Re: Employers Vs. HRCs, letter to the editor, Feb. 23.Of course the 'roos found her witnesses "clear and unproblematic". That's how the system is set up--to see the complainant (generally speaking, a member of one of Canada's designated "victim" groups) as being in the right and the defendent (more often than not a white guy, a small business owner) as being "troublesome" and in the wrong--especially if it reaches the 'roo stage, because had the defendant submitted to shakedown much earlier on, he would have obviated the need for a 'trial'.
Contrary to letter-writer Sheryl P. Lipton's assertion that, in human rights cases, "recognized legal tenets such as witnesses and documentation are unnecessary minutia," a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is a formal legal proceeding, in most respects no different than a trial in a court, and one that most certainly requires evidence.
In the case of Cheryl Khan (who was awarded $25,000 in compensation for enduring racial slurs in workplace) the hearing took place over five days, documentary evidence was presented and testimony was heard from 10 witnesses. In his 37-page decision, the vice-chair determined the employer's witnesses were "inconsistent, troublesome" and "attempting to hide aspects of [his] behaviour."
In contrast, the testimony of Ms. Khan and her witnesses was "clear and unproblematic."
Ms. Khan had to prove her case, and she did.
Bruce Best, counsel for Cheryl Khan, Toronto.
Since Mr. Best doesn't seem to be the least bit abashed to have participated in this joke of a trial, this tawdry simulacrum of justice, please allow me to be embarrassed on his behalf.