Raj Anand is not only a lawyer but the former Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission — so you’d think he’d know better.

So why did the vice-chair of the Law Society of Upper Canada tribunal make several disturbing comments that appeared to minimize a sexual assault complaint while deciding whether paralegal Nephat Siziba should be suspended?

“The motion arose out of an allegation that while acting as an Uber driver on September 23, the paralegal took the hand of his female passenger (the passenger) and initiated sexual contact with her,” Anand wrote in reasons released last month.

Police alleged Siziba, 55, sexually assaulted a 20-year-old woman during a 4 a.m. Uber ride from Thornhill to Toronto. After she complained to Uber, he was suspended for a week while they investigated. “We were informed that the paralegal resumed driving for Uber, but resolved not to pick up intoxicated passengers.”

The woman then went to police and the driver was charged with sexual assault. Siziba, who has no criminal record and stated he will vigorously defend himself against the allegations, is free on bail under conditions he not work as an Uber or taxi driver.

But could he still work as a paralegal?

The Law Society urged the tribunal to suspend Siziba’s licence while his charge is pending.

Lawyer Amanda Worley said the optics were terrible: “The fact he was charged with a sexual offence against a vulnerable young woman harms the public’s confidence in the integrity of the legal profession and the ability of the Law Society to govern the profession in the public interest.”

Anand and the two others on his panel ultimately refused to suspend Siziba. Instead, in remarks reminiscent of several controversial judges in recent news, the vice-chair seemed to blame the complainant and downplay the allegations.

“I think boiled down to its essence, you have obviously contested evidence about what took place over a matter of a few minutes,” Anand said in a transcript obtained by the Sun.

“Obviously, sexual assault is serious in principle. But it is a relatively minor offence compared to some of the other criminal conduct that is referenced in some of the other cases, like viewing child pornography or something like that.”

“You have no evidence other than the fact that the charge is made, essentially. Obviously, the complainant said something to the police. We don’t actually know what she said to the police,” he continued. “The question is, really: By virtue of being charged with this offence, is that enough for (Siziba) to be suspended indefinitely?”

Did he actually say “it is a relatively minor offence?” Tell that to the young woman. After the recent “knees together” and “drunks can consent” judgments, it seems that once again, the law doesn’t take sexual assault as seriously as it should.

When reached by the Sun, Anand said he wasn’t in a position to address any criticism. “I don’t think I’m able to comment as an adjudicator.”

The law society’s lawyer was obviously struggling with Anand’s remarks.

“I am not sure I would agree with you that it is a relatively minor offence. It is predatory in nature. The victim was confined to a vehicle,” Worley said during the hearing.

“So I think we have to be careful not to sort of make judgment calls about comparing this offence to this offence. If you are satisfied that it does present a risk, then you need to act,” she insisted. “We cannot diminish the seriousness of allegations of sexual assault.”

Yet Anand seemed to do just that: “I am just saying that here we have simply a sort of “he said, she said” at this point.”

How would the public feel knowing they did nothing to protect the public? asked Worley.

The optics didn’t trouble the tribunal. They found “no reasonable grounds to believe there was significant risk” to the public, or to the administration of justice. They dismissed the law society’s motion to suspend Sizibo’s licence and said the public would be satisfied with his offer to work under supervision in his son’s law office and not provide legal services or meet with clients alone.

That may be so. But how do they feel about the tribunal’s vice-chair minimizing the seriousness of an alleged sexual assault?

Read Mandel Wednesday through Saturday.

mmandel@postmedia.com