One year after Pierre Trudeau passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (an act which decriminalized homosexual acts between consenting adults), Paul-Emile Richard entered the Federal Public Service (FPS), and from the start he had to fight against a homophobic atmosphere. But it was subtler than direct taunting or physical altercations. Paul encountered exclusion, he was denied promotions, and he faced negative evaluations on work that was otherwise deemed well done: "...this started in 1970 in the Department of Finance - Federal / Provincial relations Division. I worked there for 2 years then I moved on to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, where I work till 1975."

After taking a year off to recuperate from the hostile work environment, he returned to work; this time as the senior development economist in Agriculture. Paul’s office was in Quebec.  "That’s where it started to really go wrong. Reorganizations just to get me out...that’s how they get people out. You have to re-apply for your job and they don’t pick you, even though you qualify". He faced harassment through things like exclusion – situating Paul’s office a great distance from the team he supported; and sabotage – documents Paul had prepared for important meetings would either vanish or would be expropriated from him. True, there wasn’t any direct bigotry aimed at him; these were civil servants, and they knew direct action like that would get them in trouble. Creating a hostile work environment for the resident homo, however...well, that was just regular work duties.

In 1984, Paul applied for and obtained a job in the Department of Industry. Although he performed well, they still were trying to force him out. The stress had built up so much his body reacted – he had gallstones. Upon informing a supervisor he would have to have an operation, rather than wishing him well or even asking how long Paul’s recovery would be, the supervisor informed him an upcoming evaluation would be negative. Paul tried to muster support from unions or other professional organizations for public service but ultimately in 1985 he was forced out.

"All throughout this it was bad evaluations that got me into trouble that were totally unreasonable, reorganizations...I apply for jobs, I even get job offers but at least twice these jobs disappeared before I could get there...just to get me out. Even though my performance was always well received, my superiors would always change their minds at evaluation time."

Stripping his career and livelihood away from him psychologically traumatized Paul – over the next 20 years he faced unemployment, homelessness and suicidal tendencies. It was only after a therapist helped him realize he was the victim of a prejudiced system, that Paul began to pull his life back together.

In 2005, Paul filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). He explained his delay as a result of the consequence of psychological trauma. Unfortunately, the CHRC – like many human rights tribunals (Alberta included) – usually require you file your claim within a year of the discriminatory action or your complaint may be refused. They do have "discretionary powers" to look outside of that year term but it’s a maddeningly grey zone without any regulations or guidelines.

Consequently the CHRC ruled his complaint was "time barred". Upon appealing this decision to the Federal Court, the judge sided with Paul. While it was noted the CHRC usually has a one year time-frame for complaints, it was suggested they use their discretionary powers to take health concerns such as Paul’s depression into account. "What needed to be done was that the Commission needed to set up a series of criteria to establish when the discretionary power could be used," Paul told me.

Back at the CHRC, the paperwork and appeals were piling up. The government did admit to a certain amount of suffering caused by a homophobic work environment, but ultimately the commission returned to the argument that too much time had passed. Paul took this decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. Sadly, the decision came down against him – even though from the questions the judges asked it was apparent they couldn’t understand the government side of the argument. Again, it had to do with the passage of time, with the addition that it would cause an onerous prejudice for the government to prepare a defence – being that it was a long time since the incidents of discrimination occurred and government lawyers would have difficulty locating witnesses. By way of an example, the government said they were unable to locate the witnesses in their database.

"Well that’s a lot of bullshit again because all those public servants are all in the pension directory. They said they looked into the employee database... well it’s not the right database!"  Paul was able to locate through Google and the Internet several coworkers - complete with names, addresses, and telephone numbers.

Paul then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. But unlike some of the other courts, you must first request permission to be heard - and they refused. "I was disappointed of course because my lawyer said, with them, accepting that they discriminated against you and that you suffered, they could have settled the matter right then and there because they acted against the law," but they found another way to get out of it. "The government just doesn’t want to admit their faults," he says.

So while Paul’s legal quest seems to have reached an impasse, he is trying to drum up both support and interest from other LGBT people who suffered similar discrimination when they were employed by the federal government in the past. As well, he does have several liberal MPs who are interested in his cause. For example, Marc Garneau, Liberal Member of Parliament for Westmount/Ville-Marie has submitted a proposal for a Private Members’ Bill in the House of Commons which will be announced in a press conference at the opening of the fall session (probably in October). The bill will be to create guidelines so the CHRC has a little bit more clarity on situations where there may be a time delay between the discriminatory actions and the victim filing the complaint. One good thing which has arisen from Paul’s case is, with him setting this challenging precedent, the time bar may be weakened / disallowed; yet as Paul tells me, "a precedent doesn’t establish the law."

Paul agrees to a certain extent the government is waiting him out until he dies because he’s an old man. Consequently, he is hoping with the public knowledge of his case, much like the Duplessis Orphans or the native residential schools, if enough LGBT victims come forward a class action suit can be formed.

As Paul’s situation illustrates, we may have our rights now, but we still have within our society those who fought and now wear the scars of past bigotry. A generation ago, bigoted and hateful behavior which would have been considered "part of the norm" in our schoolyards, in the public setting, and in workplaces today is deemed unacceptable. While we cannot change what has happened in the past, saying it has happened too long ago and we should forget about it cheapens the rights we have today.