Minister silent on controversial human rights board appointment

The Human Rights Board of Adjudication has more people sitting on it than is permitted by law, and one of its newest members has been found by her fellow board members to have stereotyped attitudes toward first nations people.

The Human Rights Board of Adjudication has more people sitting on it than is permitted by law, and one of its newest members has been found by her fellow board members to have stereotyped attitudes toward first nations people.

Justice Minister Marian Horne is refusing to comment on either matter. Both have spurred formal complaints from the Yukon Human Rights Commission.

In May 2009, the legislative assembly passed an amendment to the Yukon Human Rights Act which, among other changes, limits the number of board of adjudication members to six.

But on Dec. 10, 2009, Horne added three names to the list, bringing the number of board members to eight.

The additions were passed by the members of the assembly, none of whom noted the excess.

The commission, which is separate from the board of adjudication, has sent a letter to the Justice minister asking her to fix the problem, according to commission chair Melissa Atkinson.

Speaking through a government spokesperson, Horne said she had no comment on the recent appointments nor the fact that they pushed the number of members over the legislated limit.

NDP house leader Steve Cardiff speculated it was likely a simple oversight, and one which will have to be corrected by Horne.

“I’m not sure where the minister is going to go with this,” he told the Star last week. “But obviously, something has to be done. Whether the legislation has to be changed or two people have to be taken off, it is the Justice minister’s responsibility.”

More concerning to the commission however, is the appointment of former Faro mayor Michele Vainio as an adjudicator.

In November 2008, while Vainio was still mayor of Faro, Horne appointed her to the board.

At the same time, the Town of Faro was the respondent in a human rights complaint lodged by a first nations man who said he was refused a job with the municipality because of his race.

Vainio was a councillor at the time the complaint was made, and was on the list of witnesses scheduled to give evidence at the human rights hearing.

In order to avoid any conflict of interest, she was not allowed to sit on the board of adjudication until the matter was settled. She has yet to participate in a hearing as an adjudicator.

During the human rights hearing, Vainio took the stand and said a number of things which have the people at the human rights commission very concerned.

Firstly, she said believes first nations people have a different sense of time and work than non-native people

In its final written decision, the board of adjudicators wrote: “The board finds that Councillors (Val) Benoit, Vainio and (George) Miller held some negative stereotypes about first nation people or Indians.”

In response to this finding, the commission has requested that Vainio not be allowed to sit on at least two upcoming human rights hearings which involve first nations people, according to chair Heather MacFadgen.

Secondly, she called the human rights commission “vexatious” and criticized its methods of investigating the complaint against Faro.

The human rights commission and board are two entirely separate bodies.

The commission receives human rights complaints, and when it cannot resolve them, sends them to the the board.

During a human rights hearing, the commission takes a position and the board of adjudicators acts as a panel of judges. Therefore, a pre-existing bias against the commission would be like a judge saying publicly that she does not like a particular lawyer.

The criticisms Vainio made during the hearing echoed those she made to Horne and other members of the legislature during public hearings into the Human Rights Act last year, before she was appointed to the board.

This puts her in a clear conflict of interest, Atkinson said.

Even if Vainio can overcome or forget her past gripes with the commission, the public may see her as having a conflict, Atkinson said.

“So now she’s going to judge us as a party after stating on the record that she has a pre-existing opinion of the process,” Atkinson said.

“Even if she doesn’t have that bias, there is a perception there.

“It’s important for the members to not have biases and to be perceived by the public not to have any biases .... The public needs to see there are checks and balance on the people who will be hearing their complaints.”

She added that this will be an issue as long as Vainio is on the board because the commission will always be involved in hearings.

When contacted by the Star for this story, Vainio, like Horne, said she had no comment on the matter.