First: One case justifies the whole thing, says Troy Media in its latest defence of the human rights system. Who can argue against the right of the disabled to vote in elections?
Second: Why should Saskatchewan keep its Human Rights Tribunal? Because of the “ambiance”.
Even more limiting of access is the daunting ambience of a court hearing as opposed to that of an adjudicative tribunal.
Third: An editorial in the National Post laments the recent Quebec HRT decision against Bombardier:
In addition to tossing any reasonable standard of proof out the window, the judge also effectively put the onus on Bombardier to prove the validity of the no-fly edict. She castigated the company for not pursuing Mr. Latif’s case with Transport Canada or Canadian and American intelligence services. “It was not [Bombardier]’s responsibility to assume, proprio motu, the responsibility of national security.” Instead of getting marks for trying to protect Canadians, Bombardier got penalized.
Fourth: Who says that the Commissions and Tribunals don’t expand the definitions of their enabling legislation? (emphasis mine)
The grounds under this Policy will be interpreted in the same manner as they are interpreted by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. For example, the ground of “sex” has been interpreted to include gender identity, gender expression, sexual harassment, sexual assault and the actuality or possibility of pregnancy, breastfeeding and childbirth, and will be so interpreted under this policy.