You know, I do believe that Jennifer Lynch, the head honcho of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, deserves some recognition.
Why, you may be asking, would she deserve such a thing? After all, hasn't she been the head of an organization which has made a routine habit of inquiring into Canadian citizens' beliefs and infringing upon their freedoms of speech and religion?
Well, you'd be right. But I believe that everybody deserves recognition for hard work - and Jennifer Lynch has certainly been working hard to continue in her commitment to illiberalism.
Case in point: Barry W. Kwasniewski writes, via Carters.ca:
"The Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA”) determined that the CHRT does not have the authority to make an award of costs under the Act. At issue in Mowat was whether paragraph 53(2)(c) of the Act grants the CHRT the jurisdiction to award legal costs to a successful complainant.
[...]
The FCA determined that the word “expenses” in paragraph 53(2) does not include legal costs. The word “costs” is a legal term of art and it is well established that the power to award “costs” must be found in a statute. The Act does not expressly provide that costs may be awarded. The FCA concluded that Parliament did not intend to grant, and did not grant, to the CHRT the power to award costs.
[...]
The FCA addressed the argument that to deny costs awards would result in many complainants being denied access to justice. However, the FCA stated that the issue of costs in human rights adjudication is a policy matter best left to Parliament to decide, not the CHRT or the courts.
[...]
Given the differing statutory provisions in provinces and territories of Canada, a successful complainant’s entitlement to be reimbursed for legal costs will be dependent on the jurisdiction in which the complaint is heard. Given the complexity of proceedings before human rights tribunals, many complainants may not be able to proceed with potentially meritorious complaints if there is no chance their legal costs will be reimbursed, even if they are successful. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was filed on December 22, 2009, on behalf of the Canadian Human Rights Commission."
Read it all here. H/t to The Lynch Mob.
Pay particular attention to those last few lines. Complainants in CHRC proceedings do not have to pay their way - unless they wish to hire independent counsel. Meanwhile, defendents have to pay their own way - through what can be an incredibly costly procedure - with no hope of filing for costs if they are proven innocent.
In other words, this decision simply means that you cannot add insult to injury; that if your complaint with the CHRC, after having worked its way through the system at no necessary cost to yourself, is ultimately successful, and once you have been compensated fairly by the Tribunal, you can't then add an additional charge for your own legal costs to the damages ( as far as I understand it, anyway ).
What's so horrible about that? Seriously. Why would the CHRC appeal this decision? Is their racket really so precious to them that even this small concession in favor of the defendent is too much?
