Warman v. Lemire

Warman v. Lemire

The Tribunal must implement the remittance order as varied by the Federal Court of Appeal: it will not adjourn pending further appeals, will not hear a relitigation-based abuse of process stay because the motion lacks fresh evidence or a new context and would itself be an abuse of process, and must issue the mandated declaration finding that the respondent violated s.13 and impose a cease and desist order under ss.54(1)(a) and 53(2)(a) of the CHRA; no compensation order under s.54(1)(b) was sought or made.

Citation
2014 CHRT 6
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
27 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act S.13 Complaint Remitted After Judicial Review / Implementation of Remittance Order and Procedural Rulings Before the Tribunal
Outcome
Request for adjournment sine die denied; request for hearing on abuse of process denied; Tribunal issued declaration that respondent violated s.13; Tribunal ordered respondent to cease communicating or causing to be communicated hate material of the type in the "AIDS Secrets" article; no compensation order under...
Legal Topics
Section 13 CHRA, Judicial Review and Remittance, Abuse of Process (relitigation), Adjournment/sine Die, Cease and Desist Orders, Severance of Invalid Provisions, Tribunal Jurisdiction to Implement Court Orders
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Tribunal Procedure Freedom of Expression Section 13 CHRA Judicial Review and Remittance Abuse of Process (relitigation) +4 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 Act S.13 Complaint Remitted After Judicial Review / Implementation of Remittance Order and Procedural Rulings Before the Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should adjourn proceedings pending final determination of judicial appeals
  2. 2 Whether to hold a hearing on a stay based on abuse of process/relitigation
  3. 3 Proper implementation of the Federal Court remittance as varied by the Federal Court of Appeal including declaration, cease and desist order and compensation authority

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal must implement the remittance order as varied by the Federal Court of Appeal: it will not adjourn pending further appeals, will not hear a relitigation-based abuse of process stay because the motion lacks fresh evidence or a new context and would itself be an abuse of process, and must issue the mandated declaration finding that the respondent violated s.13 and impose a cease and desist order under ss.54(1)(a) and 53(2)(a) of the CHRA; no compensation order under s.54(1)(b) was sought or made.

Court Disposition

Request for adjournment sine die denied; request for hearing on abuse of process denied; Tribunal issued declaration that respondent violated s.13; Tribunal ordered respondent to cease communicating or causing to be communicated hate material of the type in the "AIDS Secrets" article; no compensation order under...

Orders

  • Adjournment sine die denied
  • No hearing or submissions on respondent's abuse of process stay motion; motion dismissed as abuse of process