Article content continued

One would think that an individual could safely refuse to administer such a service, based on religious beliefs, feminist principles or personal comfort and safety. One might also think that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has more pressing applications to hear than the 16 applications Ms Yaniv filed this year, and the 13 she filed last year.

Within the B.C. Human Rights Code is a provision that allows the tribunal, at its own discretion and with or without a hearing, to dismiss any application that “was filed for improper motives or made in bad faith.”

But the tribunal refused to categorize Ms Yaniv’s application as improper or frivolous, nor her as a “vexatious litigant,” in a decision released on May 30. The author of the decision said that the complaints addressed real problems and genuine grievances.

This is human rights law in Canada today — a mockery of what was intended when the legislation was passed.

Instead, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal insisted on hearing Ms Yaniv’s multitude of complaints, at the expense of the public. This is someone who, in her quest to champion the rights of a minority, has repeatedly and viciously disparaged immigrants and visible minorities in her community on Twitter.

Our human rights system has transmogrified into one where an individual who was born male and who possesses biologically male genitalia, can make an apparently valid claim against a female aesthetician for refusing to handle that genitalia.