This would be a return to the way things were done previously. Human Rights tribunals were originally set up to become almost the “small claims court” for human rights. The idea being that lots of discrimination was being accepted because of the time and cost of going to court.
One area in which the tribunals erred was in providing legal representation for the complainant, but nothing for the defendant-the opposite of the normal justice system. There was also no mechanism by which the defendant could recoup their expenses if the claim was dismissed.
In this environment a whole tribunal industry grew up of lawyers and special interests groups filing complaints and the lawyers and specialists and in many cases the plaintiffs receiving compensation for participating in the process.
In light of this many defendents simply pled guilty and accepted whatever the decision of the tribunal was, creating “precedents” that worked against the next round of defendents.
Finally the human rights tribunals in some provinces accepted cases against well-monied defendents who appealed the tribunals’ decisions to the court system and exposed the whole “industry” that had grown up (one of the defendents was a news magazine). This has led to reduced public support for the tribunals and calls for elimination or significant reform of their mandate and process.
Note that the second story posted suggests that the practice of funding complainants without funding defendents could continue in this new model. Scary. :eek: