Her Majesty the Queen has lost her discrimination case against Pro Bono Law Ontario.
In a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision on July 25, vice chairman David Muir rejected the applicant’s claim the organization acted in a discriminatory manner when it declined to assist with a civil suit for wages allegedly owing for the Queen’s reign. The organization argued the case had no reasonable chance of success.
The Queen, however, isn’t the head of state most of us think of when we hear that term. Instead, it’s someone who legally changed his first name to Her Majesty and his last name to Queen.
“Although he identified himself to the tribunal by his previous legal name, he has submitted documentation to the tribunal that appears to confirm his change of legal name, including a document of name change issued under the Vital Statistics Act, dated March 20, 2014,” wrote Muir in The Queen v. Pro Bono Law Ontario.
According to Muir, the Queen said he had schizophrenia and alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in Pro Bono Law Ontario’s decision not to assist him.
“At the hearing, I asked the applicant to elaborate on the reasons why he believes that the respondent would not assist him because he is a person with a mental health disability,” wrote Muir in summarizing the case.
“The applicant argued that he has been a consumer of psychiatric treatment and on various medications for many years. He argued as well that the fact that he is a person with a disability would be obvious to anyone who interacted with him. He agrees that the respondent advised him that it would not take his case because it appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success.”
In the end, Muir found no proof of discrimination.
“The applicant asks that an inference be drawn from the fact that he is a person with a disability and that the respondent would not provide him with assistance. In the circumstances of this case, no inference can be drawn from these facts.”
In a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision on July 25, vice chairman David Muir rejected the applicant’s claim the organization acted in a discriminatory manner when it declined to assist with a civil suit for wages allegedly owing for the Queen’s reign. The organization argued the case had no reasonable chance of success.The Queen, however, isn’t the head of state most of us think of when we hear that term. Instead, it’s someone who legally changed his first name to Her Majesty and his last name to Queen.
“Although he identified himself to the tribunal by his previous legal name, he has submitted documentation to the tribunal that appears to confirm his change of legal name, including a document of name change issued under the Vital Statistics Act, dated March 20, 2014,” wrote Muir in The Queen v. Pro Bono Law Ontario.
According to Muir, the Queen said he had schizophrenia and alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in Pro Bono Law Ontario’s decision not to assist him.
“At the hearing, I asked the applicant to elaborate on the reasons why he believes that the respondent would not assist him because he is a person with a mental health disability,” wrote Muir in summarizing the case.
“The applicant argued that he has been a consumer of psychiatric treatment and on various medications for many years. He argued as well that the fact that he is a person with a disability would be obvious to anyone who interacted with him. He agrees that the respondent advised him that it would not take his case because it appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success.”
In the end, Muir found no proof of discrimination.
“The applicant asks that an inference be drawn from the fact that he is a person with a disability and that the respondent would not provide him with assistance. In the circumstances of this case, no inference can be drawn from these facts.”
