Thomas Molloy's wrongful dismissal case is once again being considered by the Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication.

The board, which hears complaints from the human rights commission, is deliberating after hearing a half-day of verbal arguments, and receiving hundreds of pages of written submissions.

Molloy claims he was fired from his job with the Yukon Tourism Education Council (YTEC) because of his criminal record, which includes several convictions for fraud, multiple sex assaults and spousal assault.

He was also charged with molesting an infant, but was acquitted.

In late 2004, YTEC hired Molloy, who now lives in Alberta, to teach a course to Yukon government employees.

He was abruptly dismissed when several women in the class learned of his violent history and complained about having him as an instructor, saying they no longer felt safe in his classroom.

Molloy launched a human rights complaint against YTEC and the government, which had contracted YTEC to provide customer service training for its staff.

The claim against YTEC was eventually dropped, but Molloy and the human rights commission continued to pursue the case against the government.

The first time his case was heard by the human rights board, it was dismissed because the panel found there was no evidence Molloy was employed by the government; therefore the government could not discriminate against him.

The human rights commission, a separate body which receives and investigates complaints, appealed the decision.

Justice Harvey Groberman granted the appeal, saying that although the government did not hire Molloy, it did interfere with his employment, and therefore engaged a unique section of the Yukon Human Rights Act.

Now the human rights commission, represented by Corinne McKay, is rearguing its case that by withdrawing its employees from the training session, the government caused YTEC to fire Molloy.

"It's important to understand why we made the appeal,” commission director Heather MacFadgen said yesterday. The commission is not going to bat for Molloy, but for the employment section of the Yukon Human Rights Act, she said.

"The section in the act is written very broadly,” she said.

The Yukon act does not specify that only the employer can interfere with an employee's job, she pointed out.

"It's broader language than in other jurisdictions, and the (human rights) board of adjudication interpreted it very narrowly.

"The human rights commission saw that as an error of law.”

The commission has already won part of its battle, she said.

"Now we have a precedent from the Supreme Court of Yukon clarifying and explaining our act and how it applies to employment.

"It says no one, not just no employer, can interfere with a person's employment based on their criminal record.”

Molloy did not make any written arguments to the board, but he appeared by telephone Thursday and spoke at length about his criminal record, repeatedly saying it is not as bad as it appears.

"From time to time, people plead guilty for things, for whatever reason, they did not commit,” he said of his most recent assault conviction.

"... Unfortunately, I pled guilty to that because of circumstances at that time.”

Molloy was charged after he went to his wife's office, allegedly threatened her, and physically blocked her exit when she tried to escape.

His then-wife, Donna McBee, refused to press charges, but police went ahead with the case based on evidence from other witnesses.

"The stories were taken and exacerbated and blown out of proportion,” Molloy said of accusations that he beat his wife.

Molloy has a history of being physically and sexually abusive to his partners. An Ontario judge is on the record calling him a "poisonous spider” and casting serious doubt on his reliability as a witness.

"I confess it is almost scary listening to this cool, collected man speaking so softly and lying through his teeth,” the Ontario judge said of Molloy's testimony in a 1997 harassment trial.

Yukon government lawyer Peter Csiszar told the board not to believe Molloy's testimony that a government manager told him he was being fired because of his criminal record.

"We say he lied to the original panel,” Csiszar said bluntly.

The connection between Molloy's publicized criminal record, the women's complaints about having someone who was known to have threatened a government employee while she was at work, and Molloy losing his job "is an extremely long bow,” Csiszar said.

None of those women gave evidence before the board, he pointed out, so the board would have to jump to conclusions to make the connection.

"I testified under oath and I told the truth,” Molloy countered. "... I believe my evidence should be accepted because I know I was telling the truth.”

But even if the board accepts Molloy's assertion that he was explicitly fired for his record, Csiszar said, it should consider the fact that his past crimes do make him an unsuitable employee.

A man who has committed "several sexual assaults against multiple women” shouldn't be teaching government employees, he said.

Again, Molloy contradicted Csiszar, pointing out he was convicted of sexually assaulting just one woman on multiple occasions.

He said he wasn't trying to minimize what he did, but just set the record straight.

"At what point are my rights due to be protected?” he pleaded. "... At what point do I have the right to earn a living and participate in society?”

Donna McBee Molloy also complained to the human rights commission in relation to the whole affair, after she was fired for recommending her husband for the teaching job. She won that case.

It's not known when the adjudication board will make a decision on Thursday's testimony.