Page: 8 [46] The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided against proceeding with the students’ complaint, concluding that it did not have jurisdiction. The Canadian Human Rights Commission also decided against proceeding with the complaint made to it. [47] The British Columbia human rights legislation implemented a regime under which the Commission could not refuse a timely complaint within its jurisdiction. A respondent could apply to dismiss a complaint prior to a hearing, but this was not done in this case. Maclean’s filed a substantive response to the complaints. The British Columbia complaints therefore moved forward to a hearing. Levant’s connections with the BCHRT proceedings [48] The defendant had several strong connections with the subject matter of the BCHRT hearing. At the time of the hearing, he was pursuing a campaign against human rights commissions. His publication – the Western Standard – had been the subject of two complaints under the Alberta human rights legislation, which were ultimately dismissed. Those complaints arose following the publication, in the Western Standard, of the Danish cartoons – controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The defendant testified that he decided to publish eight of the cartoons because no one else was publishing them and they were newsworthy. In January of 2008 he had been the subject of what he described as an interrogation regarding those complaints. [49] The defendant testified that as a result of the Alberta human rights proceedings against him he began to do a lot of reading and writing regarding human rights commissions. He was on a mission to “denormalize” them. He believed he could offer a unique perspective because he was a lawyer and had been personally involved in the human rights system. He devoted considerable time to that project starting in January of 2008. He testified that he wrote his book Shakedown in 2008, a book in which he described “his ordeal” and his views on human rights commissions. In his publications tendered at trial, and in his trial testimony, he repeatedly described them as “kangaroo courts”. [50] The defendant was particularly critical of the BCHRT that heard the complaint against Maclean’s. He described it as one of the most abusive tribunals. He described it as a third-rate troika of radical activists. [51] The defendant had a number of other connections to the matters at issue in the BCHRT hearing. He knew Mark Steyn and held him in high regard. Mr. Steyn had written for the defendant’s publication on a regular basis. Ultimately, Mr. Steyn wrote the Foreword for the defendant’s book Shakedown. The defendant was a fan of Mr. Steyn’s book America Alone. He was also an admirer of Mr. Whyte of Maclean’s. [52] Significantly, the defendant also had strong views about Dr. Elmasry, who was one of the British Columbia complainants. The trial evidence showed Dr. Elmasry to be a highly 2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII) Humans rights proceedings