KJIPUKTUK (Halifax) – I have the pleasure of knowing Gyasi Symonds, the African Nova Scotian man who was brazenly stopped by police for ‘jaywalking’, ever since he was a child. For a while he was even a student of mine. I found he was always respectful and is a good person. 

The system in Nova Scotia failed Gyasi Symonds as it failed all African Nova Scotians. Systems put in place on the backs of African people by our oppressors have never served us.

In 2017, Gyasi Symonds, crossed Gottingen Street in the Halifax North End in the steps of four white co-workers, all were going for coffee. As an African Nova Scotian male Gyasi was targeted by two Halifax police officers and given a ticket for $410. They came to Gyasi’s workplace and caused a ruckus to deliver this bogus “Black-only ticket.”

This is not normal police procedure, because I see at least one hundred non African Nova Scotians jaywalk everyday, many times when police are around. Clearly illegality only comes into play when you’re walking while Black and so-called normal police procedure only applies to Black people.

Earlier this month, the Nova Scotia’s Human Rights Commission agreed with Gyasi Symonds that his human rights were severely compromised.

In his decision Commission chair Benjamin Perryman ordered the Halifax police to pay Gyasi Symonds $15,232 in general damages and compensation for “injury to his dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

Now brothers and sisters of African descent, let’s not throw our hands up in celebration based on this one decision by the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission. The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission is failing the African Nova Scotian community. In earlier articles I wrote for the Nova Scotia Advocate I have mentioned the names of many African Nova Scotians that had their complaints unfairly dismissed by the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission. While the commission has said that they “dropped the ball”, I believe that the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Act are in need of a serious review.

With a newly appointed executive director, maybe our complaints will be taken more seriously and acted upon in a timely manner. 

We can always hope.

See also: Judy Haiven: Crossing Gottingen Street while Black 

The post Raymond Sheppard: The system failed Gyasi Symonds just as it failed all African Nova Scotians appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

KJIPUKTUK (Halifax) – The first thing to know about Gyasi Symonds’ case before a Nova Scotia Human Rights board of inquiry or Tribunal, is that Symonds was at a great disadvantage.  

Make no mistake: he won his case of discrimination against two Halifax Regional Policemen who stopped him after he crossed Gottingen Street to get a coffee on a cold January morning in 2017. However  Symonds was at great disadvantage when he fought his case. He had to represent himself. 

First: Symonds had no access to a recording of the hearing. He had no transcript of the hearing  which took place over three days in November 2020. All he had was paper and a pen to take notes when he could. So when it came time to summarize his case, and to ask for remedies for the discrimination, he had to rely on only his memory and a few notes he made during the hearing. He could not afford a transcript as it can cost up to $10,000 —depending on the length. 

Second:  Symonds had no legal training. He had never before been to a tribunal, or been involved in a court case. He had no experience with legal research or citing legal precedents. Both the respondents’  lawyers – who work for HRM – and the lawyer who represented the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission had training and experience. They also had assistants, clerks and secretaries. Symonds, who works as a caseworker for the Department of Community Services, had no one but himself. Unlike the lawyers for the police, the lawyer for the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission and the adjudicator Benjamin Perryman (who was also a lawyer), Symonds had never conducted direct examination nor had he cross-examined a witness. Symonds had to represent himself throughout the hearing with next to no legal help or advice. 

Third:  As capable as he was  – Symonds has three university degrees including a Master’s degree in Education – he had to proceed on unfamiliar terrain —  often without a compass. Symonds was self-representing, which some media including the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail totally ignored. Though Symonds started out on a back foot, ultimately, he won. 

Some could ask: Why didn’t Symonds have a lawyer represent him? The answer is it would have been prohibitively expensive for him to have hired a lawyer. Three days of court time, plus preparation, plus writing a brief, then a rebuttal of HRM’s brief would have cost Symonds at least $10,000. And during the nearly four years it took for his case to get to Tribunal, there were few indications that he would win. As a matter of fact, few human rights complainants can afford a lawyer – so relatively few complainants even consider seeking justice for discrimination.  

The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission’s lawyer was technically on Symonds’ side, but the Commission’s lawyer cannot represent the complainant. The Commission’s lawyer is only supposed to represent the interests of the people of Nova Scotia—not of a  particular complainant.

There are huge disadvantages to self-represented litigants as Equity Watch points out in its report, Justice Impeded: a Critique of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Regime  published in January 2021. As it says, 

“Although Boards of Inquiry are somewhat more relaxed than the courts and are used to self-represented complainants appearing before them, they do roughly follow the rules of courtroom procedure. Not infrequently, lawyers for respondents will raise issues of some legal complexity.”  (p.32)

The Critique cites problems cited in a 2012 review of Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal system.  Andrew Pinto enumerates some of the problems litigants who are self-represented face:  

• Understanding and navigating the court procedure and litigation process 

• How to best articulate their legal position and present their case 

• Knowledge of the law and their legal rights

 • Concern that the opposing side may take advantage 

• Proceedings may take longer 

• Relying on judges or adjudicators for assistance, which may lead to a concern of bias or partiality 

• Relying on opposing counsel for assistance 

• With respect to human rights cases, there are additional concerns including: 

o The power imbalance between parties is exacerbated because many applicants tend to come from already disadvantaged groups 

o There is a public-interest dimension to human rights proceedings where the importance of the proceeding transcends the private interests of the parties 

o Human rights cases can be extremely complex dealing with novel situations and involving constitutional or competing principles of law that sometimes require resolution by appellate courts 

o Parties, including respondents, are not permitted to recover costs in human rights proceedings

Even though Gyasi Symonds was very competent in directing his own case, he is not a trained lawyer and had no experience in the courtroom atmosphere. He did not have experience in the workings of a Board of Inquiry, including cross-examination, the difference between testimony and argument, and the use of case law, to mention only a few. 

While Symonds was aware of the findings of Scott Wortley on the disproportionate stopping by Halifax police of African Nova Scotians, he might not be expected to be aware of the Ontario Human Rights Commission Report finding that Blacks in Toronto are subject to charging, over-charging and prosecution by police heavily disproportionate to their numbers in that city. 

In addition to the lawyer-adjudicator at the hearing, Symonds faced a bevy of lawyers representing the respondents (the HRM police) and the Human Rights Commission. Also, as he pointed out, all of those attending the hearing were being paid for their time and services, except for him. In the Symonds hearings, there was a complex argument to be made of systemic discrimination (arguments of systemic discrimination are always complex.) That required legal training and research. 

The Commission’s legal team could have made that argument, but did not. And Symonds could hardly have been expected to do so. Thus, no matter what their level of legal knowledge, with no outside legal assistance Symonds and many other complainants like him are at a great disadvantage in the human rights system. 

We are not saying that the human rights regime should become even more juridified (or, to use the vernacular “lawyered-up”) than it is now. In simple, straightforward cases, complainants should be able to make their own arguments, state their own case. On the other hand, if the adjudicators are lawyers and the respondents have lawyers, and if the Commission’s lawyers do not represent the complainant, then the unrepresented litigant is at a distinct disadvantage.  (p.33)

Expenses for the self-represented are another matter that Equity Watch’s report notes from a 2013 report by the National Self-Represented Litigants Project:  

…depletion of personal funds and savings for other purposes, instability or loss of employment caused by the amount of time required to manage their legal case themselves, social and emotional isolation from friends and family as the case becomes increasingly complex and overwhelming, and a myriad of health issues both physical and emotionally. The scale and frequency of these individually experienced consequences represent a social problem on a scale that requires recognition and attention (p. 34)

In addition to the issue of self-representation, the Gyasi Symonds case has two divergent narratives. 

Narrative 1:  Gyasi Symonds’ narrative.  Judy Haiven attended the hearing and took detailed notes. 

Symonds testified that early on the morning of Jan. 24, 2017, he and four other employees who worked in the MacDonald Building – which houses  the Department of Community Services – ran across  Gottingen Street to buy coffee at The Nook Café.  Symonds was the only Black man, the other four were white women.  

When he was just outside the door of The Nook, a police officer stopped to lecture him about the fact he had j-walked.  Symonds asked if he was under arrest.  The officer said no, so Symonds walked by him into the café.  

Minutes later, coffee in hand, Symonds left the café.  He walked the 20-30 steps to the traffic lights at Cornwallis St., and crossed Gottingen St. when the light was green.  He returned to his office.   

Narrative 2:  the police narrative. 

Two policemen, Sgt Logan and Sgt Cadieux, were on street patrol that morning.  They walked north on Gottingen on the west side of the street.  They saw Symonds cross the street.  They said they never saw anyone else crossing — only Symonds.  They walked to the café, and held the door open for Symonds.  Cadieux told Symonds he had been j-walking and this was a warning not to do it again.  Symonds asked if he was under arrest.  When Cadieux said no, Symonds refused to engage with him and stepped into the café.  

It seems Symonds had ignored the policeman at his own peril. Symonds showed him no deference. And that seemed to enrage Sgt Cadieux.  

That set the stage for a second encounter. 

Under oath, each policeman said that he saw Symonds dash across the street to his office, boiling coffee in hand, just in front of a bus that was stopped at the bus stop. 

As Sgt Paul Cadieux said, after he and Sgt Logan  left the cafe’s doorway,

“I turned around, I was half way between café and the intersection, and I saw Mr Symonds with his coffee and he was walking behind us and heading in our direction… to follow our advice – he was going toward the intersection and at that point [I said] look that warning made a difference. We are chatting, the light turned red and we had to stop. We saw the metro transit bus hit the brakes and being thrown forward; he [Symonds] was j-walking and impeding traffic, and he was 15-20 feet beyond us.  … He was almost at the middle of the road, with his coffee.”

This infuriated the cops – because Symonds had flagrantly disobeyed them. They claimed he did not cross at the lights.

As Sgt Logan testified, “We were at the corner of Cornwallis and Gottingen.  At  that set of lights. Paul [Cadieux] says I want to give him a ticket. We had to wait for the lights to change and we went into the building after Mr Symonds. 

“We went into the MacDonald building.  We asked the Commissionaire  …the lady we see there every day, We described him.”

Though under Symonds’ cross-examination, Sgt Logan could not recall what Symonds was wearing or what he looked like. 

Once there, they demanded the attention of the security guard or commissionaire, Carolyn Brodie. She happens to be Black.  

According to Brodie, the policemen’s behaviour was 

“very disturbing. What I can recall, they came into the building… The Commissionaire’s  desk is right in the middle. [They asked] ‘Did you see a black man wearing a toque come into the building?’ … and I didn’t know who they were referring to. They wanted to go upstairs but the elevators are locked.  I said I don’t know who [they meant].  

Brodie went on to testify, “It’s a high traffic area. Most of the staff coming in– I didn’t know who they were talking about. I said, I can’t allow you to go up to the workplace, into that area.  They stayed and were persistent. One said ‘well he jaywalked and we were just trying to save his life.’

I’m outside constantly for patrols, the police pass by constantly. I see people j- walking on a regular basis, I see it constant. I wonder why you want to save the life of a black man in a toque?  I’ll see what I can find out, I said. The police officer then followed me around. I went into the reception area and I know there is a supervisor there.  He [the policeman] sat in the reception area with his legs crossed staring me down – She [the supervisor] called upstairs and  [Gyasi Symonds] came down.  I was disturbed behind my desk –their physical actions were like they were challenging you.  It’s where the gun was, I saw his hands… 

When you came down you didn’t have on your toque. I said you were a professional in the building at that time. I don’t remember the whole conversation, but I do remember you [Symonds] said, ‘You’re coming into this workplace and there are others who commit serious crimes.’

They called down to the station to do a background on you. I was in shock in what I was seeing and hearing. They wrote down a ticket and I was relieved they didn’t hurt you – I was glad of that. “

How did Brodie feel, she was asked?

“Shaken, yes because I didn’t know what was gonna happen with them being so persistent –I didn’t know what was going to happen.” 

Symonds asked her how long was the interaction?

“Approximately maybe 30-45 minutes at least, I’m sorry.  From the time they were persistent and finding out who and said they were  trying to save his life, I’d say almost 45 minutes.

“I thought the whole thing was extreme.

“I didn’t understand the behaviour of the police officers at all. I see a lot of people j-walk all day and the police go by and I see no one being stopped.  I tend to lean toward the idea that [there is] some kind of bias to walk in the door and single out black man in a tuque. “

“I have interaction with the police in and out of the building–a lot of interaction with them, I’ve never had them treat me like that.  I’ve had respect as a commissionaire… They were demanding to get into building, they weren’t hearing me, they were following me around, what did I do?”

Brodie explained that after he was summoned, Symonds  came downstairs from his office to the lobby

“At the beginning, when he came down… at the beginning of the interaction they were challenging him, … Mr Symonds was calm, cool, collected, didn’t raise his voice, it was impressive as I wanted to raise mine.

I thought –is all this necessary – if you have someone you know he’s a professional why are you being so rude and demanding?” 

Back to Sgt Logan, who insisted (under oath) that Ms Brodie showed him and Sgt Cadieux a surveillance tape of the lobby.  

Logan testified, “I asked her if she could rewind the video, so I walked around the corner [of her desk] and she rewound the video and we pointed him out which is how we found out who he was… We watched the video on a monitor.”

Kendrick Douglas, lawyer for the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, asked him under cross-examination, “Were you able to identify the gentleman?” 

Sgt Logan said, “That’s how she [the Commissionaire] knew the floor he [Symonds] worked on, yes he works on  the second or third  floor, we’re not allowed in the building. I remember she called upstairs and asked for him to come downstairs, a few minutes later he came downstairs.”

Sgt Cadieux also backed up Logan’s version of events.  He said Brodie showed him the videotape which allowed him to identify Symonds, “She played back video, we did watch,  she did recognize Mr Symonds and didn’t provide a name. She phoned upstairs.” 

There is one problem with that sworn evidence.  There was no video tape– not then, not now, not ever.  Ms Brodie had already testified to that. And she also testified to the fact that she never called upstairs; Brodie did not know who Symonds was.  She thought a supervisor in the reception area must have called upstairs and someone figured out it was Symonds. 

Another part of the narrative concerned Sgt Logan’s gun. That’s right, according to Carolyn Brodie, Logan’s hand was near his gun just before GS came down the stairs to the lobby to meet with police. It worried her.

Logan testified,
“I always have my hand resting on it.  It’s a control thing. We have so many tools on our belt, there was no need to have our hand on our guns.”

“I have interaction with the police in and out of the building– a lot of interaction with them, I’ve never had them treat me like that. I’ve had respect as a commissionaire… They were demanding to get into the building, they weren’t hearing me, they were following me around, what did I do?

Brodie explained that after Symonds was summoned, he walked downstairs to the lobby

Another thing the media didn’t zero in on was Sgt Logan’s gun. Commissionaire Carolyn Brodie noted that Logan’s hand was near his gun just before GS came down the stairs to the lobby to meet with police. She said she was nervous about it. 

When asked if he had his hand on the gun, he responded, “I always have my hand resting on it.  It’s a control thing. We have so many tools on our belt, there was no need to have our hand on our guns.”

When asked if there were any other complaints about Logan’s conduct also stated, Any other complaints this officer received. Logan said, 

“This is the only complaint I received being a year on Gottingen Street. I treat people the way they treat me.”

Here’s more of the exchange between Symonds asking the questions, and Sgt Logan responding. 

Q There is talk or discussion about implicit or unconscious bias.

A: Yes.

Q:  …. when you are not aware you are being that way to the individual.

A:  I can only guess

Q:  Unconscious bias could arise in any situation.

A:  Probably…

Q;  Are you aware of issues between HRP and the Black  community, since about 2016. 

Answer:  I don’t believe there are but that’s my opinion.

Question:  Are you familiar with the Wortley report?

Answer:  I didn’t read it.

Question:  It says that Blacks are 6 times more likely than whites to be stopped… 

Answer:   I stop whoever they are for whatever they did. Doesn’t matter to me who’s driving.  I don’t pay attention to that kind of stuff. 

Question: Does it surprise you?

Answer:  No it doesn’t surprise me because most of our clientele is Black in HRM in general.

So much for unconscious bias. 

Finally,  Logan was asked about his training in racial issues.

He said his training was almost exclusively during the 10 years he spent in the Military Police prior to his time with HRP. He testified, “ We did the training every year, before going to Afghanistan;  they brought in an Afghan family that taught us their ways, so we can live with them without making or stepping on their toes…not knowing their [Afghani] culture, do something inadvertently, so we could learn their culture and parts of the Koran. ”

To that Gyasi Symonds quipped “You know how to treat Afghan people and you come from over  here but you don’t know how to treat Black people here.”

Think about this:  Symonds was 

1. lectured to and warned by two cops in public in front of the café
2. pursued by the two cops across the street to his workplace
3. called down to his workplace lobby by two uniformed and armed police – who used threatening behaviour toward him and also to the Commissionaire
4. Made a public spectacle of giving him a $410 ticket for crossing Gottingen St to get a coffee

Commissionaire Brodie was afraid for Symonds’ safety. She felt the police were threatening. They both touched their holstered guns.  Symonds was also afraid the wrong move, or the wrong words could get him hurt or killed by the police.  We know it happens to Blacks.  

Symonds was afraid the cops would arrest him – never mind that  there was no reason. Getting arrested could have cost him his job at Social Services.  And it would also mean finding thousands of dollars for a lawyer to fight for him in court. If he had lost his job, Symonds could not pay his mortgage. He  is a single parent with a daughter to support. Symonds was also concerned he might lose his job if his superiors inferred  he was dangerous or in trouble with the law, when they saw him cornered by the police. He was afraid the sight of the cops interrogating him in the public lobby would cost him a promotion.

Would this have happened to any white law-abiding, government worker in Halifax? Would that white man have had the same fears?   It’s almost impossible to say he would.  

Racial bias in policing  in Halifax is evident.  There is  ample evidence of Black people being street checked by police six times more often than whites.  Blacks are subject to more police surveillance; Blacks are much more often than whites victims of police misconduct, such as beatings false arrest, imprisonment and racial profiling.    

In Symonds’ case, the police outright made up an alternate narrative. There was no videotape of Symonds in the lobby of his office building. The police  did not see any videotape. Symonds did not dangerously run across Gottingen Street in front of a bus, with his hot coffee in his hand on his way back to his office.  The bus did not squeal to a stop to avoid hitting him. 

Symonds refused to simply pay the $410 fine for j-walking.  He paid the fine and he took his case to a Nova Scotia Human Rights board of inquiry (also called a Tribuna).  Equity Watch’s report, Justice Impeded, makes 25  recommendations to improve the NS Human Rights regime (p.46-50).  The following five recommendations  could have helped Symonds and could help other complainants.  The six recommendations are:   

1.  There has to be a tripartite set of agencies composed of 

a)  A Human Rights Commission, whose responsibility will become both more restricted and broader at the same time: research, analysis, education, monitoring and public advocacy 

b) A permanent Tribunal, with direct access by complainants, which would process complaints, arrange for mediation and settlement where possible, and ensure, as in Ontario, that no applicant or respondent is denied the opportunity to make oral submissions to and to receive a written decision from an appropriate decision-making group 

c). A Human Rights Legal Support Centre which would provide legal and paralegal assistance to claimants, on the Ontario model 

This has to come as a package.  “Like a stool with three legs, the absence or weakness of one leg jeopardizes everything. Each of the three agencies must be supported and not starved of resources. For example, the Commission must have a serious research capacity and commitment to addressing systemic discrimination. The Tribunal must be staffed with competent adjudicators/mediators. The legal support centre must offer effective assistance to complainants. 

2. If there is a finding by the Tribunal or an admission in a settlement that a climate of systemic discrimination exists with a particular respondent for a particular class of people, then in future litigation it will be assumed that all members of that class of people subject to the systemic discrimination, without need for new proof. For example, if systemic discrimination against women is found, then it will be assumed that it applies to all women, unless the respondent can prove otherwise. 
3. All stages of the process at the Tribunal should have clear service delivery standards/time limits, including lengths of investigations.  Symonds case took four years to get to Tribunal.   
4. The Commission should establish liaison committees with each equity-seeking community, not only to promote the work of the tripartite agencies, but also to encourage members of those communities who might otherwise be hesitant to make complaints, to overcome their hesitation and use the Tribunal for complaints and the Commission for investigation of systemic discrimination, as well as encourage community members to do likewise. 
5.  A move away from one-size-fits-all “diversity and inclusion” emphasis in the Commission’s remedial efforts and public education a. We recommend that education programs concentrate on equity and behaviour modification through the 3Ps (processes, policies and procedures) rather than things like “diversity” or “anti-bias” as there is no credible research buttressing its sustained effectiveness. Diversity and anti-bias are not the functional equivalents of equity and it is equity that can make tangible improvements in the lives of Nova Scotians. Amelioration of systemic discrimination and harassment should not depend on changes in individual consciousness or virtue. 

Gyasi Symonds did what few other complainants can or will do.  He risked a lot to go before a public Tribunal about discriminatory treatment he suffered at the hands of Halifax police– because he is Black. 

Few would suggest that any police force is free of racial discrimination.   Appeals to individual officers, diversity and inclusion training will not make a major change to the culture and the practice of policing.  As Equity Watch notes:  there has to be a commitment to the 3Ps — processes, policies and procedures to seriously combat racism in the police force.  

We cannot treat the police force in Halifax as though it has a few bad apples. We cannot assume that racism within the police — or any institution — is the exception.

Judy Haiven is on the steering committee of Equity Watch, an organization that fights discrimination, bullying and racism in the workplace.  Contact her at equitywatchns@gmail.com

The post Judy Haiven: Crossing Gottingen Street while Black appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

KJIPUKTUK (Halifax) – Supporters of Equity Watch rallied outside of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (NSHRC) to urge the Commission to do its job.

You read that right –  what the demonstrators demanded was that the Commission do its job.

This is because over the last three years, many people with human rights complaints have approached Equity Watch about the fact that the Commission has 

1. not returned their calls, their emails and letters in a timely way
2. has not properly advised them about their case
3. has dropped their case without a fair resolution or a hearing

The first such complainant was firefighter Liane Tessier. She had to wait nearly 10 years for justice. She complained to the Human Rights Commission about sexual harassment and sex discrimination she had suffered in the Halifax fire department (HRFE).  The Human Rights Commission dismissed her case.  Tessier had to pay out of her own pocket to hire a lawyer to seek a judicial review to reverse the Commission’s decision to drop her case. The judge ordered the Commission to take her case.  In Dec. 2017 Tessier won her case. She received a public apology from Fire Chief Stuebing, who also had to agree to a list of six major changes in the Halifax Fire service. Tessier’s case kick-started Equity Watch, and Liane Tessier now is a member of the steering committee for Equity Watch.  

Thursday’s highlighted a similar case. Christine Shupe used to work at Beaver Enviro, a bottle depot in Spryfield. She was sexually harassed and taunted; she watched others get demeaned and harassed by the boss/owner.  She quit and went to the NSHRC with her complaint.  

The Commission did nothing for three years. Finally Christine Shupe went to the Nova Scotia Ombudsman’s office to prod them to get the Commission to look at her case. After 3.5 years the Commission agreed to take her case. The case was finally set down for a public hearing (called a Board of Inquiry)– but in March 2021, Shupe was told the hearing would not go ahead. This was because the Commission did not correctly identify the legal name of the company. It turned out that in the first three months after Shupe launched her complaint, the Commission had found out the real company name was 2557617 Nova Scotia, a numbered company.  But the Commission had identified the company as Beaver Enviro on the official documents.  

The Commission then had to dismiss the case because it had made a mistake and had got the name wrong!  The law stated the commission could not alter the form to change the name, which shows the changes needed. 

And because the Commission did not attend to the case in a timely fashion, the case had to be dropped. Under the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act, complainants have only one year after the last incident to make a complaint. Christine Shupe had made her complaint easily within the year. But because of the Commission’s inertia, 3.5 years had elapsed. So the Commission could not proceed with Shupe’s complaint.

In New Brunswick there is also  a one year deadline to file, but section 18.2 of the New Brunswick Human Rights Act allows: ‘The Commission to  extend the time for the filing of a complaint if, in the opinion of the Commission, the circumstances warrant it.’

That rule does not exist in Nova Scotia. Our Nova Scotia Human Rights Act must be changed to allow an extension for the complaint or complainant when needed. 

Christine Shupe spoke at the rally via telephone and explained she wanted her case heard. Another person who worked at Beaver Enviro spoke in person at the rally.  Samantha Chapman also suffered from sexual harassment by the boss/owner. She said she was flatly denied the chance to make a complaint by the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission. She also wants her case heard, and gives full support to Christine Shupe. 

Are these two complaints merely one-offs? Not at all. 

Equity Watch’s new report  “Justice Impeded: A Critique of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Regime”  which is available at equitywatch.ca details case after case of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission not doing its job. If you read Justice Impeded, the treatment Shupe and Chapman received is typical of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission’s foot dragging.   

Equity Watch’s report Justice Impeded makes 25 recommendations for reform including: 

• Moving to a tripartite set of agencies, similar to Ontario 
• Clear service delivery standards/time limits, including lengths of investigations 
• Adequate resourcing 
• No imposed non-disclosure agreements 
• Less reliance on “restorative justice,” especially where power resources are tilted toward respondents 
• A move away from the passive “diversity and inclusion” model of remediation toward more activist approaches

For years the Commission was overseen by Mark Furey, Attorney General and Minister of Justice in the McNeil government.  Now Randy Delorey is his replacement.  Equity Watch is pressing Delorey to act to reform and revitalize the NSHRC.  

Judy Haiven is on the steering committee of Equity Watch, a Halifax-based organization which fights bullying, racism and discrimination in the workplace. You can reach her at equitywatchns@gmail.com

See also: Non-disclosure agreements: the rot at the heart of human rights

The post Equity Watch tells Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, Do your job! appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

Where: Park Lane Mall, 5657 Spring Garden Rd (MASKED AND SOCIAL-DISTANCED!)

Three and a half years ago, Christine Shupe of Halifax left her job at Beaver Enviro because of what she claims was sexual harassment by the boss.

She filed her complaint at the NS Human Rights Commission, but the Commission dragged its feet – as usual — in pursuing the case.  Finally the case moved forward after Shupe contacted the NS Ombudsman’s office.

The Commission sent her case to a public Board of Inquiry. But last month the Board dismissed her complaint because the company had not been named correctly.  Though Beaver Enviro is the name on the building, the company’s registered name is 2557617 Nova Scotia. In fact, the problem with the name was identified just 3 months after Shupe approached the Commission.

Because of this technical mistake, Shupe’s case of sex discrimination was tossed. The Commission is not allowed by law to alter its original complaint, and because the harassment incidents had taken place more than 12 months before, the Commission could not file a new complaint.

Says Equity Watch spokesperson Judy Haiven, “That would not have happened, for example, in New Brunswick whose Human Rights Act allows: ‘18(2) The Commission may extend the time for the filing of a complaint if, in the opinion of the Commission, the circumstances warrant it.’

“Equity Watch is not happy to hear of yet another case of the NS Human Rights Commission dragging its feet, and losing the chance to pursue violators. This shows that Nova Scotia’s human rights regime is way past due for an overhaul.”

Equity Watch’s report “Justice Impeded: A Critique of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Regime” details case after case of the NS Human Rights Commission not doing its job – and dismissing cases on a technicality, or through sloppiness or ignoring timelines.  

Equity Watch is asking the NS Human Rights Commission and the Nova Scotia government to simply do their job. That is the least they owe Nova Scotians. 

The post Media release: Equity Watch rally to tell Nova Scotia Human Rights commission, do your job! appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

Three and a half years ago Christine Shupe of Halifax left her job at Beaver Enviro because of what she claims was sexual harassment by the boss and owner, Wyatt Redmond.

She filed her complaint of discrimination based on sex at the NS Human Rights Commission, but the Commission dragged its feet – as usual — in pursuing the case.  Finally, after Shupe contacted the NS Ombudsman’s office, it pushed the Commission to act on her complaint.

Just after the Commission agreed the case could go to a public Board of Inquiry, there was an about-face. In March, the Commission dismissed her complaint because it had not named the company correctly.  Though Beaver Enviro is the name on the building, the company’s registered name is 2557617 Nova Scotia. This should have been stunningly easy to find out.

Because of this technical mistake, Shupe’s case of sex discrimination was dropped, and because the harassment incidents had taken place more than 12 months before, the Commission could not (as stipulated by the NS Human Rights Act) pursue her case.

Says Equity Watch spokesperson Judy Haiven, “That would not have happened in New Brunswick whose Human Rights Act allows: ‘18(2) The Commission may extend the time for the filing of a complaint if, in the opinion of the Commission, the circumstances warrant it.’

“Equity Watch is not happy to hear of yet another case of the NS Human Rights Commission dragging its feet, and losing the chance to pursue violators. This shows that Nova Scotia’s human rights regime is past due for an overhaul.”

Equity Watch’s report “Justice Impeded: A Critique of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Regime” details case after case of the NS Human Rights Commission not doing its job – and dismissing cases on a technicality, or through sloppiness or ignoring timelines.    We find it hard to believe that in 50 years, the NS Human Rights Commission has never before had to check the legal names of companies.

“Justice Impeded,” published in January 2021, details complaints and human rights cases which the Commission never adequately pursued.  Equity Watch is asking the NS Human Rights Commission to simply do its job, that is the least they owe Nova Scotians. 

For more information, contact Judy Haiven, jhaiven@gmail.com

The post Media release: Equity Watch condemns Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission for dropping the ball on sexual harassment case appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

KJIPUKTUK (Halifax) – Amy (not her real name) is sexually assaulted by a male colleague at a work-related party. Amy is traumatized. She  complains to the Human Rights Commission. The Commission brokers a settlement offer by the employer that includes  a sum of money.  Amy also has to sign a promise to never say anything to anybody about the case, the employer, the events  – ever. The perpetrator moves on to another job somewhere, where nobody knows about his past behaviour.

This gag order is called a non-disclosure agreement. Right now it’s perfectly legal in Canada. And it happens all the time. 

Some argue that everybody wins. The complainant gets some compensation. The perpetrator and the employer are protected from all the bad publicity. And the Human Rights Commission gets to chalk up a “victory.” 

But it’s a big defeat for the cause of justice. It’s as if the bad incident never happened.

Two fundamentals of our human rights justice system are a) public disclosure of serious social problems and their resolution and b) general deterrence. Non-disclosure agreements corrupt both those laudable goals. NDAs are especially toxic in matters of public protection, like industrial health and safety, pollution, and sexual predation.

Zelda Perkins is a British theatrical producer who worked for the notorious Harvey Weinstein. In 1998, when she complained about Weinstein’s rape of a colleague, both Perkins and the colleague agreed to a settlement and signed a non-disclosure agreement. Twenty years later, to assist in the rapidly-breaking #MeToo movement revelations, Perkins went public and broke the NDA, risking personal calamity.

Perkins spoke recently at a webinar organized by Nova Scotia human rights advocacy organization Equity Watch (www.equitywatch.ca) with which we are associated. In a thoroughgoing critique of the human rights regime that Equity Watch published in January 2021, we condemned the proliferation of NDAs. We and others are launching a national and international campaign to bring public attention to the despicable practice of NDAs.

Another speaker at the Webinar was Dr Julie Macfarlane, a University of Windsor (Ontario) law professor, Order of Canada recipient and noted practitioner and author on mediation. Macfarlane herself has been embroiled in an NDA controversy. The agreement was between her University and an ex-professor dismissed for sexual improprieties with students. In return for the perpetrator leaving his job, the employer agreed to seal all references to the incident and say nothing.

Macfarlane, contacted by another university for a reference, told the truth. The perpetrator sued her for defamation. Though not personally party to the non-disclosure agreement, Macfarlane was unable to access the secret letter of dismissal to defend herself. She relates this and other details in her recent book Going Public: A Survivor’s Journey from Grief to Action (Between the Lines, 2020.)

Some small progress is being made. Some students have successfully sued US universities for failing to protect them from sexual predators. Several US states have legislation disallowing NDAs in matters of public safety. The lawyers’ regulatory agency in England and Wales (like our Barristers Society) has issued a cautionary note about the use of NDAs. However, across Canada, public institutions such as universities, school boards, hospitals, and government departments — as well as private-sector employers, use NDAs to cover serious and sometimes criminal wrongdoing by employees, administrators or management. 

Real change will require nothing less than a shift in the way lawyers and the legal system think and operate. NDAs are really only a few decades old, first introduced to protect intellectual property of tech companies. But the practice has migrated to what one legal scholar calls “the privatization of public law.”

Settlements in human rights cases can be helpful. And some minimal guarantees of confidentiality may well be needed. But blanket gag orders subvert the cause of justice and must be stopped. They are a rot at the heart of human rights.

Judy Haiven is a retired professor of Management at Saint Mary’s University. Larry Haiven is Professor Emeritus at Saint Mary’s University. They are both on the steering committee of Equity Watch.

See also: Equity Watch calls for a completely revamped Human Rights Commission

The post Non-disclosure agreements: the rot at the heart of human rights appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

KJIPUKTUK (Halifax) – Here are two sobering and real stories about young women in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

A couple of years ago, at a Christmas party in a small academic department at a university in Halifax, someone slipped a date-rape drug into one woman student’s drink. Suddenly the woman felt dizzy and sick; through her haze, she guessed what had happened. Shakily, she took out her cell phone and began to document how she felt –- as a way to focus; she hoped she would not pass out. She remembered that she still had a key to a small office in the building. Somehow that night she made it down the hall, and down the stairs. On her phone, she kept note of anything she could remember, any man who asked to help her, any man who tried to befriend her or any man who followed her from the party. She finally made it to the room, and locked the door behind her. There she must have passed out.

Hours later, she awoke on the floor. She was relieved at the thought she had not been sexually assaulted or raped. She knew it because she had kept the diary on her smart phone. Her last entry had been at midnight, just after she had arrived in the safe room, and had locked the door.

A few days later, she went to the university administration and demanded to find out who had spiked her drink. The administration made a small effort to find the culprit or culprits. Within a couple of days the administration reported that none of her classmates at the party had admitted to spiking her drink; no one had come forward. But the party had been a small one, with no faculty members present. The university’s response was at first tentative, then muddled and finally resigned to dropping the investigation.

Halifax had a sexual assault centre, but the student felt that since she did not think she had been sexually assaulted, there was no point reporting. She did not know if there was a feminist group in town. Somehow she forced herself to return to classes, knowing that someone in one of them, someone she knew, had drugged her with the intention of raping her. She waited out the next four months. She was a good student, who graduated near the top of her class. As another woman said, “She was brilliant; she figured out a way so they couldn’t rape her.” After graduation, the young woman left the city, and has not returned.

Saturday night and Sunday morning…

Just before Covid hit, on a Saturday night, a party of young women was drinking at a downtown Halifax bar. One of the women remembers nothing of the evening. She knows only that she woke up on a bed in a strange room in the daytime. She was alone. Her jacket, her skirt and her underwear had been tossed on the floor. In a panic she looked out the window – and guessed she was in a hotel room. Terrified, she put on her clothes, grabbed her purse and ran out of the room to the hotel lobby. Through tears she phoned a friend to pick her up.

The friend had been worried when she did not return to their apartment that night—but reasoned that maybe she had stayed over with a friend with whom she went to the bar. The young woman and her driver friend went to the hospital. The nurses there confirmed she had been sexually assaulted—probably by more than one attacker.

The woman’s drink had been spiked. Someone had taken her to a hotel room. She probably couldn’t stand, so someone had to have propped her up and almost dragged her to the room.

Every major hotel these days has cameras – in the lobby, in the elevators and in the hallways. Every major hotel rents rooms only to those with credit cards who can also show photo ID. It is possible to find out who did this. It is likely that the bartender or waiter was involved—after all someone must have advised her three women friends that she was sick and going home earlier, on her own. Or something like that — otherwise wouldn’t her friends have wondered where she had gone? No one will ever know the answers or ask the questions — the young woman refused to go to the police.

‘They Walk Among Us’

Fast forward to this week’s episode of the British true crime podcast, They Walk Among Us. episode 33 focuses on a young man in Manchester who raped more than 200 men in a year or two. He went to pubs, or hung around outside of them. He saw men who seemed alone, or separated from their friends, or standing outside smoking. He befriended any tall, good looking muscular man and invited him to his nearby flat for a nightcap. The man was often so drunk he agreed to the offer of a quiet place to lie down for a while, or a chance to use a phone to call a taxi.

Once inside, the slightly-built friendly young host offered the visitor another drink. The host laced it with GHB. Within minutes the visitor had passed out on the floor; the young man used his phone to video his rape of the victim. The next morning, the victim seldom remembered any of this; so no one went to the police. When some victims remembered waking up in someone else’s apartment, they often apologized to their host for crashing at the stranger’s house overnight.

At trial, the culprit insisted the victims had given consent. What’s more he claimed he took the videos for himself only – he never distributed the videos or uploaded them to the web. He denied all the rapes and in so doing, forced the Crown to prosecute each of the hundreds of crimes individually. The British police and the courts went mad over this case. They were incensed because of the emotional harm and grief the court cases caused the victims. Experts testified about how horrible this had been for the men. Some of the men remembered going to the flat, and nothing more. Others didn’t even remember that. Many victims simply did not recognize the rapist who was sitting in the dock. Out of despair, one victim had tried to take his own life; others had their relationships end; some became so despondent and sick, they lost their jobs.

Women’s lives as collateral damage

This was the collateral damage that happened when men suffered the indignity of rape and abuse by a stranger.

Women suffer this all the time. And worse. Statistics Canada tells us that 30% of women versus 8% of men have been sexually assaulted. For women it isn’t a one time rape by a stranger. A chart in the article reveals that while more than 22% of the men said they were not at all impacted by the sexual assault, only 2% of women said the same.

Assault or abuse happen over and over again in many women’s lives. Their fear is genuine; women’s antennae are out – the fear of sexual assault and/or abuse is in the back of most women’s minds. They think about it when they go downtown for a drink;, when they are on an elevator or hallway in a hotel, or when someone they don’t like likes them.

Rape and abuse often set women up for abusive relationships, and violence in their marriages. Assault and abuse set women up for being bullied and terrorized at work. In my advocacy work in Equity Watch Nova Scotia – an organization dedicated to fighting bullying, harassment and discrimination at work — I’ve found that most of the women who have faced serious bullying at work have been victims of sexual abuse, or sexual assault years – or decades — prior.

Most women’s previous assaults and abuses are never far from colouring their experience of the world decades later. A man has an “incident” – one bad man rapes another man when he was drunk, after he stumbles home with a stranger. It’s unusual, and it’s criminal.

But women are assaulted or raped often a handful of times over a lifetime. Some have to flee violence in their own homes. They have to take their children and hide – in a shelter, or escape to another town or city just to be safe. How is it that we have so little regard for women’s experiences that we allow our governments to squeeze these crucial necessary shelters.

Equity Watch is watching…

How is it that women have to walk away from jobs – or even careers –because of harassment, bullying and threats. Equity Watch has seen dozens of cases of women pursued by, harassed by, demeaned, threatened or humiliated by men either singly or in groups. Women in non-traditional occupations such as firefighters, or police, or prison guards stand out in our caseload. But also women who are secretaries, IT specialists, and health professionals – they too have been bullied or harassed to the breaking point.

Their only option is to quit their jobs or go on short-term, then long-term, disability (if they are fortunate that their employer has such benefits — most don’t.) They cannot return to work with men (and occasionally women) who have physically or emotionally scarred them. If women are forced to take another job, it is often a less secure job at a fraction of their former pay.

Many have said that the Pandemic has resulted in a she-cession. Tens of thousands of womens’ jobs have been lost because the hospitality, retail and service sectors (which tend to employ women) have been decimated. But on top of that, women face financial ruin because the workplace itself is often a poisoned environment.

The rapist in the podcast They Walk Among Us was convicted (mainly on the basis of the video evidence, as the men did not want to testify in open court). He received several life prison sentences. The culprits who prey on women, the everyday sexual harassers, the bullies, usually keep their jobs, and even get promoted.

A case in point is the well-known case of Liane Tessier. Tessier, a Halifax firefighter, was harassed, threatened and demeaned for years by supervisors and colleagues in the fire service. In 2007 she filed a complaint with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission that she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender.

First the Commission rejected her complaint, so she had to appeal their decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court forced the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission to re-visit her complaint. It wasn’t until 10 years later – in 2017 – that an investigation found in her favour. The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission has not done a good job in fighting against gender discrimination. To read more, see Equity Watch’s critique Justice Impeded: a Critique of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Regime.

Though eventually, her complaint was upheld, Tessier never could work for the Fire Service again. So she had to give up a career she was good at and a career she loved. She gave the employer and the Human Rights Commission a list of the bullies and harassers – but to the best of her knowledge not one was disciplined. In fact most had been promoted! And Tessier was not the only one. Other women in the Halifax Fire service came forward and their complaints went unheard and unaddressed.

Where is a woman to turn? And how can it be just that it is women, and people of colour who suffer bullying which leads them to lives of unemployment, or underemployment and misery. It also leads them to lives of poverty.

In Tessier’s case, she found other work in a male-dominated occupation because those occupations tend to pay much higher than typical women’s occupations. At her new job, she was also harassed and bullied. Her struggle continues.

Yet few men’s struggles continue. Few men are plunged into poverty because they can no longer cope with the harassment and bullying in the workplace. The other day was Pink Shirt Day — aside from companies and governments trying to feel good about flying the flag against bullying — what are they really doing? We all know the answer — Not much.

Judy Haiven is on the steering committee of Equity Watch, a Halifax-based organization which fights bullying, racism and discrimination in the workplace. You can reach her at equitywatchns@gmail.com

The post Judy Haiven: The war against women appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

The post PSA: Mark your calendars – Equity Watch webinar March 9 – Gag orders kill human rights How we can stop or limit non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

On 3 February 2021, Kathy Laird, a long-time human rights activist and former CEO of the Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre, appeared on an Equity Watch webinar touting the benefits of Ontario’s tripartite human rights regime for Nova Scotia. A recording of that webinar is available here and a transcript of the webinar is available here.

The Ontario system prior to 2008 was similar to Nova Scotia’s (with a single Human Rights Commission responsible for investigating complaints and referring some of them to boards of inquiry.) In that year, Ontario moved to a three-agency arrangement, as follows:

·       A Human Rights Commission, restricted to policy matters and public education and bringing forward complex issues, like systemic discrimination and racial profiling, to the Tribunal.

·       A Tribunal, a direct-access agency dealing with complaints and adjudication. While screening, mediating and promoting settlement, it still allows complainants the possibility of their “day in court.”

·       A Legal Support Centre, offering legal advice and representation to complainants

Equity Watch, a Nova Scotia human rights advocacy organization had launched a comprehensive 52-page critique of Nova Scotia’s regime on January 6, calling for, among other things, a move to a scheme like Ontario’s. A summary of the critique is available here.

Laird explained the problems that led the Ontario government of the day to make those changes in 2008:

“They’re very similar to the problems that you are experiencing in Nova Scotia today. Delay is a big one. On average, it took two and a half years to complete the investigation stage for cases that even made it to the investigation stage. Many complaints were dismissed at an early stage, and without giving more than pro-forma reasons. So there were no detailed reasons based on the facts of the case. Few complaints got to hearing so every year there were about 2400 complaints filed in Ontario, and over the 10 years before the change an average of 140 were referred to a hearing at the tribunal. Most of those settled, so there were five to 10 final Tribunal decisions annually.”

Very simply, said Laird, “…The Commission stopped being trusted by many equity-seeking groups.” In her opinion, the new system helped remedy that situation.

Some other Ontario changes that Laird said could benefit Nova Scotian equity-seekers include:

Ø  Assistance from the Legal Support Centre is offered free and is not based on income (though the Centre encourages pecunious applicants to seek their own counsel.)

Ø  A complaint to the Tribunal cannot be dismissed without the parties having the opportunity to make oral submissions. The Tribunal must give reasons for dismissing or validating the complaint.

Ø  A public interest remedy can be awarded by the Tribunal and it can order a public inquiry even if it was not requested by the complainant.

Ø  The human rights agencies report directly to the provincial legislature rather than to the Minister of Justice.

Ø  The Centre takes pains to publicize complaints and settlements (with due attention to privacy) so that non-disclosure agreements (“gag orders”) are less common.

Ø  The Commission has the power (and has used it) to do wide-ranging investigations into systemic human rights problems. It has delivered reports on police anti-Black discrimination, problems of transgender people, and prejudiced zoning against group homes.

Laird reported that in the ten years from 2008 to 2018, the three-agency model received very good reviews, especially for the quality of the adjudicators in the Tribunal and the comprehensive reports by the Commission. Unfortunately, in the past two years the Doug Ford Conservative government has deliberately under-resourced the system, leading to backlogs and erosion of the core of adjudicators.

Liane Tessier, a founder of Nova Scotia’s Equity Watch declared herself enthused by Laird’s report. Tessier, a former firefighter, whose decade-long battle with Halifax Regional Municipality and the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission made national and international news, said, “I am confident that if a system similar to Ontario’s had existed in Nova Scotia when I made my initial complaint, we would have avoided so much expense and misery, and women and other equity-seeking groups would have been so much better-served.”

Equity Watch has asked, so far without response, for meetings about its critique with the Nova Scotia Justice Minister and the CEO of the Human Rights Commission.

For more information, contact Equity Watch at equitywatchns@gmail.com; phone 902-240-2782

The post Media release: Human rights expert explains Ontario regime to Nova Scotians appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

To register for this event, please go to https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_S5AhX2A0SKe4LyeeFzWHLQ

Last January 6, the Nova Scotia group Equity Watch launched its 52-page critique of this province’s human rights regime, along with over 25 recommendations for reform (summary available here.) Among the recommendations is moving to a tripartite system similar to the one introduced in Ontario in 2008. The three agencies are:

·       A Human Rights Commission, restricted to policy matters and public education and bringing forward complex issues, like systemic discrimination and racial profiling, to the Tribunal.

·       A Tribunal, a direct-access agency dealing with complaints and adjudication. While screening, mediating and promoting settlement, it still allows complainants the possibility of their “day in court.”

·       A Legal Support Centre, offering legal advice and representation to complainants

Our guest at this webinar is Kathy Laird, a lawyer and renowned human rights litigator, and the recently-retired CEO of the Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre. She has experienced the Ontario system before and after the 2008 reforms. In 2016, she received the Law Society of Upper Canada Medal for her work in promoting access to justice.

The post Media advisory: Human rights expert touts Ontario tripartite system appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.