"Human Rights" Dilemma...?
As though to demonstrate yet again how utterly degraded the notion of human rights have become in Canada, thanks to the existence of a network of federal-provincial human rights bodies who sit in semi-formal judgement adjudicating cases brought forward by irate Canadians insisting their human rights have been violated and looking for formal slap-downs on those they accuse, here's yet another.
A New Edinburgh (Ottawa) resident, Pamela Howson, is convinced that she and her three young children are suffering a horrendous affront to their human rights, related to the fact that the municipality will not give her permission to park her vehicle in front of her home, on a concrete pad she would like to set up, on her front lawn.
Her family owns a Mazda, wider than their previous vehicle. Which answers to their need to be able to install three children's car seats safely on the back seat, but which has complicated matters dreadfully on the other hand, because it is too difficult for that car to be navigated through the too-narrow passageway beside her house, leading to a backyard parking spot.
Leaving her with the dilemma of what to do? That narrow driveway's width varies from 2.6 to 2.78 metres, while the vehicle is 2.25-metres wide, so that winter conditions make negotiating the narrow passage a horror story for her. Of course she resides in downtown Ottawa in an enclave that is well served by public transit, but that's entirely another story.
Ms. Howell has brought her case before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. She is quite well aware of how the tribunal operates, as she herself once worked for that body. When she approached the municipality and requested she be given permission to park where it is most convenient for her to do so, and where city bylaws forbid that residents do, she was turned down.
But she was given the reasonable enough option to apply for a minor variance from the city's committee of adjustment. This is the body legally capable of considering her request. No employee of the city may, other than by direction of the committee of adjustment, acquiesce to her demand for extraordinary treatment.
Ms. Howson, however, infuriated that her request was not speedily acceded to, warned she would take the case to the Commission if an exemption based on her family's "special circumstances", was not responded to, in her favour. She chose not to apply for that variance from the sole body set up to consider such requests, and to lodge a complaint instead.
"We proposed a number of reasonable solutions, all of which were dismissed", she informed the Commission. "We have a legal parking spot we cannot access due to the circumstances of our family." Therefore, the city's outright refusal to consider her request "constitutes discrimination on the grounds of family status".
It would appear that this former investigator with the Ontario Human Rights Commission weighed the $1,500 application cost for the committee of adjustment to consider her request, against the option of having the Commission consider her 'human rights' dilemma at no cost to her, and presumably, at some great cost to the municipal taxpayer once the Commission issues its duly considered authority to express its displeasure on behalf of a complaining client.
City lawyer David Patacairk has interpreted the situation quite precisely when he stated: "All we have is an individual who says 'I don't want the law to apply to me'."
Ms. Howson, Mr. Patacairk explained "has not made out a prima facie case of discrimination. No actions have been taken by the city, and certainly none of those actions, even in contemplation, would be taken on the grounds of her family status. We're trying to answer a planning question in a forum that's not designed to answer those questions."
A New Edinburgh (Ottawa) resident, Pamela Howson, is convinced that she and her three young children are suffering a horrendous affront to their human rights, related to the fact that the municipality will not give her permission to park her vehicle in front of her home, on a concrete pad she would like to set up, on her front lawn.
Her family owns a Mazda, wider than their previous vehicle. Which answers to their need to be able to install three children's car seats safely on the back seat, but which has complicated matters dreadfully on the other hand, because it is too difficult for that car to be navigated through the too-narrow passageway beside her house, leading to a backyard parking spot.
Leaving her with the dilemma of what to do? That narrow driveway's width varies from 2.6 to 2.78 metres, while the vehicle is 2.25-metres wide, so that winter conditions make negotiating the narrow passage a horror story for her. Of course she resides in downtown Ottawa in an enclave that is well served by public transit, but that's entirely another story.
Ms. Howell has brought her case before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. She is quite well aware of how the tribunal operates, as she herself once worked for that body. When she approached the municipality and requested she be given permission to park where it is most convenient for her to do so, and where city bylaws forbid that residents do, she was turned down.
But she was given the reasonable enough option to apply for a minor variance from the city's committee of adjustment. This is the body legally capable of considering her request. No employee of the city may, other than by direction of the committee of adjustment, acquiesce to her demand for extraordinary treatment.
Ms. Howson, however, infuriated that her request was not speedily acceded to, warned she would take the case to the Commission if an exemption based on her family's "special circumstances", was not responded to, in her favour. She chose not to apply for that variance from the sole body set up to consider such requests, and to lodge a complaint instead.
"We proposed a number of reasonable solutions, all of which were dismissed", she informed the Commission. "We have a legal parking spot we cannot access due to the circumstances of our family." Therefore, the city's outright refusal to consider her request "constitutes discrimination on the grounds of family status".
It would appear that this former investigator with the Ontario Human Rights Commission weighed the $1,500 application cost for the committee of adjustment to consider her request, against the option of having the Commission consider her 'human rights' dilemma at no cost to her, and presumably, at some great cost to the municipal taxpayer once the Commission issues its duly considered authority to express its displeasure on behalf of a complaining client.
City lawyer David Patacairk has interpreted the situation quite precisely when he stated: "All we have is an individual who says 'I don't want the law to apply to me'."
Ms. Howson, Mr. Patacairk explained "has not made out a prima facie case of discrimination. No actions have been taken by the city, and certainly none of those actions, even in contemplation, would be taken on the grounds of her family status. We're trying to answer a planning question in a forum that's not designed to answer those questions."
Labels: Life's Like That, Ottawa, Politics of Convenience
posted by Pieface | 6:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home