Gay Hairdressers Discrimination Complaint against Medicine Hat Heads to Tribunal

- The complainants, a same-sex married couple, operated a hair salon from their home after moving their business due to COVID-19 disruptions.
- They obtained a Home Occupation Development Permit from the city, which included restrictions on operating hours, customer numbers, and parking.

- They alleged that:

- The city discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation and family status (protected grounds under the Alberta Human Rights Act).
- The city imposed stricter restrictions on their business compared to others.
- City officers harassed them by frequently inspecting their home-based business in response to neighbor complaints, which they claimed were motivated by anti-LGBTQ+ bias.

City’s Defense:

- The city denied discrimination, stating that inspections were due to legitimate neighbor complaints about excessive parking and business activity.
- They argued that enforcement actions were standard and not based on the complainants’ sexual orientation.
- The Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission initially dismissed the complaints, finding:
- The city acted reasonably in enforcing permit conditions.
- No evidence that enforcement was excessive or discriminatory.

Tribunal’s Review & Decision:
- The Acting Chief of the Commission and Tribunals, Evaristus Oshionebo, reviewed the case under Section 26 of the Alberta Human Rights Act.
- The key legal question was whether the complaints had "no reasonable prospect of success."
- The Tribunal found:
- Conflicting evidence on whether neighbor complaints were motivated by bias.
- Discrepancies in inspection records (e.g., city claimed visits within the limitation period, while the Director initially said otherwise).
- Subtle discrimination cases require a full hearing to assess credibility and evidence.

Result: The Tribunal overturned the Director’s dismissal and ordered a full hearing to determine if discrimination occurred. The decision highlights that human rights complaints with contested facts or potential bias should proceed to a hearing rather than being dismissed early.

Paul Hemsing says he’s a fan of the show!

A human rights complaint filed by a local same-sex couple against the City of Medicine Hat will proceed to a tribunal after Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) Acting Chief Evaristus Oshionebo overturned an earlier dismissal of their case.

Michael Gray and Paul Hemsing, business owners and former city council candidates, allege they faced discriminatory enforcement when operating their home-based hair salon during the COVID-19 pandemic. The couple claims city officials excessively monitored their business while ignoring similar complaints about others, suggesting bias played a role.

After relocating their salon to their residence in 2021, Gray and Hemsing obtained a permit with standard conditions—limited hours, customer caps, and parking rules. However, they argue bylaw officers targeted them with frequent visits, often in response to neighbor complaints they believe were motivated by homophobia.

The City of Medicine Hat denies any discrimination, stating enforcement was strictly complaint-driven and unrelated to the couple’s sexual orientation. An AHRC director initially dismissed the case, finding no evidence of harassment.

In a May 6 decision, Oshionebo ruled the complaint warranted a full tribunal hearing. While noting the evidence wasn’t conclusive, he emphasized that discrimination cases often require deeper examination.

“The issue of whether the complainants’ sexual orientation or marital status were a factor in the attendance of their home-based business by the respondent’s officers is a genuine issue that can only be addressed in a full hearing,” he wrote.

Hemsing, who ran for city council in 2021, has long criticized municipal transparency. During his campaign, he advocated for fewer closed-door meetings, stating:

“I just wanted to be way more dynamic and way more transparent… less of the in-camera meetings if possible. I don’t know if I have the power to encourage that, but I think if a group of people creates that common theme… the citizens of Medicine Hat are having a little bit of begrudgment against council… because they just don’t know what’s going on.”

The tribunal will now assess whether the city’s enforcement crossed into discrimination or was simply overzealous bureaucracy. For Medicine Hat’s LGBTQ+ community, the case raises questions about fairness in civic enforcement.

The tribunal will review witness testimony, enforcement records, and neighbor complaints. Its decision could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in smaller cities where social biases may persist beneath the surface.