Quebec Hair Salon Ruling Sparks Debate on Human Rights Boundaries
A recent decision by Quebec's Human Rights Tribunal has ignited a significant debate about the scope and purpose of human rights protections in Canada. The case centered on a Montreal hair salon whose online booking system required clients to select either "man" or "woman" to schedule an appointment.
The Case That Sparked Controversy
The dispute began when Alexe Frédéric Migneault, a non-binary individual, objected to the binary gender options presented on the salon's booking form. While the salon did not refuse service to Migneault, the complaint proceeded to Quebec's Human Rights Tribunal, which ultimately ordered the business to pay $500 in damages.
One crucial fact stands out in this case: no one was denied a haircut. This was not a refusal of service situation but rather a disagreement about language and categorization on an online form. The central question became whether offering "man" and "woman" as self-selectable options constitutes a human rights violation in itself.
The Distinction Between Exclusion and Imperfection
This distinction matters profoundly because it represents the difference between a rights system designed to protect people from genuine exclusion and one that attempts to regulate ordinary aspects of daily life. Traditional human rights enforcement exists to prevent tangible harms that exclude individuals from employment, housing, services, and safety.
It was never intended to transform every imperfect label or clumsy administrative process into a civil rights injury, according to critics of the tribunal's decision.
Practical Considerations and Reasonable Solutions
Asking the salon to improve its booking form represents a reasonable request from both social and practical perspectives. Socially, individuals deserve to be addressed according to identity markers that make them comfortable. Practically, the form represented a poor intake tool from the beginning.
The underlying issue isn't with the request for correction but with elevating a simple design problem to a human rights proceeding, especially when a solution was already being implemented. Following the complaint, the salon changed its booking form and even offered Migneault three free haircuts—a level of apology that some observers consider excessive for what amounted to a clumsy administrative mechanism.
The Practical Reality of Salon Operations
From a business perspective, many salons use gender categories as a crude proxy for more relevant information: short cuts versus long cuts, clipper work versus scissor work, or different appointment lengths. What stylists actually need to know relates to time and technique requirements, not necessarily a client's gender identity.
Sex or gender represents a poor proxy for these practical distinctions. Women with traditionally male haircuts and men with complex layered styles exist across the spectrum. If the essential information relates to hair length and complexity, businesses should ask those questions directly rather than requesting identity declarations.
For most reasonable observers, correcting the form would have represented sufficient remedy. The tribunal's decision to award damages raises broader questions about whether human rights mechanisms are being stretched beyond their intended purpose, potentially eroding public trust in these important institutions.
