John I don't know if you have some mental block on this or not. We all know Janiv abused the system, the BCHRT says they abused the system, I know they abused the system. There is no argument on that. The judge's ruling is not hearsay however, it is what it is. The judge didn't just say things about Janiv's conduct and motives, it describes how the rulings for each case were reached. The ruling lays out what the primary testimonies of each of the defendants were and details why the cases were dismissed. The judge makes it clear about the nature of 2 of the cases and the potential merits but were dismissed on motives. The rest lacked merit and were also overshadowed by improper motives.
Have you read the entire ruling for comprehension? I knew the general gist from the media, but until tonight I never took a deep dive into the entirety of the ruling. It is enlightening to say the least.
The ruling has left the door open for men (not just trans-women) to file future complaints for being denied service based on sex discrimination when the services rendered can be fulfilled without specialized knowledge. Seeing how those get ruled on would be very interesting. The ruling also leaves the door open for someone to bring forth a complaint where the business owner wields religious freedom to justify potential discrimination. That would be even more interesting to see the ruling for. Of course this isn't just a male thing. This applies to women and trans-men who may seek the services of someone who caters to men and denies service based on a person's sex.
The BCHRT ruling leaves as many questions unanswered as it did in answering them. Looking at the ruling from the 20,000 foot level it is easy to focus in on the abuse of Janiv and say "haha, told ya, Yaniv is a racist, anti-immigrant, predatory asshole that was abusing the system to steal money from people who were not as likely to defend themselves". That is very much true! That's what most of social media pounced on though. But the ruling is much more involved and nuanced when you look at it from the ground. From the ground you still see the "haha, told ya, Yaniv is a racist, anti-immigrant, predator asshole that was abusing the system to steal money from people who were not as likely to defend themselves", BUT there is actual potential merit in some of the things that Janiv did bring forward that leaves the door open for the BCHRT ro rule on in the future if someone were to encounter similar discrimination in cases where specialized knowledge of human anatomy isn't a factor in rendering a service.
)