Brosnahan v Ronoff - [2011] QCAT 439

CITATION:

Brosnahan v Ronoff [2011] QCAT 439

PARTIES:	Jo Brosnahan (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Jason Ronoff (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

ADL053-10

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

HEARING DATE:

6 April 2011

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr Bridget Cullen Mandikos, Member

DELIVERED ON:

16 August 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

[1] The Respondent, Jason Ronoff, pay to the Applicant, Ms Jo Brosnahan, no later than 1 October 2011:

(a) the sum of $10,000.00 (including interest) by way of compensation for vilification; and

(b) the further sum of $5,000.00 (including interest) by way of compensation for harassment.

CATCHWORDS:

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION MATTERS – GENDER IDENTITY – Sexual harassment, vilification and serious vilification established – Public act – Statements by respondent “You fucking faggot, you have your fucking dick in a jar,” and “Has anyone got a box of matches so we can burn this fucking faggots place down?” found to incite others to threaten physical harm towards Applicant – Damage to property – Damages ordered – no utility in private or public apology in the circumstances

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), ss 4A(1)(b), 118-119, 124A, 131A, 166, 209

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, s 34
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 5

Wilson & McCollum v Lawson & Anor [2008] QADT 27
M v S and G [2008] QADT 24
GLBTI v Wilks [2007] QADT 27
Peters v Constance [2005] QADT 9
Burns v Dye [2002] NSW ADT 32

Speaking Out – Stopping Homophobic and Transphobic Abuse in Queensland, Alan Berman and Shirleene Robinson, Australian Academic Press, 2010

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Jo Brosnahan was represented by Gina Mather from the Australian Transgender Support Association of Queensland
RESPONDENT:	No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

This unfortunate, and all too common, story about the lack of tolerance for members of Queensland’s transgender community begins in the dark hours past midnight on the 9^th of April 2009.

On that evening, Ms Jo Brosnahan was awoken by the sound of her neighbour, Mr Jason Lewis Ronoff, wrenching the palings off her fence. Accompanied by a group of apparently intoxicated friends, Mr Ronoff screamed obscenities in Ms Brosnahan’s direction and threatened to burn her house down, while she hid inside, alone in the darkness, fearing for her safety.

Ms Brosnahan lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Commission of Queensland (“ADCQ”) on 16 December 2009, which was accepted on 13 January 2010. The ADCQ exercised its best endeavours to resolve the matter, scheduling numerous conciliation conferences. However, Mr Ronoff did not attend any of these conferences, and the matter was referred to QCAT pursuant to s 166 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (“ADAQ Act”) on 19 July 2010.

The QCAT hearing took place on 6 April 2011.

The ongoing problem of “transphobia”

Ms Brosnahan appeared at the hearing of this matter, assisted by Ms Gina Mather from the Australian Transgender Support Association of Queensland (“ATSAQ”). According to its website, ATSAQ was formed with the objective of providing help, advice, and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Brosnahan v Ronoff

Details

AGLC: Brosnahan v Ronoff [2011] QCAT 439
Case: [2011] QCAT 439
Decision Date: 16 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brosnahan v Ronoff involved an action for sexual harassment and vilification under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). Ms Jo Brosnahan brought the action against Jason Ronoff following a series of derogatory and threatening comments directed at her because of her gender identity. The court was required to determine whether the comments made by Mr Ronoff constituted vilification and sexual harassment under the relevant legislation. The case was heard and determined in the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the tribunal included whether the comments made by Mr Ronoff constituted vilification or sexual harassment, and if so, whether they were public acts. The tribunal had to consider the nature of the comments, whether they incited others to threaten physical harm or cause damage to property, and whether they were directed at Ms Brosnahan because of her gender identity. The tribunal also had to assess the appropriate compensation for the harm suffered by Ms Brosnahan.

The tribunal found that the comments made by Mr Ronoff were indeed vilifying and harassing. The statements, including "You fucking faggot, you have your fucking dick in a jar," and "Has anyone got a box of matches so we can burn this fucking faggots place down?" were found to incite others to threaten physical harm towards Ms Brosnahan and cause damage to her property. The tribunal held that these comments were made in a public context and were directed at Ms Brosnahan because of her gender identity. The tribunal ordered Mr Ronoff to pay Ms Brosnahan $10,000.00 for vilification and $5,000.00 for harassment, along with interest. The tribunal noted that a private or public apology would have no utility in the circumstances.

The tribunal’s decision underscores the serious consequences of vilification and harassment based on gender identity, and the importance of protecting individuals from such harmful conduct. The compensation awarded reflects the significant impact of the respondent's actions on the applicant, and the need for accountability in cases of such discrimination.

Orders

Orders of the court

[1] The Respondent, Jason Ronoff, pay to the Applicant, Ms Jo Brosnahan, no later than 1 October 2011:

(a) the sum of $10,000.00 (including interest) by way of compensation for vilification; and

(b) the further sum of $5,000.00 (including interest) by way of compensation for harassment.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.