Slim pickings today.
First: The complaint against three municipalities for not calling out transit stops on buses has been settled – without there being a single complaint. Indeed, it was the OHRC who dragged the municipalities to the Tribunal in order to “prod” them into complying with the AODA Integrated Accessibility Regulation. Seems kind of odd that Barbara Hall and the OHRC is the mechanism for ensuring compliance of municipalities to provincial legislation.
Second: Two opinions on the necessity for Ontario’s human rights tribunal. First from a human rights academic – guess which side she comes down on:
Unfortunately, a lot of the debate surrounding the tribunal does not focus on the good it is doing. Instead, fueled by the media, it implies the tribunal has been hijacked by special-interest groups…
…[it is] presided over by decision-makers who, in many cases, have dedicated their lives to human-rights issues.
Sorry, Ms. Lamarche, but there is very little difference between someone who has “dedicated their life to human-rights issues” and a “special-interest group”.
The second is from Hugo Rodriguez, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists who takes a more balanced approach:
A human-rights tribunal (HRT) is not the place to contemplate cases in which someone challenges something written or spoken because he or she dislikes it, disagrees with it, or finds it offensive. These freedom-of-expression-based challenges belong in a court of law, where judges can hear the positions of both parties and weigh them against the Criminal Code of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.