Warman v. Warman

Warman v. Warman

The Tribunal held that it has an obligation to consider and canvass obvious constitutional defences even where the respondent did not participate; constitutional notice need not be given only in advance and may be supplied after an issue arises; however, it is preferable to address constitutional issues when the respondent is represented. Because the Complainant and the Commission abandoned the penalty application under s.54(1)(c), no penalty was pursued and the case was closed.

Citation
2005 CHRT 43
Parties
Complainant: Richard Warman; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Eldon Warman
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (hate Messages) / Ruling (penalty Application Consideration)
Outcome
Complainant and Commission abandoned the application for a penalty under s.54(1)(c); file closed.
Legal Topics
Hate Messages, Penalty Under S.54(1)(c), Constitutional Notice, Procedural Fairness, Defaulting Respondent
Source Language
English
Human Rights Constitutional Law Freedom of Expression Administrative Law Hate Messages Penalty Under S.54(1)(c) Constitutional Notice Procedural Fairness +1 more

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Warman

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Eldon Warman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (hate Messages) / Ruling (penalty Application Consideration)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal may consider constitutional defences when the respondent did not participate
  2. 2 Whether s.54(1)(c) raises unresolved constitutional issues requiring determination
  3. 3 Whether constitutional notice must be given prior to an issue arising or may be given after

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that it has an obligation to consider and canvass obvious constitutional defences even where the respondent did not participate; constitutional notice need not be given only in advance and may be supplied after an issue arises; however, it is preferable to address constitutional issues when the respondent is represented. Because the Complainant and the Commission abandoned the penalty application under s.54(1)(c), no penalty was pursued and the case was closed.

Court Disposition

Complainant and Commission abandoned the application for a penalty under s.54(1)(c); file closed.

Orders

  • Complaint closed; no penalty ordered under s.54(1)(c)