Member introduced herself and said there were issues to discuss before beginning the hearing including the publication ban.
Next the Member said that she had received 2 complaints about MY's behaviour.
- JY is tweeting about the cases
- such a high volume of complaints is a matter of public interest
- JY's racial and religious views are public undermining any argument about needing protection
- JY's serial abuse of process
- has received 100s of tweets because of the @JCCFCanada
- said MY has sent some of the implicated tweets
- the tweets are self defence
- religion shouldn't be used to discriminate
- reads some of the tweets explaining them as advocating for the LGBT community
JY reads a tweet about refusing service to someone from India and says it was from MY.
Reads aloud another tweet about Indian women, "I will expose this hatred"
So you should go! Really!
Wells v. University of British Columbia, 2010 BCHRT 100. It is not a defence that a party has relied on their lawyer’s advice and direction. A party is responsible for the improper conduct of their lawyer who is acting on their behalf
-JY's identity and gender identity are public
- JY saying it was a secret is inaccurate
- JY has claimed to have identified as female since the age of 6
- JY's public identity predates any JCCF involvement
- JY has repeated blamed the JCCF for fake online profiles but this is not the case
- there is a broad public interest in these cases
- JC doesn't know anyone in the gallery
- only met me during the first consolidated case (true)
- JY has claimed Lindsay Shepard works (LS) for JCCF, this is not true
- LS does not speak for JC's clients
- JY had a public back & forth with LS re external genitalia and internal reproductive functions
- not via JCCF's account
- current respondent is an immigrant from Brazil
(JY would later claim Brazilian heritage)
- JY could see that MD is an immigrant and this is a common thread in these claims
- JY has put them through the wringer
- MD is JC's fifth client to close their business as a result of JY's complaints
- this is high stakes, JY is asking for very high costs
- JY has been allowed to target women of immigrant background with impunity
Member says she will decide by end of day.
JC notes that JY had said MY was in the hospital as an explanation for the late request and that this is not true.
Member gives some background on this 6 page complaint filed on May 2, 2018 under JY's legal name at time - "Jonathan Yaniv" against MD.
(Dear Twitter, I am quoting the Member, not dead naming)
JY requested a Brazilian.
Member must decide 5 things:
- nature of JY's gender identity
- scope of service
- if JY's GID a factor in denial of service
- if yes, does MD have a bonafide defence
- remedy if any
Member now responds to an earlier request by JY to consolidate another three complaints/hearings. The cases were to be heard over three separate days.
Taking a minute to try to sort out the disposition of all of JY's 16 complaints.
So now we have 13 to 16 complaints. An unknown number were settled in mediation, which usually involves compensation for the complainant.
"Similarly, despite some doubts, I cannot find at this stage that JY’s motives are purely financial. I reach this conclusion notwithstanding my concern that JY does appear primarily motivated to meet the respondents in mediation..."
"I am now of the view, based on these new facts, that JY’s pattern of filing such a high volume of complaints and then withdrawing in the face of opposition undermines the integrity of the Tribunal."
Before the hearing begins, JY wants to discuss some more preliminary matters, says that my tweets connected JY to @preta_6
Member tells JY that it is extremely serious to say that JC has no legal qualifications. (She was very emphatic).
JY says I'll drop it but still wants MD's response denied because of wrong name
Now as the hearing is finally ready to begin, MY who will be a witness leaves the room.
Member stops JY to say, just give a list.
Mamela v Vancouver Lesbian Connection 1999 (discrim against transsexuals is sex discrim - this predates the use of word transgender and the inclusion of GID in the BCHR Code - too bad VLC didn't appeal like VRR.)
And lastly Wells v UBC (clients can be held responsible and order to pay costs for their lawyers misconduct).
Re potential pub ban lift "visibility that puts someone at risk of violence".
JY then says I do not have a taser at the hearing, contrary to what has been said online. (Pausing here to say yikes!)
JY says 1 more minute and is allowed to continue.
JY goes on
- cites a case about ignorance of law & when can be used as a defence
- being a female is important to JY
- was a "little diva", dancing around the house in girl clothes
- girl in heart and inside house, outside house no one knew
- diagnosed at 6 (by a specialist this time) though didn't recognize GID then
- turning point for JY who embraced GID
JY finishes, saying others may have perceived me as male due to my fear (of people knowing).
Back later tonight with JC's opening - says JY used a fake profile with a pic of a pregnant woman - ironic as MD is pregnant
- MD had just started her home based business
- MD had 3 kids at home, a four year old and two small school aged kids
- doesn't hate JY
-calling Respondent's neo Nazis is just the latest in a long line of JY's contentious and offensive statements
- sex is biological, separate from GID in BCHRC
- GID goes to indentity, not sex, must be something to indentity with
- physiology is an important component of this case
- JY has male genitals, JY has testified to it
- MG is not comfortable waxing male genitals, has never done it
- husband also not comfortable, concerned for MD's safety
- recounts expert testimony re erections
- JY used a fake profile with a pic of a pregnant woman to start service request, once contact was made then had text convo, sent real pic & said trans
- because of complaint, MD closed her business
- lost revenue for herself and her family
Hearing has a morning break.
When hearing resumes, JY says that JC's statement re fake profile is untrue.
JY asks can I submit emailed picture from friend, saying it is the pregnant person JC was talking about (JY seems to be saying that it's not a fake profile because it is a real person who JY had asked to contact MD)
Brief exchange while MD clarifies her last name on FB Marketplace is a nickname and that she had already provide her real name to Tribunal, spells last name.
Next will be JY's testimony.
JY sworn in.
JY starts with Ext # 24 (1st exhibit in this case but 3 case were consolidated so we are at # 24 now) stops to tell the Member, not feeling well, may need a little break
Ext#24 is 1 page and is screenshot of MD' s FB Marketplace profile. JY comments that MD has used an acronym for Instructor and after digging in found that the last name used is a type of Brazilian sport.
Next JY has Ext#25 which is a desktop and mobile view of the first time JY reached out to GD in May of 2018. It is 2 pages.
- my memory is shot because of all the concussions I've had but believe after that I asked MD several times and she said closed (no longer for sale)
- presumes that MD thought JY is male based on male pic and/or name
- as Member has said my Gender ID is my own
- says then asked friend ("Mia S", the supposed pregnant woman) to contact MG
- gave MD ad link to Mia S to try to book for me as "Jessica"
- MD was given Jessica's (JY's) number by Mia and MD reached out by txt
Text exchange between JY & MD is Ext#26.
- says received txt from MD with address for a 4PM appt, saying text me when you are almost here
- replied to MD, see you at 4, I am a trans woman
- MD says okay, JY assumes that being trans is okay
- very excited to get service, texts "born a man, now a woman", able to wax?
- MD texts that JY doesn't look like a trans person (MD means the pic of the pregnant person, JY's supposed friend Mia)
- MD texts "don't play around"
- MD texts back that JY is not who she thought booking was for, being trans not a problem but won't provide waxing
- JY txts why
- MD txts husband won't allow
- JY txts I'm a girl
- reads out address, says it was fake
- complains that was half way there (this was at 11AMish and appt was for 4PM) and then went home
- tried to use this address for serving MD with Tribunal documents, was invalid
- address is large condo complex (no unit #)
- also waste of Tribunal's time
- the Tribunal had to use a process server
- angry about MD wasting the Tribunal's time
- 3 or 4 complaints to fake addresses
- has been a "roller coaster" for JY
- told them that MD had refused service to trans woman, not okay, does MD work there (used this address to serve MD for complaint)
JY and MD have an angry txt exchange, then a phone call. Very heated.
Finish of JY's testimony:
- MD assumed JY's gender identity
- identity should not be assumed for services like waxing, is JY's own to say
- says can't assume the Member's or JC's id
- not the 90's, need to ask
Member reminds - wait for the question, wait for the answer
?When did you first contact MD?
JY - don't remember
?Looked at MD's profile pic?
JY - yes
JY says I am also Brazilian
? Answer the question?
JY - no, everyone looks different
? Saw it saws Brazil on her profile?
JY - doesn't matter
JC then asks about the sequence of events with supposed friend Mia getting appt for JY
JY - must have a profile to...(cut off note here, sorry!)
? Who gave your phone number to MD
JY - was friend (Mia S), I was rejected so asked Mia to reach out
? Was that actually you?
JY - no, Mia S is real
JY - don't remember
JY - yes
? Possible that name Jessica was used to give # to GD?
JY - MD got my # from my friend Mia
JC reads 1st text string, MD's address, 4:30 appt. Text is from 11:27AM
JY - have to take transit, takes a long way to get there.
Recall what JY has said about transit at another hearing 👇
JY - are you saying I am lying?
? You boarded transit at 11AM for a 4:30 appt?
JY - was at Pacific Centre, having a bite to eat then going to head over
? You live on Langley border, how long to get to MD, by bus or car?
? You left your home at 11 for a 4:30 appt.?
JY - not at home, would have to take Skytrain, lots of buses, doesn't like/want to be late, it's not fair to the service provider
?What is your basis for saying that MD gave you a false address?
JY - asks the Member about the service docs that bounced back (wants backup)
Member doesn't know.
? You didn't go to address?
JY - no
JY - used address to file complaint and it bounced back
JC puts it to JY that address is MD's residence, that JY is accusing MD of deception, was not a fake address
JY - a condo has a (unit) number
JY - illegitimate, incomplete address, why not give unit #
? Maybe MD would have given unit # when you were in area?
JY - service is public
(Recall the BCHR Code only covers public services)
JY - no public, gives example of friends waxing party, was private event, closed to public so could deny service...
Member tells JY - no (legal) arguments
? Possible MD would give you the unit # when you were in area?
JY - yes
JY - yes
? Aware of the requirements for waxing female genitals (testimony of the expert)?
JY - yes, says is female, has had brazillians, JC should know that
? You have male parts but are requesting service for a brazillians?
JY - yes
JY talks about being defamed online as reason for asking for 500K, maybe more, mentions the @TPostMillennial
JY says I wanted a brazillian, not a brozillain, not a dudezillion...(may have said manzillian too)
JY - I'm intersex
? What does JY mean by that - what parts?
JY - don't have to answer that, (finally) says both male and female parts
? Never said anything about female parts to respondents, only talked about male parts
JY - no, where did I say that
JY - female parts (might be saying has female parts not told MD about female parts)
? you are saying you have a vulva?
JY - not going to say
JY - not going to answer, wouldn't ask you
? Not about me, what parts you have, if you have a vulva is germane, you were requesting a brazillian, would have to take your clothing off, underwear off?
? Not like buying a hotdog, respondents would have to work on your genitals for a long time, can't refuse?
Member says to JY, what were you asking MD to wax?
JY - wanted a brazillian
Member says what parts, scrotum, vulva?
JY - the second, vulva
? Your evidence is that you have a clitoris, labia, a vagina?
JY - won't say
? Don't play games, do you know what a vulva is?
JY - external skin around a vagina
? No, it is the external female genitals
JY - not saying if has fully formed (vulva)
Member stops exam line of questioning
JY - genitals are deformed, embarrassed to tell publically, asks JC, how do we know that you have a fully formed penis & scrotum
JC say he would be upfront
With that, time to break for me. JY's testimony will continue but be broken up so MD can testify and get to work.
JY comments, "always interested in fairness" but wants it noted that has had to miss work too!
? False contention of female genitals?
JY - are you calling me a liar
? Female genitals, true or false?
JY - not false but refuses to elaborate, why is JC so interested in my genitals
Member tells JY not to ask JC questions
JC says he will come back to this.
JC now refers way back to Ext#1, JY's FB Marketplace convo with BH, respondent from @JCCFCanada case # 1 of these 3 consolidated cases👇
JY - if would have said intersex, no one would know what it meant, would have denied service anyway
? Goes to credibility, said trans, no surgery, scheduled for SRS?
JY - yes
? Which surgery (procedure)?
JY - irrelevant, doesn't even know what Dr. will do (yet)
JY - surgery not scheduled, just planned, trans is complicated, drugs, hormones, surgery
JC now refers to Ext#9, again from 1st @JCCFCanada case👇
JY - wasn't me, won't answer questions about it
JY - never sent, lots of fake profiles, fake profiles created by Lindsey Shepard, she's @JCCFCanada employee, has another little brag about getting her banned from Twitter
JY - yes, it's a public service
? JY has said was burnt when getting arm wax in past?
JY - was on my private FB, how did JC get
? Relevant to you that MD has no exp waxing male genitals?
JY - no, says JC made false submissions, discusses waxing supplies needed
JC says example relevant, JY is litigious, if MD burnt JY through inexperience then JY would have filed complaint
JY - you say I file complaints all day
Member says yes, relevant, JY has filed complaints
? Possible you would have filed complaint?
JY - talks about hitting JC's car, would talk it out with JC
? Compel MD to provide service with no exp, would then file complaint?
Member says JY has answered, proposes lunch break
Break into JY's testimony, allow MD to testify now so she can leave for work?
JY comments that "always interested in fairness" but notes has had to miss work for hearings.
MD is sworn in, JC questions MD first, then JY will cross.
- started home wax business in March 2018
- Mom with 3 kids
- husband works & not at home during day
- had brazillian wax ad on FB Marketplace
- was promo, low price, promo finished, so marked sold (out)
MD - yes
? Would give client's unit # when in area?
MD - yes
Then JC asks about how MD came to txt JY?
MC says that pregnant woman (Jessica) reached out, wasn't JY's pic, MD texted # provided, was JY's
? Why no unit# given?
- safety, always meets new clients outside of her building to vet
- found txts with JY weird, booked for 4 but JY texted over & over, msg after msg
- saw JY wasn't the original pregnant woman
- felt unsafe, husband felt same way
- was JY trans, didn't know how pregnant woman could be trans woman
- issues with JY's deception
? Experienced and comfortable waxing male genitals?
MD - no
- JY called MD's work, talked to her boss
- JY told boss scared for MD to provide services (to young people) at work
- sent msgs to boss
- JY reported MD's FB profile (w nickname) as fake, was suspended, MD had to set up new profile
JY interrupts to say not me who reported
- got Tribunal notice of complaint at work, very upset
- got a msg from "Jessica" saying at your house, what's the unit #, I forgot
- JY said on FB that MD has problem with LGBT
- has blocked JY on SM, everything
- went to the police, worried about her kids on way to school
- JY said MD doesn't know law in Canada, JY will take further action
- then MD taken to Tribunal
- shut down her business, talks about fear now having a stranger in home, being contacted at work, all of JY's msgs
MD - no
Member asks question about MD's husband not being comfortable
- no (strange) men in home when alone
- safety issue
- "everyone has the right to decide who to have in home"
- yes, weird msgs
- thought trans woman meant JY has had surgery
- felt sorry JY was denied service but JY kept texting even after she explained home alone with 4year old
- 7 and 12 year old home too
- normally has just waxed friends & family
- first time on FB Marketplace, had never had stranger in home
- when "Jessica" said at her house, (and asked for unit #) it was a lie
Member asks MD what her understanding of a trans woman is?
On with MD's testimony.
MD - all female
? Intended to wax females or males, female or male genitals?
MD - female
? Brazillians for females only?
MD - yes
JC's questions for MD completed, JY will cross examine her now
A highlight - JY will show MD a picture of "Taylor" asking if MD would wax this person (meant to be a gotcha as I suspect Taylor is trans but appears female in pic)
Oops, MD identifies it as an alleged false profile pic of "Jessica" used by JY.
JY? Why exclude trans females? That's what I am, what is the issue waxing all females?
JY doesn't ask that, saying MD's ad was for all females, but wasn't for trans females
MD talks about feeling unsafe alone in her home with her small child, JY kept sending msgs.
JY - I didn't have your phone number
MG - you gave me your number
JY - that was Mia S. who msged you my number
Member asks about this convo between Mia S and MD. JY says I have a copy of a convo between me and Mia S.
MD says her first convo was with "Jessica" who had a history of being trans. (Assume GD didn't have the messages because her FB was suspended - she thinks because of JY)
MD - no issue
Member points out their different understanding of what a trans woman is.
JY? No issue waxing a trans identified woman?
JC tries to help, asks MD - comfortable waxing male genitals, no surgery?
MD - no
MD - surgery yes, not surgery, no
JY? Would MD wax a F to M trans person?
JC says already answered, it is about bio reality.
Member says JY must be clear in questions about type of genitals
MD - your name was Jessica
JY? I have a friend named Taylor, is trans, would wax based on name?
MD - not to do with a name, is Taylor trans from my point of veiw (surgery) or yours (no surgery)
JY? - mine
MD - no
MD - says a pic of JY, profile pic as male, wearing glasses and a tie
JY wants to show MD a pic of Taylor. Taylor, JY's trans friend, shows MD on phone
MD - that was Jessica (pic used to contact MD)
Laughter from the gallery
JC - interesting
MD - it's been a year so not 100% but thinks so
JY shows MD a pic of Mia
JY is claiming that friend Mia S, the pregnant lady was msging MD on JY's behalf and that Taylor the trans woman is also a friend. MD's evidence suggests they are all the same person - JY using fake profiles/pic
MD - no was a blond
JY - was pregnant
MD - so am I
More discussion about Mia and Taylor and Jessica. JY says Mia contacted MD to arrange wax for JY. MD says that the pic that JY shows of Mia was not the service requester, was Taylor pic with name Jessica
More discussion about Mia pic vs Taylor pic, which was used to request service for JY.
MD - yes
JY says I can "look like that in a heartbeat"
JY? I said interested (male profile) and you closed ad?
MD - yes promo was over
JY? Mia reached out?
Some confusion still re Mia
Member says can't have iPad, passes it to JY, reminded to close it, does so.
JY - interested, ad marked sold
MD - promo wax over, no convo
JY argues with MD about whether they had a FB convo or if JY clicked the interested button, then ad sold.
More argument about whether they had a convo (clicked sold) JY tries to ask MD question about a convo/plan JY had with Mia.
Member, can't ask GD about JY convos with Mia that GD has no knowledge of.
GD - you saw my profile, my kids, saw everything
JY? You said I kept texting you, busy with kids, why two msgs so overwhelming.
GD - reads off 4 msgs, said stop msg, busy, trans no problem but on profile, not trans, pregnant
JY? Why a problem?
GD - talked to her husband because was pics were not the same person, JY went to her work, tried to get her fired, reported her FB as fake
JC follow ups
? Show Ext#26 - SS of texts, MD's number at top, texting JY?
MD - got JY's # from Jessica on FB
? the pic of blond lady (Taylor)?
MD - yes
? another JY pic, male, glasses and tie?
Member will allow questions based on pic.
? Show pics same as txt pic?
MD - no, searched for Jonathan Yaniv on Twitter, found a pic (male) and took with her when she went to the police
GD - yes
? Language you are most comfortable speaking?
GD - Brazilian Portuguese
GD's testimony is done. Hearing goes for lunch break.
Miriam brings JY some McDonald's
Breaking for the night.
After the hearing's lunch break, JY's testimony resumes. JY has problems with low blood sugar but will be able to go on.
Before JY is sworn in again there is discussion of new evidence that JY wants to have entered. It is described by JY as a FB convo w GD
I hesitate to use MD's initials when recounting some of this convo as it has not been proven it was her
JY - I'm a girl
Supposedly MD - LOL
JY - what's so funny?
@JurisCameron says no context, doesn't appear to be MD, wasn't disclosed, MD not here to reply, Member should not allow or rely on without MD being able to respond
JC - no date on convo
- says shows I did continue convo with MD
- supposedly JY said would pay full price
- supposedly MD said, hi, don't do on men LOL
- supposedly JY replied I'm a girl
JY - yes searching
Member tells JY not allowed
JC says continuity problem with new convo, page 1 time stamp 5:45 PM page 2 time stamp 11:59 PM
JY says it is because 1 page taken from desktop, other from mobile at different times
JY - profile pic changes when ad removed
Member decides that this new evidence of a supposed FB convo between JY and MD will not be allowed in.
JY says it wasn't disclosed until now, "my mistake"
JC - text exchange is not about my client, is about different respondent, reads part about (JY) having to go to the ER.
- yes, was txt exchange about another refusal of service (but not about a respondent as JY did not file complaint about this)
- says was refused by a 10 year old, this was a refusal of service by a 10 year old
- says wasn't going to complain about a 10 year old
- JY purports it to be a txt exchange with Mia S.
- JY has not called Mia S. as witness
- talking about different refusal of service (not MD)
- colluding to create HR complaint against another individual (not MD)
Member says if does not purport to involve MD, why not allow?
JC - does purport to involve her, same as the last FB convo JY tried to get in, no opportunity for MD to say if her
JC - may be a created (falsified) chat created using SS from a present day Mia, is not reliable, must have occurred at same time period as convos with MD
JY wants to get Mia on the phone
Member says no
Member will not admit this convo between JY & Mia.
- MD hasn't/didn't get a chance to review or get legal advice regarding it, give testimony about or cross examine JY about it
Taylor/Jessica) as exhibits.
JY ask why pics can be admitted as evidence but not txt convo with Mia.
Member reminds JY - pics were your evidence, you showed the pics to MD and she testified about them, no objections then, pics in
Taylor (identified by MD as "Jessica) is a blond woman
JY goes back to MD leaving early. Why didn't she advise the Tribunal in advance, she should have known her schedule in advance
Noting again: JY had to leave the first @JCCFCanada hearing early. As far as I can tell, JY only told Tribunal at start of that hearing. JY's request was accommodated by Member, JC & Respondent
JC asks for copy of Mia & Taylor pics
This is about me, @preta_6 and Lindsay Shepard. JY says I broke the pub ban by tagging Amy who broke it by identified JY (untrue). Dropped both of those, still on LS
? You looked at MD's webpage?
JY - FB profile
? Same thing, you've made comments about immigrants, could see MD was Brazilian?
? Online comments about immigrants?
JY - made after (complaint against) MD
? Filing costs against LS?
JY - leaving for closing arguments
Member says for closing argument. JC continues:
? Reviewed the material I submitted to lift pub ban?
JY - yes
JY - yes
? Have a number of profiles on FB?
JY - only 1
? Allow others to use, used to have more, said in other cases
JY - shut down, only JY uses the FB & Instagram accounts, not MY
Member - I just said for costs, not now
With that JY's cross exam by JC is over. Next MY will testify. MY was allowed at last minute as witness to give testimony about the impact of the service denials on JY.
Amy declined MY's offer.
Recall that the Member had let MY testify at a previous hearing with no respondent present and given JY & MY a lot of "leeway".
MY explains her disability so it can be accommodated.
JY thanks her for coming
JY? Born as boy or girl?
MY - both
MY - yes
JY? Gender identity, expression?
MY - female
JY? First period?
MY - 13 or 14
JY? Wanted to be a princess?
MY - yes
JY - boy or girl clothes
MY - depends on occasion, girl at home, boy when out
MY - no guns, only Barbies
JY? As female at home, gender identity was secret to the public, own decision to come out?
MY - should she answer for 6 yr old JY or 32 yr old JY?
JY? My gender id was a secret
MY - yes
JY? Intimidated (to show it)
MY - yes
MY - yes
Member says - said period wasn't relevant (when said JY didn't have to talk about internal sex organs) gender identity was (nature of JY's ) - JY can't have it both ways
JY & MY interrupt each other arguing against JC
Member says she will consider how much weight to give leading testimony
JY? Why is a gender id a threat to other women?
MY - It should not be
Stopped by Member
JY? Impact of denials on me?
MY wants to speak freely, no more questions
- extreme impact
- destroying JY's life
- MY is going to give up her life in Canada after 35 years
- was happy in Canada, "come home parent", giving up
- "I mean it"
JY? Impact on me?
MY - won't go there, everyone can see, "I'm done"
MY - very important
JC objects, says JY is asking MY questions to bootstrap JY's testimony. Says JY must asked questions about facts, not JY' internal feelings
Member says will allow but weigh testimony
Talks directly to JC - not willing to show physical and medical info with you, "Mr. Jay Cameron"
Note: as in other threads, couldn't possibly record all the hypotheticals, interruptions, outbursts, not following directions from JY & MY
JY? Haircuts, waxing as gender affirming, validating my gender identity and sex as a woman?
MY - if not for JY, not for anyone, all are entitled, JY shouldn't be denied due to GID
MY - says discrimination in Tim Hortons', couldn't believe when JY told her about it in the car
JC - how relevant
Back & forth, JY, MY, and JC
Member says not relevant
JY? - In person waxing discrimination or harassment from certain cultures
MY - yes, customer service, online
- had to learn the law, culture, language to become Canadian
- came here to become Canadian
- practicing Jewish
- is immigrant, so was JY's father, Portuguese, speaks Portuguese
Member says off base, cuts her off
JY? With me when discriminated against online
MY - my reaction, my emotions, see now, same emotion now, wants to cry
JC wants it recorded that MY is castigating him. Member notes
JY starts reading, "Neo Nazism consists of.."
Member stops JY
JY - just giving background
Member says no
JY says online it comes up that I'm a rascist..
MY - no
JC objects, lots of talk, obvious that JY shared info from earlier in hearing with MY.
MY is told that she is not supposed to be hearing anything (while outside in hallway), "you are a witness"
MY to JC - "you can object all you want"
MY then objects for her tax dollars to be used for hearing to be in session
MY - no doesn't target immigrants, yes certain immigrants
At this point Member calls out JC for laughing
JC says it was the "amazing impropriety of the question"
Member says JC knows JY is self represented (has higher standard for JC as lawyer)
MY - yes
JY wants on record that MY was using JY's Twitter
MY - by JY's side, reveiwing, seeing tweets
MY - by your side, reviewing, seeing tweets
JY shows MY a tweet )from JC's evidence submitted to lift the pub ban) it is tweet from JY to Lindsay Shepard & others about refusing service to people from India
JY? Write this?
MY - yes
- MY is supposed to testify re impact,
- JY is now improperly bootstrapping testimony in that JC has not been allowed to ask about during JY testimony.
- Having witness say she wrote the tweet
- on JY's official Twitter account
- JY made comments about immigrants
JC says he will bring an application to re- cross JY
Member says no dispute that tweets came from JY's Twitter under JY's name.
Breaking for the night.
Just before then he will try to bring in some of the enormous online evidence of JY's alleged period fetish.
JC begins by telling the Member that he wants to put on record 100's of tweets, web shots, FB posts (lots of SM) that he purports come from JY.
JC says he wasn't allowed to,ask JY about having a period but JY opened the door by asking MY about it. Says must defend his client to the extent of the law.
- JY being on a period (FB)
- working around the string (FB)
- where JY puts a tampon
Arose from above msgs that JY sent the first @JCCFCanada respondent - Member said then that JY only had to answer re ext. genitals not internal sex organs
MY says directly to JC "not going to happen"
JC says goes to JY's credibility on tampons, will file rebuttals, is germane to GD's defence
? Discussed your testimony (& what happened in hearing while MY was in the hall waiting to testify) with JY?
MY - no
MY - yes
? Said your tax $ shouldn't have been used for translator for repondent's father (2nd @JCCFCanada consolidated case)?
MY - yes, I am deaf, no translator (may be valid pt. if was needed but was JY's last minute witness, & JY/MY didn't ask)
? Why object for $ to help father from India?
MY - came to Canada, must learn English, can't rely on culture or religion to not provide services, not force on me, come to Canada to acquire certain (values)
MY - East Indians are forcing beliefs & culture while white people becoming minority
MY - doesn't have that protection, starts talking about Neo Nazis
? Yes, are terrible but why no protection from State re waxing?
JC - Goes to theory of the case. JY & MY are disproportionately targeting people of ethnic backgrounds, JY & MY's intolerance to immigrants, JY said MY used JY's Twitter
Member says JC can go a bit further
- JC lives in XXX
- XXX is way different
- in Surrey/Delta, certain racial groups provide certain services, can't get away from it
- lists examples, Vietnamese for nails, East Indians for waxing
MY - didn't call her that, but thinks MD is wasting MY's tax dollars by forcing her beliefs (on JY by denying service)
? How is MD forcing her beliefs?
MY - maybe not MD but SG (Sikh lady from @JCCFCanada consolidated case 2) did
(no anti-Semitic replies please, this is not about Jewish people - only MY's personal views)
?Why is Neo Nazism relevant?
MY - you asked if MD should have protection, I have no protection
JY wants photo cropped or removed, contractor is in picture, was from FB
Member - is okay for hearing, was already public
JY - says in MO v Whatcott that questions re photos allowed
- you have given evidence about the nature of your gender identity
- directly relevant as MD saw picture
JY then apologizes for "misgendering" Morgane Oger, says "all respect" to MO, didn't mean to use "dead name"
MY - no role
JY objects to JC asking this.
MY - not aware of complaints/discrimination, just saw a distressed daughter, can read JY "like the palm of my hand" but couldn't pinpoint problem, until JY came to her, "why and why and why" (re denials)
MY - no role
JY objects to JC having asked this question
MY - not aware of complaints and discrimination, just saw "distressed daughter", can read JY "like back of hand" but not pinpoint until JY came to her, says "why & why & why" (deny service)
MY - yes
? They should be compelled to provide services?
MY - yes
? Why impose JY's male genitals on other cultures?
MY - not going to talk about JY's gender id
Reminder that MY isn't supposed to know about testimony that took place before her turn to testify.
JC says it is a case of refusal of service on male genitals
JY interjects that MY is absolutely right, females are entitled to female services, genitalia doesn't matter
MY's testimony is complete.
(Strategic error on JY's part? JC very experienced, written better for developing and documenting arguments?)
- no new facts
- no new evidence
- can refer to the exhibits
- rely on expert testimony given
- ne exhibits only as they relate to costs.
JY allowed to get legal advice.
JY says it's already being brought up to the "governing bodies"
Discussion about dates, JY wants a month, goes for EOB Aug 6th, 2019 as date to submit closing.
JY then can submit a short reply by Sept 6th, 2019.
Member reminds JY that is a reply only to JC's closing, if already covered in JY's closing (if not responding to new arguments) do not include.
Member says write to both the Tribunal and JC.
Member now will give decision re lifting the pub ban on identifying JY.
Supporters of the waxing ladies seem to be holding their breath, collective release when Member announces that ban is lifted
- ban was interim measure
- only warranted in exceptional circumstances
- Tribunal is public - citizens have public interest in work of Tribunal
- granted because of complex nature of JY's gender identity, shield from harassment for being trans
- circumstances changed
- says JY tweeted re refusal for facial
- JY engages very publically
- say JY portray self as advocate for LGBT
- can't defend JY's privacy if JY doesn't
- would undermine the integrity of Tribunal
(I said when this happened that I doubted an appeal would succeed, now think no chance in hell if even filed since JY appears to have gone on whirlwind media tour)
Going to rename her TH for TOTAL HERO (!). Met TH as I was leaving this hearing. TH had been turned down by 26 lawyers when seeking help - they all told her to settle!
Can't go into the details why but all of the waxing ladies and all women supporting their sex based rights in BC & Canada owe TH an enormous debt of gratitude!
Thank-you TH! ❤️✊
>thread is finished<
Next (and I think last) hearing is tomorrow, July 26th at 10AM. It is consolidation of JY vs. 3 women/salons. No respondents are expected to be there. Will be going and taking notes. Hope to see you there. Till then...