Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Complaints against Security Guards (5:VI)"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
LSLAP 2017 Clinician update: minor legal changes, formatting
(LSLAP 2017 Clinician update: minor legal changes, formatting)
Line 3: Line 3:
== A. Introduction ==
== A. Introduction ==


Complaints against licensed security guards can be filed with the Registrar of Security Programs Division, Ministry of Justice. Complaints can relate to the licensing of a security business or security employee, about the conduct or behaviour of a security employee, or about the use of equipment. Filing a complaint is free. Complaining against an unlicensed guard should be done directly to the employer. Most security guards in  BC are now required to be licensed under the ''Security Services Act'', SBC 2007, c 30. General information and links can be obtained at http://www.securityandyou.ca. This website is a project of the BC Human Rights Coalition aimed at raising public awareness.   
Complaints against licensed security guards can be filed with the Registrar of Security Programs Division, Ministry of Justice. Complaints can relate to the licensing of a security business or security employee, about the conduct or behaviour of a security employee, or about the use of equipment. Filing a complaint is free. Complaining against an unlicensed guard should be done directly to the employer. Most security guards in  BC are now required to be licensed under the ''Security Services Act'', SBC 2007, c 30. General information and links can be obtained at http://www.securityandyou.ca. This website is a project of the BC Human Rights Coalition aimed at raising public awareness.   


== B. Filing the Complaint ==
== B. Filing the Complaint ==
Line 14: Line 14:
| address = PO Box 9217 Stn Prov Govt <br /> Victoria, BC V8W 9J1  
| address = PO Box 9217 Stn Prov Govt <br /> Victoria, BC V8W 9J1  
| phone = 1 (855) 587-0185 <br /> Fax: (250) 387-4454
| phone = 1 (855) 587-0185 <br /> Fax: (250) 387-4454
| online = [http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/securityindustry Website] Email: sgspdsec@gov.bc.ca
| online = [http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/business/security-services Website] Email: securitylicensing@gov.bc.ca
}}
}}


Line 21: Line 21:
Like police, licensed and unlicensed security guards can be sued civilly.   
Like police, licensed and unlicensed security guards can be sued civilly.   


'''NOTE:''' In ''Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal'', 2015 BCSC 534, the BC Supreme Court rendered a decision regarding the Downtown Ambassadors, private security guards hired by the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association to patrol public space. The Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) alleged that the guards discriminated against  individuals who appear to be homeless or addicted to drugs by limiting their access to public space (e.g., sidewalks) on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and physical and mental disability, contrary to section 8 o  the BC ''Human Rights Code''. The Court found that the  Downtown Ambassadors program had engaged in discriminatory conduct against homeless people. Although homelessness is not a condition protected under the ''Human Rights Code'', race and disability are. VANDU successfully argued that homeless people are disproportionately Aboriginal and disabled, and that these findings were enough to show discrimination. At this time, the Court has sent the case back to the BC Human Rights Tribunal to determine whether the discriminatory conduct can be justified.   
'''NOTE:''' In ''Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal'', 2015 BCSC 534, the BC Supreme Court rendered a decision regarding the Downtown Ambassadors, private security guards hired by the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association to patrol public space. The Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) alleged that the guards discriminated against  individuals who appear to be homeless or addicted to drugs by limiting their access to public space (e.g., sidewalks) on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and physical and mental disability, contrary to section 8 o  the BC ''Human Rights Code''. The Court found that the  Downtown Ambassadors program had engaged in discriminatory conduct against homeless people. Although homelessness is not a condition protected under the ''Human Rights Code'', race and disability are. VANDU successfully argued that homeless people are disproportionately Aboriginal and disabled, and that these findings were enough to show discrimination. The case has been appealed to the BC Court of Appeals and a decision is forthcoming.   


'''NOTE:''' Pivot Legal Society claims this case is an example of why social condition should be included as an enumerated ground. Please see the [http://pivotlegal.org/pivot-points/blog/tribunal-member-qualifies-downtown-ambassadors-decision Pivot Legal blog] for further information.  
'''NOTE:''' Pivot Legal Society claims this case is an example of why social condition should be included as an enumerated ground. Please see the [http://pivotlegal.org/pivot-points/blog/tribunal-member-qualifies-downtown-ambassadors-decision Pivot Legal blog] for further information.  
5,109

edits