Ezra Levant calls Daniel Varnals at the BC Human Rights Tribunal about a March 2021 complaint from Jonathan Yanee, a "serial, vexatious litigant" dismissed in court for abuse. Yanee’s claim—under Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code—alleges Rebel News discriminated against him based on disability, gender identity, and other protected grounds by publishing critical content; Varnals confirms the complaint meets procedural thresholds but lacks proof. Levant warns of potential monetary penalties or speech restrictions, though costs are rare unless misconduct is severe, and insists he’ll fight it legally and publicly to defend Canadian freedom of speech. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm the president of Rebel News, and I've just received the BC Human Rights Tribunal complaint complained by the complainant is named as Jessica Simpson.
We know that person by several names.
And I'm just calling because I haven't been part of the BC Human Rights Tribunal process.
And it looks like I can call you to ask some very basic questions.
Is that right?
Yes, yes.
Excellent.
The first question, is this a good time right now?
Do you need to get the file in front of you?
Or do you know the one I'm referring to?
I know the one you're referring to because I sent it earlier this morning, so it's sort of fresh in my head.
Excellent.
I don't have it right in front of me at this moment.
But nonetheless, go ahead, and I'll see if I can answer your questions.
Thank you.
My first question, I'm honestly a little bit surprised because when I looked at it, it says that this was received by the Human Rights Tribunal in March of 2021.
It's stamped in the big red stamp on the complaint.
You saw that, of course, right?
Yes.
I'm aware of that.
So that's three and a half years ago.
Are you sure this complaint is still current?
I don't know what you mean by current, but it just reflects the delay that we have due to the volume of cases and the resources available.
It's an unfortunate circumstance that it wasn't served much earlier than this, but nonetheless, it is now being served.
It's a delay that's been experienced just across the board of the tribunal, and many of our complaints are not getting out as promptly as they ought to.
Okay.
Are you sure that the complainant still wants to proceed?
Like the complainant may have a different point of view three and a half years later.
Like, are you certain that this is still even wanted by the complainant?
How do you, like, can I ask when the last time this was refreshed?
Because it seems pretty stale.
We've sent a communication to the complainant.
And the complainant has not indicated that they don't want to participate any further.
They've not indicated as such, but they have been notified recently that these complaints will be moving forward shortly.
Okay.
And you said you didn't.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Got it.
So you're saying you haven't heard back either way.
Well, I can't remember the footing of the notice.
I mean, we informed the complainant that this complaint would be moving forward.
And if they, you know, if they don't want to withdraw, if they want to withdraw, if they don't want to proceed, they could notify us and have it notified us if they don't want to proceed.
So the complaint is proceeding.
We're very familiar with this complainant because he's a serial, vexatious litigant.
He sued us in court last year.
And we applied for an anti-slap application.
Do you know what SLAP stands for?
Strategic litigation against public participation.
So he filed this nuisance suit against us.
We went to the court and the court threw out the case saying that the complainant was just doing it to be abusive and vexatious.
Are you aware of that?
I'm aware of some of the background of this individual, but I'm not, no, I'm not aware of that specific.
Okay, because it's pretty clear to me that this is just another nuisance suit.
And since this was filed three and a half years ago, when I was a young man still, several courts have weighed in on the complainant.
Not just the anti-slap litigation that we won, but just a few weeks ago, we went to court to remove a false publication ban that this plaintiff had managed to convince a judge to put over some, he was harassing some guy and managed to convince a court to put a publication ban on it.
We went to court and had the judge lift the publication ban and the court thanked us for it because this complainant is such a serial nuisance litigant.
So the reason I'm calling you is not just to say your complaint is very stale, but it's to point out that you are dealing with British Columbia's worst vexatious litigant.
He's abusive of legal processes.
He's using the BC Human Rights Tribunal as a weapon in a vendetta.
It's not a legitimate claim.
Various courts have slapped him down for abusing the system.
And I want to make sure you are aware of that because he's doing the same here.
What do you think about all that?
The tribunal is aware of some of what you're referencing.
Nonetheless, the complaint was reviewed and accepted for processing.
And it was served and you received that service.
If you want to bring to light any of these things, you can do so by way of your complaint.
And the tribunal then may give you the opportunity to file an application to dismiss.
But nonetheless, the complaint's been served.
I've been instructed to serve it.
I'm not the person in charge of making these decisions about whether or not complaints go forward.
I was instructed that this one is, and I have served it.
I really can't sort of engage with you about that decision because that's not mine to make.
I was instructed to serve the complaint and the complaint was served.
Can I ask who made the decision to go ahead with it?
Do you know?
It's whoever screened the complaint.
It's one of the tribunal has a screening process.
Review it and they determine, okay, is this, is this set forth enough that the complaint can move forward?
And it's.
It's done by the tribunal.
There's a screening process that takes place.
I can't give you the name of that individual, but but it was screened and determined that it should move forward.
Got it now?
Human Rights Code Dispute00:06:04
I just want to say one last thing.
I don't.
It sounds like you reviewed the case and then just served it this morning, which is why I'm calling you.
We are a news organization.
We're not so, and if you read the complaints, what Jonathan Yanee is complaining about are news reports and editorial opinions expressed by our journalists.
We're not like a landlord who kicks him out or a restaurant who refused to serve him, like we didn't have any interaction with him that he would have a right to, like rent a room or something.
He's using this system to complain against our freedom of speech.
You realize that right, you realize that, like I have it in front of me here, he he claims we insulted him and and perhaps we did.
I'm not conceding anything.
I think we were just giving our genuine opinion, but why are you allowing him to use the human rights tribunal, which is meant to protect people from being kicked out of an apartment or protect people from being fired for racism, why are you letting him use that to silence journalists?
The the bar to be having that complaint accepted and moving forward to screen it in it merely meets need needs to allege a violation of the human rights code.
This person has alleged a violation of this the human rights code is.
The file has been reviewed and determined that at least it alleges that and so it's going forward.
But which section?
Like help me out here.
I mean, it's just this is sort of a crazy person's complaint written in capital letters, like I'm.
It's not a real legal document.
He clearly did this by himself.
I'm trying to find okay, so I'm just going through it here.
He lists what he says is the harm.
He lists, like I'm just trying to see what section of the act he alleges we've violated it's.
I don't even see that here.
Am I missing it?
The human rights code well, I this.
I mean, like it says in the letter that was sent that there's, alleges that Rebel JEWS Network Limited discriminated on the grounds of mental disability, physical disability, gender identity or expression, sex and sexual orientation in the area of publication, contrary to the human rights code.
That.
That's what it alleges.
So you're at.
So in the area of publication, okay, so I forgot.
BC still has that draconian censorship provision on the books.
Let me just, if you've got a few minutes, stay with me.
I forgot that other jurisdictions have removed that, the federal jurisdiction.
But publication let's take a look.
Section seven, a person must not publish, issue or display any statement publication, etc.
That indicates discrimination.
But we're not discriminating likely to expose a person or group or class to hatred or contempt.
All right, so you just go on full censorship.
You're not saying that we've discriminated in accommodation or service.
You're just, you're doing the censorship play.
Section 7.
Is that right?
Section 7 discriminatory publication?
It was accepted.
Yes, it was accepted under the area of publication.
Got it.
So what you're doing is you are putting rebel news on trial because Jonathan Yanieve says our editorials violate the law.
So you're not claiming that we denied him a service or accommodation or anything.
You're just full out saying we're not allowed to say what we said.
I'm not saying anything.
I'm telling you, you can read that paragraph.
It says that it was accepted for processing under the area of publication.
And what are the penalties that could happen?
It's been a while since I've been brought before a Human Rights Commission.
After I just totally clobbered the Human Rights Commissions in Alberta 10, 15 years ago, they sort of wisely decided to stay away from me.
But I guess you guys out west are braver than the other ones.
What could happen to me if I'm convicted here?
What are the penalties?
Do you know?
Well, there can be monetary compensation could conceivably be awarded to a complainant, some kind of order not to continue to cease the discriminatory actions.
Our story, so you could order us not to talk about him anymore?
Well, not to discriminate, to cease the discrimination.
We don't deal with him at all.
We've never, by discrimination.
You know what I'm saying?
As a general matter, you can go to our website.
You can look up the remedies that are available under the Human Rights Code.
Now, if he loses, do we get any costs awarded against him?
No, normally not under our process.
There is a provision for costs, but it usually has to be sort of fairly egregious misconduct on the part of the complainant.
This guy is pretty confused mostly.
There is some limited scope, but you can take a look at our website.
There is a place, an information sheet on costs and when costs can be awarded.
Okay.
I have one more question for you.
And I don't mean this in any rude way.
Your name is Daniel Varnals.
Is that Mr. or Miss?
More Info Please00:01:16
Or how do you like to be worshipped?
It's Mr. I'm a May.
I'm a male.
Okay, I apologize.
I just didn't quite, I couldn't quite tell with your voice, so no offense meant.
I apologize if that.
You're not taken.
No problem.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Well, I think you've answered some of my questions.
I'm not thrilled with the answers, but we're going to contest this in a way that has never been contested before.
We are going to fight in the court of law and in the court of public opinion, and we are going to fight for freedom of speech.
So we're going to actually try and turn it into a teaching moment for freedom of speech in Canada.
That's what we're going to do.
Okay.
There's more information about our process on our website.
So, you know, I guess if you need more information, there's lots of information there.
But, you know, if you have questions about our process, I can try and answer them for you.
But generally, they're all available on our website.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, thanks very much for being so candid with me.