First of all - there's no presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Usually it's up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant actually broke the law. But when it comes to the "human rights complaints" - it's up to the defendant to prove his innocence. The usual rules of defense too don't apply in the "human rights tribunals". Truth is not a defense and the main consideration is given not to the actual laws but to the... hurt feelings of the complainer. Especially if the latter belongs to a protected minority group.
Therefore, it's ok for a homosexual to post a classified ad which reads "Man seeking boys.... age not so relevant". But when a Catholic activist distributes flyers that include a photocopy of that same ad - the "committee" finds it a hate crime and... bans Bill Whatcott for life from publicly criticizing homosexuality.
Proof of crime beyond reasonable doubt? Forget it! A mere assumption is enough for a man to be found guilty. Just as it happened to an Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin, who wrote a letter to the editor, expressing his opposition to introducing homosexual lifestyle to elementary school children - and whom the Alberta "human rights commission" has found "indirectly responsible" for an assault on a homosexual teenager.
There was little investigation (if any) on the assault itself. Those who did it were never found, thus there was no way one could find out whether they even read the paper where Stephen's letter was published. But Lori Andreachuk, the only adjudicator in the case, believed that "there was a circumstantial connection". So she delivered her ruling without bothering to seek any proof to her claims.
Right to an attorney? A complainer gets all his legal expenses paid by the taxpayers. But the defendant must pay for his own legal defense. Thus, unless you carry a few $10,000 treasury notes in your pocket, you don't even get the minimum legal defense that is available to anyone facing criminal charges.
And finally - a "human rights commission" can make certain actions retroactively criminal. That's something that is never used in a civilized world. No laws could be applied retroactively. Nobody could be prosecuted for an action which was legal at the time it was committed. But even that rule doesn't apply to a "human rights tribunal".
It takes someone's words or actions - words and actions that were entirely legal at the time they were uttered or committed - criminalizes those words and actions, and then retroactively punishes the newly created "criminals".And yet those establishments are called the "human rights commissions". Could there be anything more Orwellian?
There is no way for anyone to learn what is deemed to be illegal by the CHRC, because Commissioners create the laws as they go along, while prosecuting retroactively. The only way for citizens to protect themselves from attacks from the CHRC is to live in fear that any word they say or any act they may perform must first be viewed through the CHRC prism. And to remain quiet.