per game near the end of the 2008-09 season.
The parents alleged she was one of the best players on the team, and noted that she was the only one of South Asian descent.
Third: Disabled people have a right to be accommodated while they break the law!
John Pruyn, whose prosthetic leg was ripped off has launched a complaint with the Ontario Ombudsman and OPIRD and is preparing a complaint for the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
This from the same author who claims that Israel was the mastermind behind the police tactics during the G20…