I will get the correct year in the title more often than not in January, I hope.
First: Is a forced apology ever a true and sincere one? Or are forced “apologies” merely pursued because of the wads of money that can be legally extracted alongside? At any rate, is a human rights tribunal the proper forum by which to force a government to implement the recommendations of an ombudsman’s report, which includes an apology and monetary compensation?
I always thought adherence to “recommendations” was voluntary. In human rights land, I guess not; in that case, I “recommend” that the BCHRT disbands itself…
Second: This is the mentality of a “human rights” litigant: a “civil rights activist” in Grey Country, Ontario believes that the entire council of the county are “criminals” for reciting the Lord’s prayer before each meeting.
They are criminals and I don’t think that word can be repeated often enough.” Ferguson said he relied for those statements on “case law.” “The Ontario Court of Appeal says they are criminals,” he said.
Third: Andrew Pinto’s review of the recent changes to Ontario’s human rights code has at least the appearance of considering the effect of the Code on employers. Some question’s he’s asking:
- How would you describe your overall experience with the Tribunal? What were positive and negative elements of that experience? What areas could be improved?
- Do you feel you were treated fairly by the Tribunal and its processes?
- Did you find the Tribunal dealt with your matter in a timely manner?
- The Tribunal currently does not award legal costs to the successful party. In future, if the Tribunal made an unsuccessful party pay (or partially pay) the successful party’s legal costs, would you consider that fair?
Good questions to ask, but I’ll hold judgment until I see what he does with the feedback…
Fourth: Don’t like the way the health system is run? Unhappy with a doctor’s decision to actually follow health regulations? Launch a completely ineffective but tax dollar-draining human rights complaint!