Warman v. Kulbashian

Warman v. Kulbashian

All six motions were dismissed because they sought to re-argue the case or adduce evidence that was not newly discovered, were untimely, not sufficiently relevant or determinative, and their sequential late filing constituted an abuse of process that would be unfair and prejudicial to the other parties; prior...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2006 CHRT 4
Parties
Complainant: Richard Warman; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Alexan Kulbashian; Respondent: James Scott Richardson; Respondent: Tri-City Skins.com; Respondent: Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team; Respondent: Affordable Space.com
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (s.13) / Inquiry Stage — Ruling on Late Motions Prior to Merits Decision
Outcome
All six motions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Reopening Hearings, Abuse of Process, Admissibility of Evidence, Jurisdiction Over Internet Communications, Capacity of Entities to Be Respondents Under S.13 CHRA
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Tribunal Procedure Reopening Hearings Abuse of Process Admissibility of Evidence Jurisdiction Over Internet Communications +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Warman

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Alexan Kulbashian

Respondent

James Scott Richardson

Respondent

Tri-City Skins.com

Respondent

Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team

Respondent

Affordable Space.com

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (s.13) / Inquiry Stage — Ruling on Late Motions Prior to Merits Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing should be re-opened to adduce further evidence
  2. 2 Whether late-filed motions and additional arguments constitute an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether certain internet messages not specified in the complaint fall within Tribunal jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

All six motions were dismissed because they sought to re-argue the case or adduce evidence that was not newly discovered, were untimely, not sufficiently relevant or determinative, and their sequential late filing constituted an abuse of process that would be unfair and prejudicial to the other parties; prior evidentiary rulings remain in force.

Court Disposition

All six motions dismissed.

Orders

  • Motion no. 1 dismissed (request to re-open for cross-examination denied)
  • Motion no. 2 dismissed (arguments re capacity/jurisdiction re-argued too late)