|
Mr. Eddie Taylor legal council for the Canadian Human Rights Commission and presumably Mr. Mark Schnell the Complainant have asked for and have received as of May 1,2001 "a go ahead" ruling from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to amend the original complaints to include the ground of retaliation pursuant to section 14.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act because of certain posting on a website alleged to be controlled by the Respondents. The following is the exact unabridged text from the Notice of Motion The grounds for the motion are that since the filing of the complaint additional postings have been made to the website which continues the discriminatory practice and compound the effect of the discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The new postings, as of February 9, 2001, name the Complainant and label him a “gay man”(quotes in original). As well there are several new headings on the website: Web Under Attack, which details the “human rights inquisition”. What Do They Want, What Can You Do, What Should You Do, and Guest book, in which the Respondent invites readers to “Vent your wrath”. The Commission wants to add a publication of the Guest book to the complaint because it violates section 13(1) of the Act. (Enclosed). It is the position of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that the continuation of the alleged discriminatory practice against gay men and lesbians, and the naming of the complainant and the description of him, can only serve to threaten and intimidate the Complainant and is being used to retaliate against him for making the complaint. The Commission submits this amendment is a matter of procedure, not substance, and the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to amend the complaint under its power to determine its own procedures. (Section 48.9 Act) In Courtois v. Canada the Tribunal allowed an amendment of the complaint,”(because) it did not substantially modify the text of the complaint and that, in any case, the amendment was implicitly contained in the text of the complaint thus this amendment application did not in any way take the respondent by surprise.” Courtois v. Canada, 11 C.H.R.R. D/363, para. 22 (CHRT,1990) The Commission submits that in this instance where the amendment sought concerns retaliation in continuing the alleged discriminatory practice of publishing messages after getting notice of hearing, the new allegation of retaliation is intrinsically related to the matter already referred to the Tribunal. End of the exact unabridged text from the Notice of Motion The Tribunal posted both the Complainant's name and the Respondent names on their website during December 2000 under upcoming events. For your information: as an “add on” not mentioned in the original motion, the Commission under separate cover is seeking an additional $ 20,000.00 in “damages”. All postings referred to are either unabridged text from in the public domain documents or are my opinion. In my opinion the motion and the sanction personify Retaliation and Intimidation. In the opinion / judgment of Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer in the Federal Court of Canada in the Canadian Telephone Employees Association v. Bell Canada (2000), 194 D.L.R.(4th) 499 last November found the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to be systemically biased. The judgment held that this Tribunal is not an institutionally independent and impartial body. Because this Tribunal deals with quasi-constitutional rights and freedoms and is purely adjudicative in nature, it must meet the high end of the spectrum in impartiality. The Federal Court has held that it fails to do so. |