The provincial government plans to introduce human rights legislation that will dissolve the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in favour of having a court hear the complaints.
Justice Minister Don Morgan said the change, among other reforms to the Human Rights Code, is being undertaken at the suggestion of Judge David Arnot, chief commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. The commission is the body that receives human rights complaints and occasionally refers a matter to a tribunal for a hearing.
“There seemed to be a lot of support for going forward with it so we felt it was an appropriate piece of legislation to bring at this time,” said Morgan, whose Sask. Party government signalled its intent in the throne speech to move forward with changes, which were first discussed in the spring.
“It will allow for a more streamlined process, more mediation and more expedited handling of files. But the most significant thing is it will no longer be the human rights tribunal. The complaints, when they’re referred on, will go directly to the Court of Queen’s Bench,” Morgan said.
Congratulations! I fervently hope it creates a pandemic and infects the rest of the ROC.
It is good to have real judges and not kangaroos hearing the complaints. To me there are still some unanswered questions, such as: 1. who pays for the investigation and prosecution of the complaint?, 2. do you commit an offence contrary to Saskatchwan HR legislation if someone feels hated as a result of you exercising your otherwise lawful freedom of speach?
I hope they go the full mile on this revision of the legislation and eliminate these abusive provisions too.
“Arnot said he is also looking at Ontario’s “systemic advocacy” system, which would see the Saskatchewan commission advance causes for “large cohorts of individuals” versus one-off prosecutions.”
One step forward, two steps back?
Get rid of all the Human Wrongs Commissions!
While the HRC in itself is a big waste of time and effort, should our court system really be tied up by thin-skinned prima donnas with hurt feelings?
This could be great news or the first of the huge bait and switch scams being played by the anti free speech industry across Canada. If the usual suspects don’t go nuts over this, fear the worst.
One down, twelve to go.
Really didn’t have to read the article to know this is a good thingy…
O/T Kate,but there is article in Wpg Free Press that needs your attention:Court battle over PhD..it is a made-for-Kate column for sure!
More please. FASTER!
I wish it would have been Alberta to rid us of this abomination first. With Red EDDY though that was impossible, till the neo-conservatives or Proggresives, utter destruction As a Party hence a few years from now. A Wild rose has a lot of thorns to prune. It will have to wait till the CINO’S are gone.
Good for Saskatchewan. You guys have a treasure in this Premier Brad Wall. He actually believes in Democracy.
I hope the rest now fall like the rotten domino’s
in a row. With Sask. leading the way. Lets put a political torch to this group of shakedown artists hurting others as censors.
JMO
This is good news. Rabbit and Curious are right, “twelve to go”, “More please. Faster”.
Johanne, finally someone gets the name right.
However, does whats his name, the guy who drums most of the HRC cases approve? I doubt it.
Now if only Wall would rein in some of the bureaucrats who have nothing better to do than come up with more restrictions. The bonus would be that he could reduce the size of government that way.
Maybe I’m being completely naive but why do we even have a bill of rights if a human rights commission/tribunal sorts it all out? I wish the HRCs would stop bull—-ing everyone and- for the pure refreshing honesty of it all- admit they enjoy the two or three tiered system that places some people over others. No HRCs, no “healing circles” and certainly no sharia law. I’ll believe the system is genuinely concerned about the rights of others when I see ONE system for everyone.
Wait – I think we need more information.
First, this doesn’t seem to reject the HRAct and in particular, Section 13. It’s that section with its amorphous definition of ‘exposure to hatred or contempt’ that needs attention.
Second, the Commission itself is not being touched and it is simply the tribunals that are being disbanded, and cases will be referred to regular courts.
But a court requires a far greater burden of proof than a Commission or Tribunal, so, I’m puzzled how the regular courts will deal with situations where:
-truth is not a defense,
-hearsay and emotions are accepted as evidence
What will you guys do with all those kangaroos ??
You can drop a small one with a well placed .22 and they are pretty good eating . . . Skippy Burgers 🙂
From the article:
“Arnot said he is also looking at Ontario’s “systemic advocacy” system, which would see the Saskatchewan commission advance causes for “large cohorts of individuals” versus one-off prosecutions.”
This does not strike me as a good thing!
This is a great first step. Saskatchewan can be proud of their Premier. Wish I could say the same about Eddy. I have emailed him about the HRC’s, telling him it means losing my vote if they don’t do something about them. So, what did they do? They ADDED personnel. Wild Rose here I come!
Wow! I still won’t believe it until I see it! But, like Revnant Dream said, I hope this sets forth a cascade of dominoes falling down.
AND … as I’ve stated publicly before, once the one here in BC where I live and the Canadian one are gone, then I will start donating to the Conservative Party again. Not before though.
ET
-truth is not a defense,
-hearsay and emotions are accepted as evidence
we will see, as REAL judges can’t ignore real laws to accomodate such nonsense, so my guess, the REAL judges will be used to kill the whole HRC system
smooth move by B Wall
ET
[…….But a court requires a far greater burden of proof than a Commission or Tribunal, so, I’m puzzled how the regular courts will deal with situations where:
-truth is not a defense,
-hearsay and emotions are accepted as evidence……]
The courts have such things as rules of civil procedure which involve objective evidence not heresay and emotions.
Judges are now more frequently activist but at least they have a grounding in rule of law and reality more than the activist loons who preside over these tribunals.
Hopefully…
We may live in hopes but die of despair….
The federal Section 13 and various provincial laws that mimic its provisions also need to be repealed. It’s not really a total victory for our side when these bad laws can still influence proceedings in a better judicial setting, although it is an improvement.
sasquatch, gym, peter o’donnell – yes, that’s my point. The HRCs and that insane Section 13 are an isolate self-justifying ‘virtual world’ process, where truth, factual evidence and reality play no role.
So, how can you accept a case within the HRCommission’s ‘rules’ and send it on to a real court which operates within the realm of reality, hard evidence, logical causality? The real court will have to reject most, if not all, cases.
Possibly, as gym notes, it’s a tactic to get rid of the HRCs by nullifying everything they do..
The key difference is that the standards of proof and disclosure are far higher in a real court. You can actually put your tormentor under examination.
I’m curious as well as to who pays the bills now.
It does seem like a step in the right direction. … I’d have wished for an outright abolition, but that seemed too much to ask.
I don’t know if any of these cases will be judged by juries, it’d be interesting to see if any cases get by them.. until the entire section gets tossed.
ah, ever the hopeful one I say.
In a real court the accused can recoup legal costs and in some cases there could be punitive damages. In a kangaroo court all you get are snotty people with warped priorities.
The change was made at the suggestion of Judge David Arnot, who was apppointed to the commission last year. The idea, as outlined in a news release by the Commission last May, is to move towards mediation of most complaints, with only the difficult and contentious cases going to court. Under the commission’s proposal, the commission would continue to provide counsel to the complainant if the matter went to court and the court would be dedicated bench, with special judges assigned to it. (One of the problems with the tribunal was that the members had to juggle their legal careers with the tribunal case load.) Its not clear that the ordinary rules of evidence would apply; like the laws establishing small claims courts in most provinces, the Saskatchewan Code permits the tribunal to admit evidence at its discretion, regardless of whether or not it would be admissible under the ordinary rules of evidence.
It’s the opposite to the approach taken in BC, where the commission was eliminated (and with it, the gatekeeper role that kept the tribunal’s case load managable) and the tribunal kept on. It will be interesting to see how it works.
As for the hate speech provisions (found at s. 14(1) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code), they are not going anywhere; the SHRC just got leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the Saskatchwan Court of Appeal’s decision that Bill Whatcott didn’t violate the section when he distributed virulent anti-gay leaflets.
This is the first step in big gov’s plan to jail hate speakers.
All it takes is one judge to make it happen. It’s a ‘living charter’ don’t you know.
That’s what I think anyways
truewest
Good post. Better than the article, actually.
It appears that the Commission is being strengthened.
With the kind of judges we have in the so called courts, these kind of cases will jump from one kangaroo court into another.
Maybe I was too hasty with the “This is good news” comment. Dizzy and MariaS may be right. Bureaucrats can be so slippery. The proof will be in the pudding. In any case, their last little social engineering project prompted me to rip up their latest donation request.
ET: “First, this doesn’t seem to reject the HRAct and in particular, Section 13.”
ET, section 13 is in the Federal Human Rights Act. Saskatchewan has no jurisdiction or authority to do anything about that. (Are you listening, Harper?)
A few years ago, I attended a seminar put on by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission about employer-employee relations under the Saskatchewan Act, and came away with the distinct impression that the Act assumes the employer is guilty until proven innocent. Thank you, NDP!!
What this means is that thought crimes will no longer be prosecuted. HRC will not refer to a real court for thought crimes because they know it will not proceed. All judges that follow the law will throw such out of court.
This is terrible news.
How will the non workers of Saskatchewan get electricity according to the wise plan of Comrade Stalin? What of all the six figure salary socialists? How can they go about their leisure when their forgivable transgressions will be brought to light by various and sundry white right wing fanatics?
It is only a matter of weeks before concentration camps are built to house liberal voters. With every tax spender put down, four taxpayers lose the requirement to pay taxes … for the rest of their lives. We need tax spenders to provide meaning to the tax payers; a way for them to feel motivated to drink down the white guilt that comes from the testicles of the progressives.
This is a sad day for Saskatchewan.
Too many unknowns to know whether this is a Good Thing ™ or another obfuscation. It really depends upon whether matters which the Commission accepts go to the regular Queen’s Bench, under normal rules of civil procedure, or whether there is a special ‘court’ with special rules.
digression: BTW, a special court with special rules is an endangered species following the Supreme Court decision in R. v Conroy in June 2010. That decision basically bound ALL administrative tribunals to follow, apply and grant all Charter of Rights standards. It had been unclear/obfuscated whether admin tribunals which had to apply Charter standards also had the power to, and *requirement of* granting Charter remedies to correct inequalities in the process or result. SCC said Yes. So basically, there is now no slipping out of the Charter straightjacket by denying a remedy on the grounds that ‘the tribunal is not a court and cannot do that’.
What’s this got to do with the price of tea in China? Well lots of admin tribunals have previously denied “equal protection” or “due process” standards remedies. Now they can be forced to.
Example: employment standards branch officers have until now held hearings with unsworn evidence, without full disclosure, without recordings or transcript and without full opportunity to cross-examine, and often without a full statement of reasons for decision. All of which are now clear grounds for complaint. U.S. caselaw on ‘due process’ which is often largely analogous will be helpful. This is actually an amazing stake in the heart to a lot of the cozy admin world.
/digression
So it is unlikely that any court could get away with ‘special rules of evidence’ for HRC complaints. Relaxed rules are allowed in Small Claims, but there is a restriction basically to money claims, and a money limit.
Re provincial v federal HRC, if PMSH were not such a “don’t rock the boat” coward^h^h^h^h^h^hconservative, he would introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code which provides that any speech which does NOT fall within the hate speech section, is deemed to be a form of free speech that is allowed. And no evidence to the contrary is permitted. That would mean that if Warman thought some speech was ‘bad’ he would have to convince an Attorney-General FIRST…since iirc, the AG must sign off on any prosecution.
One good side of the Sask proposal, is that costs will follow the event. I cannot see Wall having the stones to amend the Justice Act (or Judicature Act, or whatever) to change the rules regarding costs for *just* these cases. Heck, the whole idea may well be just to drop the cost of the commission and tribunal: if the user has to pay, then the gov’t does not have to.
I’m willing to bet Nova Scotia will be the last province to dissolve its HRT/C.
In nitric acid?
No, that’s too much to hope for.