n/

Post Reply New Topic

n/a

Last edited by Mw99 on 28 Feb 2009, 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have found professionals, acting in a professional manner to be quite open to acting like I am an adult with the same rights and privileges of other citizens. Often a DX is not in evidence in a court unless it IS the issue.

There are more folks here that would know about legal matters, but contacting your local Legal Aid Society would get you a legal advocate and you could run your questions by them. We sometimes think we know all there is to know about stuff, and shoot ourselves in the foot.

good luck,

Merle

In Canada, that kind of bias/discrimination is illegal in a court of law.

To tell the truth, I have very little trust in the court (note that I do not say justice) system. The court system favors those with the most money and the best liars.

The "justice" system is like "U.S. intelligence" or civil war(war is not civil). The very name is an oxymoron.

Any even less experienced judge saw in his job any kind of people - it is part of their profession not to take anything outside the fact in a case into account for their judgement.

If this is civil proceeding often the most important part will be anyway the written submissions and less the actual verbal actions in court.

If that happens then you make an appeal. If that fails, go to the papers and any other media outlet you can think of.

n/a

Last edited by Mw99 on 28 Feb 2009, 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would even say that Aspies may can handle a court situation better than NTs: In court emotions are not important; important are facts and the clear development of argumentations. It is not important what you feel, but what you did, the nature of a contract or similar issues.

To dismiss a lawsuit against a person on mental reason is quite difficult, because independent of the mental state the court has to look into the facts presented and not into the mental state of the parties involved. If your mind is clear enough to enter a legal binding contract, there should be no reason that the court shall dismiss your arguments.

Well, what I notice, unless it's very serious, they try to talk you into arbitration instead of spending money and time in court. A lawyer can counsel you.

I'm sure you heard it before: there are lawyers who know the law, and the ones who know the judge. Get the one who knows the judge; you'll have better odds of winning the case. Sure, it might be "unethical", but when you're fighting against a society that chews up and spits out any aspie it comes across, this action is perfectly fair.

I've had problems with tribunals, because when I try to talk about my point of view, they don't know what I'm talking about (the perils of being from an invisible demographic). My building manager and the Residential Tenancy Office tribunal both assumed I was bothered by neighbours' noise because of my special sensitivities, rather than because the noise was too loud, because of my disability. (I don't think my building manager ever even checked to see how loud it actually was.) Ruling that way is obviously blatantly discriminatory but they did it, and when I went to the human rights tribunal I was unable to make my case because even though it was obvious, I didn't know how to frame it so it would be obvious.

So, yes, your disability can be used against you. Especially if, like me, you cry or get angry easily under stress.

What I've seen with human rights tribunals is that it is fairly easy to make a case when the person you file a claim against doesn't mount a defense, and the settlements can be quite large. But when the person you file against mounts a defense, it becomes almost impossible to make your case. So human rights legislation does not work as well as it should.

I agree with this.

I've been fighting a medical negligence case arising from the wrongful treatment of a physical injury. Part of the claim is for loss of earnings. They are trying to say that I haven't suffered such loss of earnings, because I'm Aspie, and I so I wouldn't have been working anyway, or at least that's their argument.

It's weird, it's like I'm on trial for being Aspie. Even though they've actually admitted negligence in their treatment, and so we're just haggling over numbers for the compensation, you'd literally think from their arguments that I'm the one who is on trial, and not them. Astonishing. I would never have had these arguments before being diagnosed as Aspie.

I am bit surprised to learn that Canada has special "human rights tribunals"; from the continental tradition the human rights are the supreme law of the country, which has to be therefore maintained by the ordinary courts and only few cases go the sole dedicated court for human rights, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

n/a

Last edited by Mw99 on 28 Feb 2009, 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think the human rights tribunals are for cases that aren't covered by other types of tribunals, like the Residential Tenancy Office. The other tribunals like RTO are supposed to follow human rights legislation but don't always. If they don't you take it to Judicial Review instead of the human rights tribunal, but that's actually much harder because it's not in plain English like the tribunals. I wasn't able to take my discriminatory ruling to Judicial Review because I couldn't get legal help: the lawyer I spoke to who handles charity cases like me wouldn't help me because he said I needed to have a chance to win my case, and I needed a witness I didn't have for that. They can discriminate all they want if you'd lose anyways.

The human rights tribunals don't handle discrimination in other tribunals, only discrimination by employers, landlords, etc. All this is what you figure out the hard way as you get the procedure wrong over and over again.

We have both provincial and federal human rights tribunals. Michelle Dawson won her case against Canada Post in the federal tribunal, since it was their jurisdiction. At least someone won something.