Warman v. Bahr

Warman v. Bahr

Adjournment was denied because a Tribunal decision in the related Lemire file would not bind the Tribunal in this case unless confirmed by a higher court, there is no assured economy in waiting, adjourning would conflict with the statutory requirement of expeditious resolution, and the respondent had not complied with procedural requirements to raise the constitutional question here.

Citation
2006 CHRT 15
Parties
Complainant: Richard Warman; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Glenn Bahr; Respondent: Western Canada for Us
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (s.12(a), S.13(1)) / Ruling on Motion to Adjourn; Pre Hearing
Outcome
Motion to adjourn denied
Legal Topics
Hate Speech, Constitutional Challenge of Legislation, Adjournment, Procedural Fairness, Expeditious Resolution
Source Language
English
Human Rights Constitutional Law Administrative Law Hate Speech Constitutional Challenge of Legislation Adjournment Procedural Fairness Expeditious Resolution

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Warman

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Glenn Bahr

Respondent

Western Canada for Us

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (s.12(a), S.13(1)) / Ruling on Motion to Adjourn; Pre Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should adjourn the hearing pending the outcome of Warman v. Lemire
  2. 2 Whether the constitutional validity of ss.13 and 54 of the CHRA should be determined first
  3. 3 Whether the matter is moot due to removal of website and bail conditions

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment was denied because a Tribunal decision in the related Lemire file would not bind the Tribunal in this case unless confirmed by a higher court, there is no assured economy in waiting, adjourning would conflict with the statutory requirement of expeditious resolution, and the respondent had not complied with procedural requirements to raise the constitutional question here.

Court Disposition

Motion to adjourn denied

Orders

  • Motion for adjournment pending outcome of Warman v. Lemire denied
  • Proceed to hearing as scheduled (hearing set to commence May 23, 2006)