5,483
edits
Difference between revisions of "Complaints against Security Guards (5:VI)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Complaints against Security Guards (5:VI) (view source)
Revision as of 01:42, 19 May 2016
, 01:42, 19 May 2016no edit summary
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
'''NOTE:''' In ''Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal'', 2015 BCSC 534, the BC Supreme Court rendered a decision regarding the Downtown Ambassadors, private security guards hired by the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association to patrol public space. The Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) alleged that the guards discriminated against individuals who appear to be homeless or addicted to drugs by limiting their access to public space (e.g., sidewalks) on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and physical and mental disability, contrary to section 8 o the BC ''Human Rights Code''. The Court found that the Downtown Ambassadors program had engaged in discriminatory conduct against homeless people. Although homelessness is not a condition protected under the ''Human Rights Code'', race and disability are. VANDU successfully argued that homeless people are disproportionately Aboriginal and disabled, and that these findings were enough to show discrimination. At this time, the Court has sent the case back to the BC Human Rights Tribunal to determine whether the discriminatory conduct can be justified. | '''NOTE:''' In ''Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal'', 2015 BCSC 534, the BC Supreme Court rendered a decision regarding the Downtown Ambassadors, private security guards hired by the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association to patrol public space. The Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) alleged that the guards discriminated against individuals who appear to be homeless or addicted to drugs by limiting their access to public space (e.g., sidewalks) on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and physical and mental disability, contrary to section 8 o the BC ''Human Rights Code''. The Court found that the Downtown Ambassadors program had engaged in discriminatory conduct against homeless people. Although homelessness is not a condition protected under the ''Human Rights Code'', race and disability are. VANDU successfully argued that homeless people are disproportionately Aboriginal and disabled, and that these findings were enough to show discrimination. At this time, the Court has sent the case back to the BC Human Rights Tribunal to determine whether the discriminatory conduct can be justified. | ||
'''NOTE:''' Pivot Legal Society claims this case is an example of why social condition should be included as an enumerated ground. Please see | '''NOTE:''' Pivot Legal Society claims this case is an example of why social condition should be included as an enumerated ground. Please see the [http://pivotlegal.org/pivot-points/blog/tribunal-member-qualifies-downtown-ambassadors-decision Pivot Legal blog] for further information. | ||
'''NOTE:''' Clients should be cautioned that this complaint process may not achieve satisfactory results. The Security Programs Division is limited in its ability to successfully review the conduct of security guards, both because of statutory limitations to its powers and budget constraints. | '''NOTE:''' Clients should be cautioned that this complaint process may not achieve satisfactory results. The Security Programs Division is limited in its ability to successfully review the conduct of security guards, both because of statutory limitations to its powers and budget constraints. | ||
