5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Complaints against Security Guards (5:VI)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Complaints against Security Guards (5:VI) (view source)
Revision as of 02:11, 7 August 2020
, 02:11, 7 August 2020→B. Filing the Complaint
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
'''NOTE:''' The BC Court of Appeal recently reversed a human rights decision by the BC Supreme Court regarding alleged discriminatory conduct by security guards on the basis of social condition. The Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) filed a complaint to the BC Human Rights Tribunal against the Downtown Ambassadors, a program for private security guards hired by the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association to patrol public spaces, alleging that the Ambassadors had engaged in a discriminatory program intended to remove members of the homeless population from public spaces in Downtown Vancouver. As social condition is not a protected ground under the ''BC Human Rights Code'', VANDU presented statistical information to demonstrate that Indigenous persons and persons with disabilities are disproportionately represented in the homeless population and submitted that the Ambassadors’ actions were therefore discriminatory on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and physical and mental disability, contrary to section 8 of the ''BC Human Rights Code''. | '''NOTE:''' The BC Court of Appeal recently reversed a human rights decision by the BC Supreme Court regarding alleged discriminatory conduct by security guards on the basis of social condition. The Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) filed a complaint to the BC Human Rights Tribunal against the Downtown Ambassadors, a program for private security guards hired by the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association to patrol public spaces, alleging that the Ambassadors had engaged in a discriminatory program intended to remove members of the homeless population from public spaces in Downtown Vancouver. As social condition is not a protected ground under the ''BC Human Rights Code'', VANDU presented statistical information to demonstrate that Indigenous persons and persons with disabilities are disproportionately represented in the homeless population and submitted that the Ambassadors’ actions were therefore discriminatory on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and physical and mental disability, contrary to section 8 of the ''BC Human Rights Code''. | ||
'''NOTE:''' In ''Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal'', 2018 BCCA 132, rev'g 2016 BCSC 534, the BC Court of Appeal restored the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s initial dismissal of VANDU’s claim, finding that the statistical correlation provided by VANDU was insufficient to establish a causal link between membership in a protected group under the BC Human Rights Code (namely Indigenous persons and persons with disabilities) and the adverse treatment by the Downtown Ambassadors against the homeless population. The Court of Appeal’s decision reversed the previous decision of the BC Supreme Court, which had quashed the Tribunal’s dismissal on the grounds that the Tribunal had used too high a standard in finding a human rights violation, and that the statistical information presented by VANDU was sufficient to show discrimination on the prohibited grounds of race and disability. | '''NOTE:''' In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2018/2018bcca132/2018bcca132.html?resultIndex=1 Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal]'', 2018 BCCA 132, rev'g 2016 BCSC 534, the BC Court of Appeal restored the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s initial dismissal of VANDU’s claim, finding that the statistical correlation provided by VANDU was insufficient to establish a causal link between membership in a protected group under the BC Human Rights Code (namely Indigenous persons and persons with disabilities) and the adverse treatment by the Downtown Ambassadors against the homeless population. The Court of Appeal’s decision reversed the previous decision of the BC Supreme Court, which had quashed the Tribunal’s dismissal on the grounds that the Tribunal had used too high a standard in finding a human rights violation, and that the statistical information presented by VANDU was sufficient to show discrimination on the prohibited grounds of race and disability. | ||
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. | 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. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= | {{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July 31, 2020}} | ||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}} | ||
