Citizens for Safe Technology
Empowering the public to protect children
and nature from unsafe wireless technologies.
BC Human Rights Tribunal
These files are offered in connection with the BC Human Rights Tribunal proceedings, ongoing in the BC Court of Appeal.
BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL Introduction to Topic
Looking for a specific topic or a past article? Search for it below:
November 12, 2014
Class Action Lawsuit Update
Human Rights Tribunal Decision Update
What Happens Next?
Electroyperensitivity (EHS) has been rejected as a disability by the Human Rights Tribunal of BC (September 18, 2014)
Sad news. CSTS Human Rights case was dismissed by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. This was a class action on behalf of people with EHS, whose doctors said that they should avoid RF and not have smart meters.
Even though EHS is a recognized by the Human Rights Commission in Canada, the Americans with Disabilities in the US, and as a disability in other countries, the Tribunal chose not to accept evidence but rather to base its decision in large part on the evidence the BCUC accepted in the Fortis application.
Fortis BC paid a company (Exponent) to defend the smart meter. Exponent is a "product defense company" and has defended some of the most dangerous products in the world - pesticides, agent orange, asbestos, etc and now microwave radiation. They buy scientists who will produce reports saying anything is safe. One of their people said that our bodies emit more radiation than does a smart meter and the BCUC accepted that, while rejecting testimony from world renowned experts like Dr. Martin Blank, Dr. Isaac Jamieson and Dr. Meg Sears.
It's a sad day when the government is allowed, by the Human Rights tribunal, to come between a patient and his/her physician, but this is what has happened. Here is the decision for you to read.
This makes it more urgent for us to fight this re. fires, fee discrimination, and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The other class action lawsuit against BC Hydro over smart meters is still ongoing. That one represents all customers of BC Hydro (residential and business) who are unhappy about any aspect of the smart meter program (i.e., getting one if you didn't want it, getting one and later deciding you don't want it, being harassed and bullied for refusing to get one), whether or not you currently have a smart meter.
Join the Class Action HERE for residential customers.
Join the Class Action HERE for commercial customers.
News Coverage and Poll: Tribunal ends Anti-Smart Meter case (24 Hours Vancouver)
NB the poll results for "Do Smart Meters Pose a Health Risk" at time of this posting are
728 votes - 85% YES, 4% NO, 11% I DON'T KNOW but I don't trust BC Hydro assurances
Citizens for Safe Technology Society, Una St. Clair and others v. B.C. Hydro - Case Number 9854
BC Human Rights Tribunal Application Procedure (ongoing)
The following is submitted on behalf of Citizens for Safe Technology Society ("CSTS"), Una St. Clair and the approved Class ("the Complainants") in response to the submission by the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority ("BC Hydro") dated November 15, 2013 ("the BC Hydro Submission"). In support of this submission, various accompanying materials are being submitted in the form of electronic documents in PDF format which correspond to the document numbers cited herein.
I. RESPONSE TO ASSERTIONS OF FACT
A. Mischaracterization of complaint
B. Effect on public health generally
C. Identified by a physician as having a disability
D. EHS is aggravated or caused by exposure to radiofrequency emissions from Smart Meters
E. B.C. Hydro is obligated to provide the Complainants with options that would allow them to avoid having a wireless smart meter installed at their respective residences
F. Requirements of Clean Energy Act
G. BC Hydro not offering an opt-out to Class members upon whom installations have been forced
H. BCUC Grants FortisBC Permission?
I. Substantially identical arguments before the BCUC
J. The Davis action
II. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT: S. 27(l)(a) - BCHRT JURISDICTION
K. The Complaint is about health concerns, not discrimination
L. The purposes of the Code
M. The decision sought by the Complainants in this matter would require the Tribunal to venture into matters that do not come within the parameters of the Code.
N. Jurisdiction over opt-out fees
O. There is No Service-Provider Relationship
III. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT: Section 27(1)(c) - NO CHANCE OF SUCCESS
P. Applicable standard
Q. Is EHS is a physical disability for the purposes of the Code?
R. Controversy does not amount to conjecture
S. Complainants' material regarding EHS as a physiological state
T. Indirect relevance of facts showing adverse effects on public health
U. Individual vulnerabilities
V. Documents from BCUC proceedings
W. BCUC conclusions on EHS
X. Leading human rights jurisprudence
Y. Courts do not emphasize the precise cause of the handicap
Z. Focus on functional impairment and individual need
AA. "Medical diagnosis" is not necessary to disability
BB. Conclusion on legal principles
CC. Complainants afflicted with EHS?
DD. Adverse treatment
EE. Nexus or causal connection
IV. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT: Section 27(l)(d)(ii) - Proceeding would not further the purposes of the Code
FF. B.C. Hydro has Taken Steps to Address the Substance of the Complaint
V. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT: S. 27(1)(0 - The Complaint has been dealt with in another Proceeding
GG. About the FortisBC decisions
HH. Different parties
II. Different facts & issues
JJ. Not appropriately dealt with
KK. Subject to appeal
LL. Not a case of relitigation
To Attach to Analogue Meter: For people participating or planning on participating in the Human Rights Class Action Against BC Hydro (UPDATED December 20, 2012)
For those people participating or planning on participating in the Human Rights Class Action against BC Hydro re Smart Meters:
Attached is a No Trespassing Sign for Human Rights Tribunal participants. If BC Hydro attempts to force a smart meter upon you, advise them that you are a claimant in the Human Rights Action against BC Hydro and for that reason you must be left alone until the Tribunal decides. It is an offence for BC Hydro to harass a plaintiff.
Doctor's Information Package to be used as a tool to obtain a confirmation of physical reaction to RF fields from a medical doctor
BC Human Rights Tribunal Application Procedure
September 10, 2013
Hydro opposes the application to amend . . .
I was persuaded, however, to amend the class to address Citizens concern about the use of the word "diagnosis". Therefore, the class has been amended to those persons allegedly diagnosed or identified by a medical practitioner as having EHS who have been advised to avoid wireless technology . . .
(BC Human Rights Tribunal) Citizens for Safe Technology Society and Citizens for Safe Technology Society on behalf of Una St. Clair and other v. B.C. Hydro (Case No. 9854).
Includes letter attached from Member Marion regarding Tuesday's teleconference
A telephone conference call was held on September 10, 2013, to address an application to amend filed by the Complainants and other issues. In attendance on the call were Mr. David Aaron on behalf of the Complainants (Citizens") and Ms. Shelly Mae Mitchell and Mr Braden Hillis on behalf of the Respondent ("Hydro").
CST's Human Rights Tribunal class action as it relates to the recent BC Court of Appeal decision
CST's Human Rights Tribunal class action as it relates to the recent BC Court of Appeal decision:
On November 13, 2012, a B.C. Court of Appeal Judge concluded that "the applicants have not met the test for obtaining leave to appeal the reconsidered decision of the BCUC." The "applicants" in this case are Andrea Collins and the Citizens for Safe Technology Society. The "respondents" are the British Columbia Utilities Commission and BC Hydro and Power Authority.
Those of you who are following the ongoing legal proceedings need to know that, despite this judge's decision, the situation with the Human Rights Tribunal re smart meters is still very much underway, and that this decision in the Court of Appeal has by no means stopped the Tribunal process.
The Human Rights Tribunal is separate from the BC Court of Appeal. The public hearing in November was part of the legal process and, as the first and easiest avenue, it needed to be explored as a necessary step in a lengthy undertaking. It paves the way for further movement in the case.
At present, then, the BCUC has been challenged in the Court of Appeal and, for our part as "Citizens for Safe Technology", that step is accomplished.
By no means should you or any other Human Rights Tribunal applicant, or anyone else for that matter, conclude that there is no choice remaining, or that you can no longer refuse installation of a wireless smart meter.
Most certainly, if contacted by a BC Hydro representative, do not give your permission over the phone, and do not take any refusal signs down. More than ever, it is important to stand firm in your denial of permission to install a wireless meter. As long as you continue to pay your Hydro bill, it is most unlikely that your power will be shut off.
Hydro's effort to "work with customers" to enlighten us about the safety, security and harmlessness of the wireless meters, does not obligate us to accept them. Hydro's option to move the smart meter at our own expense is also unacceptable, as it is still invasive, costly and unhealthy, and simply moves the harmful technology to a new location, possibly closer to our neighbours' homes.
Despite Hydro and Corix's bullying tactics and false reassurances, the more people who remain firm about their refusal of a smart meter the better. Whatever anyone's reason for refusing: health, security, safety, risk of fire, cost, human rights . . . We have a democratic right to refuse to have wireless smart meters installed in or on our homes.
Keep an eye on the latest developments on the CST website:
The Action Kit is also helpful:
And here is the link to the Human Rights Tribunal material on our site:
Best of luck in making your decision!
. . . with respect to class definition
Re: Citizens for Safe Technology Society, Una St. Clair and others v. B.C. Hydro -and- Corix Utilities - Case Number 9854
In accordance with the Tribunal's memorandum of February 22, 2013, the Citizens for Safe Technology Society ("CSTS") hereby reply to BC Hydro's submissions of March 22, 2013, relating to the application by CSTS to amend its complaint with respect to class definition ("the Application").
Re: Citizens for Safe Technology Society, Una St. Clair and others v. B.C. Hydro -and- Corix Utilities - Case Number 9854
"In accordance with the Tribunal's memorandum of December 4, 2012, the Citizens for Safe Technology Society hereby applies to amend its complaint so as to define the class, on whose behalf the representative complaint is brought, to those individuals whose circumstances meet all of the following criteria:
1. The individual has been advised to avoid exposure to electromagnetic fields and/or electromagnetic radiation ("wireless technology");
2. The individual has a particular sensitivity to wireless technology such that, when exposed over a short or prolonged period, suffers from a physiological state and functional impairment consisting of one or more symptoms of ill health ("the EHS Symptoms");
3. The EHS Symptoms abate when exposure is eliminated; and
4. The EHS Symptoms fall within the class of symptoms that are associated (by medical experts) with electromagnetic hypersensitivity ("EHS").
The alleged association of the EHS Symptoms under the common umbrella of "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" is supported by expert opinion evidence (itemized at Appendix A to this submission) which is hereby tendered1 in support of the proposed amendment. . . .
Andrea Collins and The Citizens For Safe Technology Society, Appellants ( and British Columbia Utilities Commission and British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Attached is a copy of the Court of Appeal Judgement on November 13, 2012, as found by The Honourable Mr. Justice Chiasson, on appeals from British Columbia Utilities Commission, March 5, and June 22, 2012.
All Appellants and Respondents continue to have their own Counsels.
In this Appeal, Mr. Arron, the Appellants' lawyer, was arguing that the Clean Energy Act (CEA) doesn't require or even ask for wireless meters and therefore BC Hydro was operating outside the scope of the CEA and should have applied to British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) for a certificate of "public convenience and necessity."
Hydro's defence argued that because the CEA only refers to smart meters and doesn't specify that they be either wireless or wired, they have the right to install wireless meters.
On this point, our case was dismissed before it was heard by the Court of Appeal.
We believe that if a panel of three judges (Court of Appeal) had been given the opportunity to address the legal interpretation of the CEA, they would have agreed with the Appellants' lawyer.
One time donation: Click the donate button below and follow the instructions on the screen.
Monthly donation: If you wish to contribute every month, please select the amount from the Donation Options list below and click Subscribe. Your contribution will be sent for you every month for the amount you selected.
Citizens for Safe Technology (CST) is funded and supported solely by those who wish to help us. Thank-you for learning, sharing and helping if you can.
Meetings and events on the issue of wireless technologies in homes and communities throughout North America.
Click the button above to sign our online petition to return to hardwired computers in schools.
Click the button above to sign our online petition against Smart Meters in British Columbia.
Citizens For Safe Technology
"Wi-Fi: Is It Safe?"
Citizens for Safe Technology is a not-for-profit educational society made up of parents, grandparents, teachers, business professionals, scientists, politicians and lawyers concerned about the exponential increase in public exposure to harmful wireless technologies.
We believe a profound urgency exists to protect the unsuspecting public, especially children, youth and pregnant mothers from unsafe wireless technologies.
The content of the Citizens for Safe Technology website is provided for information purposes only. Information is subject to change without prior notice. Every effort has been taken to ensure that the information on this website is accurate, but no guarantees can be made.
Neither Citizens for Safe Technology nor its authors are liable for damages resulting from the use of information obtained from this site. The authors are not responsible for any contents linked or referred to from this website or any damages resulting from information on those sites.
The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the information on this site lies with the reader.