The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms says it has been retained to defend She Point Beauty Studio, which operates in Surrey and Vancouver, against a new human rights complaint filed by transgender activist Jessica Yaniv.
A press release posted on Tuesday by the Calgary-based JCCF, under the heading “Yaniv targets another East Indian beauty salon in new waxing complaint” states the “serial complainant” has male genitalia but self-identifies as female.
Last October, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed complaints Yaniv lodged against Blue Heaven Beauty Lounge and Sandeep Benipal, Suhki Hehar and Sukhi Beauty Dream Salon, Marcia DaSilva, Hina Moin, Pam Dulay, Judy Tran and Merle Norman, claiming discrimination based on gender identity and expression for refusing to provide waxing services.
Cousineau found that scrotum waxing “was not a service customarily provided by the respondents. As such, they did not deny Ms. Yaniv a service and did not discriminate against her.”
She concluded Yaniv “engaged in a pattern of filing human rights complaints which target small businesses for personal financial gain and/or to punish certain ethnic groups which she perceives as hostile to the rights of LGBTQ+ people.”
Cousineau ordered Yaniv, 32, to pay the respondents at total of $6,000, which she said “strikes the right balance in expressing the Tribunal’s condemnation of Mr. Yaniv’s conduct while not exacting too harsh a punishment on her.”
The respondents, however, maintained $15,000 to be “an appropriate amount.”
In this latest complaint, according to the JCCF, a hearing date has not yet been set but it’s anticipated it will proceed this year.
“Women have a constitutional right not to be compelled to touch biological males in an intimate or highly personal manner if they are not comfortable doing so,” said Jay Cameron, a lawyer and JCCF’s litigation manager. “Like male genital waxing, our client does not offer male leg waxing services to the public, and we intend to vigorously defend against this targeted harassment on behalf of our client.”