I’m not aware of this case. Is it something to do with JP?
At one level, it completely makes sense that laws should be clear.
At another level, it’s not realistic. No-one can ever account for all the possible scenarios that could ever unfold. Even those extra-long contracts that people don’t bother reading don’t even come close.
There’s a tendency to legislate principles, not just specific actions. Think about it. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – what exactly are those?
People tend to agree about life and think of it as a simple, binary question. But then there prolonged disappearances, and comas, and brain deaths (while the other organs remain alive), and partial births, and fetuses, and embryos. There’s even medical “death” that people come back from, occasionally even during their own funerals. Reasonable people tend to agree on the principle of life but disagree on the details.
What is liberty? Is it a simple, binary question like being or not being behind bars? It might seem so, but then you get lockdowns with varying levels of severity, plus prisons with varying levels of luxury – “like hotels” as they said to Tony Montana… 
And happiness, well, that’s a bigger can of stuff.
And those three basic principles came up hundreds of years ago. Nowadays there are more laws about more stuff, which in some ways make things clearer, but there are also laws about things that literally didn’t exist before and about concepts that either hadn’t been conceived or didn’t come onto people’s radar in the past. So it can get confusing.
So how do you figure out how any given law will actually be interpreted if and when the time comes? You look at the principles and precedents, and in many cases that means you need to ask what would a reasonable person think?
There is no law saying thou shalt say zie, and there is no plausible path to it using existing law, as long as reasonable people tend to agree that it’s outrageous because zie isn’t even a proper word.
You keep saying this like the only other option is to remove all protections of discrimination. I am not for discrimination and I do not want it to happen. What people are saying here is that we should consider how specific legislation is written. People have brought up flaws of the bill at hand, but you keep deflecting like the only other way is to just allow discrimination.
What? It’s easy. They could just add the legalese equivalent of “This human rights legislation does not apply to pronoun usage.” Job’s a good 'en.
Now, before you do what you usually do I am NOT arguing that this should happen. But it could happen, and it would solve the pronoun issue. Or am I missing something here?
No one is asking it to cover all scenarios. You really couldn’t add that accidental misgendering isn’t a form of discrimination and the court must prove beyond misgendering as a form of discrimination?
For example, calling a transman she over and over again can’t be enough as a form of discrimination. Calling a transman she over and over again and beating them up or refusing to let them in the building can be used to prove discrimination.
Beat me to it.
Thankfully. But things change. Fortunately people like JP are trying to make sure that doesn’t happen without someone speaking up about the possible dangers!
Where are the reasonable people? How can we recognize these when we see them? I’m certainly one!
There’s a fair amount of vague, feel-good waffle in there, but I think the telling quote with regards to JP’s initial complaint is this:
Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code , including employment, housing and services like education.
I think that’s clear that he could have been taken to tribunal for refusing to use the new pronouns when he worked in a university - if a complaint were filed. The deliberate pronoun usage alone would have been enough for the tribunal to accept the complaint. Then, if as a matter of principle he were to refuse to accept any financial or non-financial punishment the tribunal were to dish out, he could have eventually been jailed.
As we saw with Yaniv, the OHRC have a track record of accepting complaints that are clearly in bad faith. In addition, pronouns have already been part of a misgendering case:
The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainant’s self-identification as a trans woman.
The OHRC guidelines are the ones they are going to be referring to nationally.
Ah, my apologies. When she asked for a rehearing of the original set of complaints, the tribunal very politely told her to go 
herself not because she was officially vexatious but simply because her request for a rehearing was completely without merit.
And she was barred from filing further complaints due to her failure to pay costs awarded to the respondents, not for being officially vexatious.
We’ve been over the tribunal’s “acceptance” of the complaints already. And btw the majority of respondents didn’t bother officially responding to the complaints, showing up at the tribunal, or sending a representative. Just sayin’.
Also, you and @tempogain remarked earlier that 61 pages seems long for such a straightforward case. You seem to be missing two things about that. (1) A well written decision makes the case as clear as reasonably possible, so all parties and intervenors will be more likely to understand why and how the decision was reached – which ideally will make an appeal or request for a rehearing seem completely unnecessary – and so people in general who choose to read the full text will have a deeper understanding of the law. As they say, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. (2) Decision content gets inflated by quotations from precedents. (In Taiwan, it’s not unusual to discover that practically a whole decision has been copy-pasted with just the names and dates changed, even if the source isn’t acknowledged.)
As for the official vexatious litigant designation, if you read the jurisprudence for that, you’ll note that they insist on using it sparingly because hypothethically it could be misused.
Guideline this, guideline that… I think you’re forgetting these things called case law and the Constitution.
You got me.
They could add anything they wanted to, but (1) pronoun wars weren’t in the news until JP’s sudden rise to fame in 2016, whereas adding gender identity to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination has been a legislative idea since at least 2005, and in Ontario the law for it was passed in 2012 (and your dreaded guidelines came out in 2014), (2) JP’s sudden fame and dystopian nightmares weren’t enough to convince the legislators he knew better than the actual lawyers who advised them the bill was fine, and (3) if you appease a maniac who thinks you’re a Stalinist once, you encourage that sort of thing to continue… and then the body of law gets bloated and ridiculous (like the Quebec town where they wanted to ban stoning because they heard that the Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!).
I repeat: you don’t understand how this stuff works. I’m not trying to insult you, Andrew, but it’s true. You don’t need a law degree or a license, just an appetite for information, a preference for primary sources over punditry, and a healthy critical faculty. You can save a lot of time by seeking the information yourself instead of arguing with me.
The information is there waiting for you. Happy reading.
It’s not a legal issue, ergo it doesn’t need legal fixing.
(If you’re talking about actual, accepted pronouns, then there are plausible scenarios in which refusal to recognize a person’s gender identity, including via pronouns, could be discriminatory – like the “Mrs. Smith” scenario. So a sweeping exclusion of any possible scenario involving a pronoun would be inconsistent with the purpose of the law and would open a rather strange loophole. “Yes, Smith, I know you’re legally a woman, but I’m still going to call you he/him, because although the law says I’m forced to issue this identity document to you, it also says I’m allowed to call you something inconsistent with your legal identity, even to your face, even while providing a service to you.”)
We can always learn a thing or two from a maniac. Hopefully we know better than to idolize him or to keep watching the comedy show when it’s time for the important, grown-up stuff like the news. 
If I recall my point was that it should have been dismissed out of hand, which it should have been. I’d have needed one page, maybe 2 tops.
Then say something that is of substance because I can say the same thing. You don’t know how this stuff works.
You’ve repeatedly tried to make claims I have not made and can’t engage in what I actually said.
As I said, you’re better off without me.
I’m not here to win a contest.
Maybe you guys should just let it go then! 
I’ve read enough.
You would have a few pages already just from the standard procedural stuff.
The decision to bar that Toronto artist from filing further complaints was, idunno… it felt like at least a hundred pages. But again, tons of quotations.