Off-Topic Debate beeble about Jonathan Yaniv and lawsuits -

beeble

kiwifarms.net
IIRC, if there's a refusal or inability to pay the fines, it can be ruled as criminal contempt, which carries a potential of jail time or community service. I remember when Jordan Peterson was warning that the unaccountable tribunals were going to get abused by gold-diggers, and he was told he was wrong.
Failure to comply with a court order like this would be civil contempt in Canada. Civil contempt can come with the punishment of jail time and/or fines. Punishment in civil contempt is meant as a remedial action to get the person who is failing to comply to follow the court order and in this case compensate the victims financially.

Are there any lawyers in this group from Canada? Does anyone know if you have a right to deny service to someone if you just don't like them? Yaniv is a proven racist, an alleged pedophile and, clearly, a predator. Do people that own businesses (any business) have a right to just say no, I won't serve you?
I'm not a lawyer but I do know that you can deny service as long as it isn't a discriminatory act against a protected group. If the people you don't like can't be shown to be chosen because they are in a legally protected group it would be fair game. If however it is found the people you don't like all follow a certain pattern and are part of a protected group(s) then there well could be a possible human rights violation.

If all the people you dislike are black, and you deny them service you better be able to prove that you aren't making that choice of disliking them because of the color of their skin.
 

Second Hand Syringe

My blood is poison
kiwifarms.net
I'm not a lawyer but I do know that you can deny service as long as it isn't a discriminatory act against a protected group. If the people you don't like can't be shown to be chosen because they are in a legally protected group it would be fair game. If however it is found the people you don't like all follow a certain pattern and are part of a protected group(s) then there well could be a possible human rights violation.

If all the people you dislike are black, and you deny them service you better be able to prove that you aren't making that choice of disliking them because of the color of their skin.
We know you're not a lawyer, Petch. You're just some overweight, middle aged, pederast weirdo who goes home to an empty house every night. You're also universally hated here.
 

beeble

kiwifarms.net
Did Devyn's ruling ever touch on whether or not a troon's rights trump those of a person's religious beliefs? Is there some sort of hierarchy of rights that would explain why a Sikh woman should have to be forced to touch a male that is not her husband?
They didn't make any ruling on that issue. the case that dealt with the potential religious issue, possible being uncomfortable given how they perceived Yaniv to be acting, and the fact there was a claim her husband wouldn't allow her to do waxing on a transgender person were covered in this statement on Page 28 of the ruling:
[97] Mrs. Hehar argued that she was justified in refusing service to Ms. Yaniv because of her religious beliefs and the conditions of her employment established by her husband. I do not find it necessary to decide this issue in light of my decision to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(e). What is significant in Mrs. Hehar’s case is the degree to which she is vulnerable and, as such, fits the profile of vulnerable women that have predominantly found themselves to be the targets of Ms. Yaniv’s complaints
In essence because of Janiv's abuse of the process (improper motives) no ruling had to be made on any of the points of that complaint.

Was Yaniv forced to pay legal fees for the women and salons he took to the kangaroo court the first time around?
No, there were only 3 monetary awards and none of them have to do with previous cases. Not all the victims in the BCHRT ruling got money. Only 3 of the 6 got $2,000 each for Yaniv's improper motives - Ms. Benipal, Ms. DaSilva, and Mrs. Hehar.

At this point, Salons should just have a “No Yaniv” clause and be done with it. If I were a salon, I would simply say there’s no room in the schedule and leave it at that knowing he’s a massive, violent ogrish man in a dress.
In theory businesses can do just that. Refuse service to Yaniv because they believe that they may feel physically or emotionally threatened; potentially abused; or targetted. Refusing services on such grounds are not discriminatory because these things have nothing to do with Yaniv being in any protected class(es). They would be based on Yaniv's actions and history which aren't protected.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elric of Melnibone

kiwifarms.net
I'm not a lawyer but I do know that you can deny service as long as it isn't a discriminatory act against a protected group. If the people you don't like can't be shown to be chosen because they are in a legally protected group it would be fair game. If however it is found the people you don't like all follow a certain pattern and are part of a protected group(s) then there well could be a possible human rights violation.

If all the people you dislike are black, and you deny them service you better be able to prove that you aren't making that choice of disliking them because of the color of their skin.
Basically all they would have to say is that they refuse to service him because he is a public nuisance that makes staff and customers uncomfortable and then when asked to prove it was not discrinatory based on a protected classification cite the last round of vexatious litigations. Criminal is not a protected class and neither is vexatious litigant. Check mate troon boy.
 

beeble

kiwifarms.net
How the hell does a proven pedo that wanted a clothing optional, no adults allowed swim party with children even have a leg to stand on/a continuous outlet to screw minority women over?
Hmmm. Yaniv tried (and the decision was deferred) for a 12+ (no upper range specified) where adults were allowed. The only restriction on adults was the stupid requirement that parents and guardians of children attending were not allowed. As for clothing it was tops optional, NOT all clothing optional. You still needed to be covered from the waist down.

Men and women in BC are legally allowed (by BC Supreme Court ruling) to be topless in public (let alone a privately booked topless event). As well BC Supreme Court has ruled that pools can't deny permits to nude or semi-nude events that follow all legal requirements. When it comes to private nude events pools in BC apparently cover the facility windows where applicable to prevent voyeurism from outside the privately booked area of the facility.
 
Last edited:

Short Stack

kiwifarms.net
Hmmm. Yaniv tried (and the decision was deferred) for a 12+ (no upper range specified) where adults were allowed. The only restriction on adults was the stupid requirement that parents and guardians of children attending were not allowed. As for clothing it was tops optional, NOT all clothing optional. You still needed to be covered from the waist down.

Men and women in BC are legally allowed (by BC Supreme Court ruling) to be topless in public (let alone a private topless event). As well BC Supreme Court has ruled that pools can't deny permits to nude or semi-nude events that follow all legal requirements. When it comes to private nude events pools in BC apparently cover the facility windows where applicable to prevent voyeurism from outside the facility.
So Ms Petch...What are your views on JYs tampon fetish?
He does seem to have a fetish for then doesn't he?
How do you explain or justify that Ms Petch?
 

Joseph Goebbels

kiwifarms.net
Failure to comply with a court order like this would be civil contempt in Canada. Civil contempt can come with the punishment of jail time and/or fines. Punishment in civil contempt is meant as a remedial action to get the person who is failing to comply to follow the court order and in this case compensate the victims financially.
You're an idiot Petch the Letch. Someone tweeted about the differentiation between Civil and Criminal Contempt. So I'm going to ask you respectfully, sit down and shut the fuck up until you're going to stop coming to the defence of the Predator Potato with such lame-brained claims as the above.

Twitter 20200107 2303EST Vexlit re Contempt.jpg

Twitter
Archive

Is committing fraud on the Court contemptuous? What about strategically beating a retard at chess? Somebody out there has been talking about the Waxers' lawyer having orchestrated a neat card trick on Yaniv. He says that on Dec 30, the day that Yaniv was orchestrating a malicious prosecution of Mr Smith, the Waxers actually received an endorsement from the Supreme Court that's gonna hopefully lead to seizure and sale of assets.

That's just the icing. The fat fuck dough-boy is going to be steam-rolled by his latest target. This is a bit OT, but it's addressing the stupidity of Petch the Letch, so that should render it fully on-topic. Recategorize if you wish.
 

beeble

kiwifarms.net
From that Tweet:

Civil contempt is where a person or corporation breaches a court order, and the nature of the conduct interferes with the interests of another private party.
And what I said was:

Punishment in civil contempt is meant as a remedial action to get the person who is failing to comply to follow the court order and in this case compensate the victims financially.
They key in both of these is that in the first is says "nature of the conduct interferes with the interests of another private party.". This is why it will almost certainly start out as civil contempt. The court order to pay 6,000 was an award to a third party (the aestheticians). And what I said is that civil contempt is a remedial action regarding the compensation of victims (a third party)

Is committing fraud on the Court contemptuous?
I haven't seen any fraud. I've seen a someone refuse to pay a court order $6,000 to 3 people. Stick with the actual facts and not the rhetoric. And as I said, the remedial nature of civil contempt charges can be fines and/or jail.

An example of criminal contempt might be like an individual being given conditions of release (after being arrested). Breaching such an order would be contempt of court that was intended to challenge the authoritative nature of a judge/agent of the courts. In such a case there is no third party (and not civil) as it would be all about the accused avoiding the proper administration of justice.

I never said that civil contempt can't rise to criminal contempt but for the moment this is pretty much Janiv failing to comply with a court order to pay a third party (aestheticians).

If Janiv doesn't pay we'll get to see whether this falls as civil or criminal, and I'm betting the farm (kiwi in this case I guess lol) on civil contempt.
 
Last edited:

beeble

kiwifarms.net
I'm not so sure about that, after a Syrian guy had a job offer that was dependent on his ability to legally work in Canada retracted because he wasn't legally able to work in Canada, went to the Ontario Human Rights Board, and got awarded $120k. I'm pretty sure the BCHRT can look to any precedent in the country.
I want to just clarify this a bit. Imperial Oil offered the individual a job that required him to be a Canadian Citizen/Permanent resident (the requirement was the ability to work on a permanent basis in Canada). Imperial Oil didn't renege on the offer because the fellow couldn't work on a permanent basis, but because he lied about his ability to work in Canada on a permanent basis. The Ontario HRT ruled that the fellow only lied to circumvent a discriminatory hiring practice. The HRT found that the lie was justified to avoid a discriminatory rule. Effectively what was found was that citizenship was not a valid occupational requirement and thus discriminatory and that lying about it was justifiable. The 120k was 4 years of pay he would have received plus 15k for personal damages.
 
Last edited:

Yaniv’s Hairy Balls

Behold them and W A X
kiwifarms.net
So what’s the point of white knighting Yaniv? I don’t really understand your point(s) you’re trying to make. Are you explaining the laws, justifying the kangaroo HRT committee meetings/laws, or throwing support behind Yaniv? I guess I’m asking what your angle is. And who are you? Ppl seem to know you around these parts but I’ve never seen you (and tbh yaniv grosses me out too much to spend too much time in his shit, in spite of the name).
 

Joseph Goebbels

kiwifarms.net
I haven't seen any fraud.
You're kinda stupid, you know Petch the Letch? Yaniv repeatedly lies to the court about his income, the "facts" changing to meet his most pressing needs.

Take his Civil Response to the legal action of Mr Smith. The one where he completed an affidavit in support of his fee waiver request? It looks like the Mook has a binder for CSO-VLC-S-S-1914076-Smith-v-Yaniv, but he's lacking the two fee waiver affidavits.. he posted a rant about CSO double-billing him for several previous Yaniv requests, so he might be pissed at them.

It would be interesting to see what Yaniv lies like in his affidavit to the court "justifying" his fee waiver.
  • 20191216 Affidavit in Support of Order to Waive Fees - Dr Jessica Jonathan Yaniv
  • 20191212 Affidavit in Support of Order to Waive Fees - Mr Donald Francis Smith
VLC-S-S-1914076-20191217-Documents.jpg

If you really wanted to set things straight, you could try contacting the Mook and setting him straight that Yaniv isn't really that bad. That guy sounds pissed that Yaniv targeted Smith and defrauded the courts with a (supposedly) malicious prosecution. Funny thing about defrauding the Courts and Crown, is what we'll see.

VLC-S-S-1914076-20191216-Dr-Yaniv-re-Affidavit-in-Support-of-Fee-Waiver.jpg
 
Last edited:

beeble

kiwifarms.net
You're kinda stupid, you know Petch the Letch? Yaniv repeatedly lies to the court about his income, the "facts" changing to meet his most pressing needs.
My comments are all in reference to the BCHRT case that was ruled on late last year. In that matter of owing $6,000 to 3 aestheticians there hasn't been fraud. In the BCHRT case, the amount of income Yaniv earns didn't matter (besides the assumption it was greater than $0). Only that Yaniv had "income" and owned a business. The ruling awarded the victims compensation with no idea what Yaniv made.

Page 59 of the BCHRT ruling stated:
[198] I have no information about Ms. Yaniv’s ability to pay any award, aside from the fact that she is a business owner and has income.
It is pretty clear, didn't matter except the assumption that Yaniv had income and was a business owner. Yaniv could make a billion dollars a year or 1 cent. Her business could be worth a billion dollars or nothing. Yaniv might have a trillion dollars in assets or nothing. Didn't matter.

Failing to pay the $6000 is also not fraud. It is likely going to be contempt of court if it isn't paid.
 

Joseph Goebbels

kiwifarms.net
My comments are all in reference to the BCHRT case that was ruled on late last year. In that matter of owing $6,000 to 3 aestheticians there hasn't been fraud. In the BCHRT case, the amount of income Yaniv earns didn't matter (besides the assumption it was greater than $0). Only that Yaniv had "income" and owned a business. The ruling awarded the victims compensation with no idea what Yaniv made.

Page 59 of the BCHRT ruling stated:

It is pretty clear, didn't matter except the assumption that Yaniv had income and was a business owner. Yaniv could make a billion dollars a year or 1 cent. Her business could be worth a billion dollars or nothing. Yaniv might have a trillion dollars in assets or nothing. Didn't matter.

Failing to pay the $6000 is also not fraud. It is likely going to be contempt of court if it isn't paid.
Liquid assets matter when applying to the courts for a fee waiver. Yaniv has three matters before the civil law courts in British Columbia. Just one of those is the Waxologists' judgment enforcement. The others are the Physiotherapist and the Tard Fight. Pay attention.

Yaniv lied or told the truth on his indigency app (fee waiver affidavit) and the affidavit is public record. Technically, the BCHRT matter has moved to BC Supreme for enforcement.

Screenshot 2020-01-08 at 224354H.jpg
 
Tags
None