Warman v. Marc Lemire

Warman v. Marc Lemire

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant an adjournment sine die because invoking s.37 CEA places determination of public interest immunity within the superior court's jurisdiction; proceeding to close the case would unfairly prejudice the respondent's right to present evidence that may be ordered disclosed by the Federal Court; the Tribunal must preserve natural justice and the full opportunity to present evidence under s.50 CHRA while monitoring delay through case management.

Citation
2007 CHRT 37
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
17 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Inquiry / Interim Ruling on Motion to Adjourn Sine Die Pending Federal Court Determination Under S.37 Canada Evidence Act
Outcome
Adjournment sine die granted
Legal Topics
Public Interest Immunity, Section 37 Canada Evidence Act, Adjournment, Disclosure, Section 13 CHRA Constitutionality, Natural Justice
Source Language
English

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 4 Authorities cited 10 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

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Inquiry / Interim Ruling on Motion to Adjourn Sine Die Pending Federal Court Determination Under S.37 Canada Evidence Act

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should adjourn proceedings sine die pending a superior court determination of public interest immunity under s.37 CEA
  2. 2 Whether the information withheld under the Commission's s.37 claim is relevant to the constitutionality challenge to s.13 of the CHRA
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning the Commission's investigative activities and whether that affects relevance

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant an adjournment sine die because invoking s.37 CEA places determination of public interest immunity within the superior court's jurisdiction; proceeding to close the case would unfairly prejudice the respondent's right to present evidence that may be ordered disclosed by the Federal Court; the Tribunal must preserve natural justice and the full opportunity to present evidence under s.50 CHRA while monitoring delay through case management.

Court Disposition

Adjournment sine die granted

Orders

  • Proceedings adjourned sine die pending the Federal Court determination of the Commission's s.37 Canada Evidence Act application
  • Tribunal to conduct regular case management conference calls to monitor progress of the s.37 application; parties must cooperate and act with due diligence