The decision is here: www.westcoastleaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/58_Oger_v_Whatcott_No_7_2019_BCHRT_58.pdf
I don’t think it as dire as it seems; the media and Ogers lawyer represent this is a landmark case for Canada but not really:
- This was under BC Human Rights legislation that has a section on discriminatory publication. Each province has their own legislation, has their own process, their own precedents, their own tribunals. Human rights cases are very fact specific. Oger’s lawyer plays it up as significant across the country but not really. Other tribunals in other provinces may find it “interesting” but they certainly aren’t bound by it. And it certainly is not binding on higher courts. Section 7 of the BC legislation reads:
- ^Discriminatory publication
7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code^.
- This was a case specifically about a flyer campaign directed at a very specific person who is also in the political arena, not an overall discussion of trans ideology. The campaign from Whatcott had zero to do with Ogers suitability for office other than attack them as transgender (ie saying unsuitable for office because they are transgender.). It was definitely not a rounded discussion about “gender identity” or other concerns about trans ideology. Whatcott is not from Ogers riding (indeed, I thought he had moved to the Philippines or something, guess not). Whatcott is well known for running these attack campaigns though generally not targeted against one person (campaigns to make homosexuality and abortion illegal like sending flyers to people with fetal parts, for example). He has been in numerous tribunals across Canada and I have no doubt that is a strategy of his.
- The hearings were a mess. I don’t think Whatcott did Whatcott any favors. He ‘objected’ to the authority of the tribunal (not sure if he is a “freeman of the land” or not, I don’t think so but that is common for them). Whatcott’s side/support had many outbursts, counsel recited bible verse, insulted the tribunal. During proceedings Whatcott left to distribute more flyers. This is where the extra $20,000 came from.
- I am not sure if it will be appealed or not. I don’t think section 7 of the BC act has ever really been tested in court but I also think the facts in this one are terrible ones to make this is a test case.