MEDICINE HAT SAME-SEX COUPLE'S COMPLAINT AGAINST CITY OFFICIALS SENT TO TRIBUNAL
The Alberta Human Rights Commission’s acting chief has overturned a director’s order and referred a complaint from a same-sex couple to a tribunal.
The complaint was made by a Medicine Hat couple who allege City of Medicine Hat officials harassed them during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Complainants Michael Gray and Paul Hemsing owned and ran a hair salon in Medicine Hat, and during the pandemic they moved their business from a commercial property to their residence. They got a permit to operate the business from their home, which set conditions around their hours, number of customers and customer parking on the street.
They allege the City of Medicine Hat discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation and that the city treated them differently, imposing restrictions on their business that others did not have.
They also said city officers harassed them by constantly attending their home in response to complaints from neighbours. They also allege that the neighbours’ complaints were based on their disapproval of same-sex marriage and that the city was or ought to have been aware of this.
The City of Medicine Hat denied the allegations, stating officers attended the couple’s home several times due to numerous complaints from neighbours about the number of vehicles parked near their residence.
“It is understandable that (the complainants) found contact from inspectors intrusive. However, the information does not support that the city’s enforcement actions were excessive or harassing,” the director said in dismissing the complaints.
Evidence needed to establish link between sexual orientation and alleged harassment
After their complaints were dismissed, the couple asked for a review. In a May 6 decision, acting Alberta Human Rights Commission chief Evaristus Oshionebo, a University of Calgary law professor and the faculty’s interim dean, referred their complaints to a tribunal.
“The issue of whether the complainants’ sexual orientation or marital status were a factor in the attendance of their home-based business by the respondent’s officers is a genuine issue that can only be addressed in a full hearing of the complaints,” Oshionebo wrote in his decision, which stated that it “cannot be said that the complaints have no reasonable prospect of success.”
Oshionebo had found the information provided by Gray and Hemsing is “obviously not enough to conclude that their sexual orientation was a factor in the respondent’s attendance of their home-based business.
“However, based on the information, the complainants have alleged some facts, which if proved by evidence, could establish a link between the alleged adverse treatment (the incessant attendance of their business) and the protected ground of sexual orientation,” added Oshionebo.
Concluding his decision, Oshionebo wrote that discrimination is sometimes covert or subtle, and cases involving discrimination are often complex.
“Thus, only a hearing on the merits of the complaint can provide a platform for the complainant to call evidence to prove that there is a link between the alleged discrimination and the protected ground on which the complaint is brought,” he wrote.
2025-05-09T19:29:43Z