© Maggie MacPherson/CBC
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms today issued a news release declaring victory on behalf of their clients, as an early ruling in favour of the mostly home-based salon workers was announced just one day after the Canadian federal elections.
According to the news release, The decision noted, "human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax." The decision further found that Yaniv "engaged in improper conduct," "filed complaints for improper purposes," and concluded Yaniv's testimony was "disingenuous and self-serving." Finally, noted the Tribunal, Yaniv was "evasive and argumentative and contradicted herself" while giving evidence.
The JCCF represented five of more than 10 aesthetician workers Yaniv brought complaints against, many of whom were immigrants or from visible minority or highly religious communities. This, along with Yaniv's history of racially charged remarks, led many to speculate that the complaints were racist or xenophobic in nature.
Most significantly, the Tribunal ordered costs of $2,000 payable each to three of the five women represented by the Justice Centre, including one woman, Mrs. Hehar Gill, who had been forced to close her business due to Yaniv's vexatious litigation. According to the JCCF's news release, Mrs. Gill, a practicing Sikh, explained to Yaniv that she was only able to provide services to female clients due to her religion.
Reader Comments
Talk about an ''indecent proposal'!
R.C.
[Link]
Try this one...I stumbled across it recently. Jordan Rudess from Dream Theater and Rod Morgenstein shredding on Emerson Lake and Palmer 'Tarkus'....[Link]
These are the LMAO type questions we'd run by each other. back when we were 17?
Then we'd typically add conditions, such as on top of that, it's all on video, on the internet and you / I couldn't say anything about the money...if asked, you'd have to say, "I got carried awa y by the romance of the moment..." ARRRGHGHGG!
I guess some things are 'priceless,' as in 'Ain't no mountain high enough.' Thank God we're not speaking of reality here.
R.C.
R.C.
Oh. BTW, Your thoughts on my last point joke here?:
British police allowing convicted rapists to be classified as 'female', if they no longer want to identify as men
Police forces across Britain are now allowing convicted male rapists to be recorded as being female if they no longer want to identify with their sex at birth. Six forces, including South...R.C.
[Link]
Hardly. If it were a truly just conclusion, he/she/it would have to pay FULL AND COMPLETE restitution to everyone affected, as well as all costs to the gov't (i.e., taxpayers) for the trial, etc. As far as the victims are concerned, two kilobucks doesn't even approach the costs of having to shut down (and possibly restart) a business and the loss of earnings the business owner experienced since this sorry episode began, to say nothing of the aggravation they experienced due to this idiot.
...unless these women are unable due to the fine print in the ruling and that would suck.
[Link]