Warman v. Harrison

Warman v. Harrison

The Tribunal refused to set aside the subpoena because the issuing member reasonably determined the proposed evidence was relevant and necessary to the full hearing, the issuance did not constitute an abuse of process, and the Tribunal has discretion under the Act to compel attendance where the threshold of relevance and non-oppressiveness is met.

Citation
2006 CHRT 28
Parties
Complainant: Richard Warman; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Craig Harrison; Witness: Marc Lemire
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Pre Hearing Subpoena Motion (ruling)
Outcome
Motion to set aside subpoena rejected; subpoena upheld; witness compelled to attend unless parties agree an alternative procedure.
Legal Topics
Subpoena, Abuse of Process, Relevance and Materiality of Evidence, Affidavit Evidence, Witness Attendance and Compulsion
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Subpoena Abuse of Process Relevance and Materiality of Evidence Affidavit Evidence Witness Attendance and Compulsion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Warman

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Craig Harrison

Respondent

Marc Lemire

Witness

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Pre Hearing Subpoena Motion (ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the subpoena requiring Marc Lemire to attend should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the witness has relevant and material evidence necessary for full hearing
  3. 3 Whether issuance of the subpoena constitutes an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused to set aside the subpoena because the issuing member reasonably determined the proposed evidence was relevant and necessary to the full hearing, the issuance did not constitute an abuse of process, and the Tribunal has discretion under the Act to compel attendance where the threshold of relevance and non-oppressiveness is met.

Court Disposition

Motion to set aside subpoena rejected; subpoena upheld; witness compelled to attend unless parties agree an alternative procedure.

Orders

  • Request to set aside subpoena is rejected.
  • Mr. Marc Lemire is compelled to attend before the Tribunal at a date and time to be indicated at the start of the hearing on Tuesday morning and notified to his solicitor, unless the parties agree otherwise.