Warman v. Lemire

Warman v. Lemire

Only material that is arguably relevant to an issue, fact or relief sought — in particular relevance to the Oakes proportionality test — is subject to disclosure; personal information that has not been shown to be arguably relevant need not be disclosed and the Respondent's request to compel disclosure of redacted portions is denied.

Citation
2008 CHRT 30
Parties
Complainant: Richard Warman; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Marc Lemire; Interested Party: Attorney General of Canada; Interested Party: Canadian Association for Free Expression; Interested Party: Canadian Free Speech League; Interested Party: Canadian Jewish Congress; Interested Party: Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies; Interested Party: League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint / Ruling on Disclosure
Outcome
Respondent's request to disclose redacted portions denied.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Privacy Act, Relevance, Oakes Proportionality Test
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Privacy Law Evidence and Disclosure Disclosure Privacy Act Relevance Oakes Proportionality Test

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

Marc Lemire

Respondent

Attorney General of Canada

Interested Party

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Interested Party

Canadian Free Speech League

Interested Party

Canadian Jewish Congress

Interested Party

Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies

Interested Party

League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint / Ruling on Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether redacted personal information is arguably relevant and must be disclosed
  2. 2 Whether the Privacy Act prohibits disclosure of personal information in Tribunal proceedings
  3. 3 How relevance to the Oakes proportionality test affects disclosure orders

Ratio Decidendi

Only material that is arguably relevant to an issue, fact or relief sought — in particular relevance to the Oakes proportionality test — is subject to disclosure; personal information that has not been shown to be arguably relevant need not be disclosed and the Respondent's request to compel disclosure of redacted portions is denied.

Court Disposition

Respondent's request to disclose redacted portions denied.

Orders

  • Respondent's request that the Commission disclose the redacted portions is denied.
  • Tribunal will not order disclosure of personal information that has not been shown to be arguably relevant, notwithstanding a waiver from an individual.