Warman v. Lemire

Warman v. Lemire

The Tribunal granted interested party status to the Canadian Association for Free Expression, the Canadian Free Speech League, and the group comprising League of Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, but limited their participation to the constitutionality of s.13 and any related provisions; they may present evidence, cross-examine and make submissions on that issue only, and must not duplicate or repeat the positions or evidence of the parties.

Citation
2006 CHRT 8
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: League of Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada; Canadian Jewish Congress; Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (alleged Hate Messages Under S.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act) / Pre Hearing / Case Management (ruling on Interested Party Applications; Constitutional Issue to Be Heard in Main Hearing)
Outcome
Granted interested party status to CAFE, CFSL, and the B'Nai Brith Group limited to the constitutional issue concerning s.13; participation rights confined to that issue with restrictions to prevent duplication.
Legal Topics
Hate Speech, Section 13 Canadian Human Rights Act, Interested Party / Intervention, Charter Freedom of Expression
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Law Hate Speech Section 13 Canadian Human Rights Act Interested Party / Intervention Charter Freedom of Expression

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 2 Authorities cited 5 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

League of Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada; Canadian Jewish Congress; Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (alleged Hate Messages Under S.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act) / Pre Hearing / Case Management (ruling on Interested Party Applications; Constitutional Issue to Be Heard in Main Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants should be granted interested party status
  2. 2 Whether interested parties may participate beyond the constitutional challenge to s.13
  3. 3 Constitutionality of s.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (to be determined at hearing)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal granted interested party status to the Canadian Association for Free Expression, the Canadian Free Speech League, and the group comprising League of Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, but limited their participation to the constitutionality of s.13 and any related provisions; they may present evidence, cross-examine and make submissions on that issue only, and must not duplicate or repeat the positions or evidence of the parties.

Court Disposition

Granted interested party status to CAFE, CFSL, and the B'Nai Brith Group limited to the constitutional issue concerning s.13; participation rights confined to that issue with restrictions to prevent duplication.

Orders

  • Canadian Association for Free Expression; Canadian Free Speech League; League of Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada; Canadian Jewish Congress; and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies are granted interested party status limited to the constitutionality of s.13 and related provisions.
  • Interested parties may present evidence, cross-examine, and make submissions relating to the constitutional issue only.