Warman v. Lemire

Warman v. Lemire

Section 52 permits confidentiality orders to protect the public but does not authorize excluding a party from observing evidence; excluding the respondent would infringe s.50(1) and natural justice because he must be able to view witnesses, assess demeanour and instruct counsel. The Commission produced no evidence linking the internet threats to the respondent or demonstrating that exclusion was necessary; less intrusive measures could address the risk. Therefore the requested special measures (remote testimony with respondent excluded and restriction of questioning) are unjustified and the motion is dismissed, although a prohibition on cameras is warranted to prevent further publication...

Citation
2007 CHRT 16
Parties
Complainant: Richard Warman; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Marc Lemire; Attorney General of Canada: 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
7 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act S.13 Complaint / Ruling on Commission Motion During Hearing (motion to Adopt Special Measures)
Outcome
Commission's motion as presented dismissed; limited relief granted (ban on cameras)
Legal Topics
Witness Testimony Procedures, Confidentiality of Public Inquiry (s.52), Right of Parties to Be Present (s.50), Security and Privacy Concerns, Prohibition on Photography in Courtroom, Scope of Examination
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Procedural Fairness Witness Testimony Procedures Confidentiality of Public Inquiry (s.52) Right of Parties to Be Present (s.50) Security and Privacy Concerns +2 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 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

Attorney General of Canada

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 / Ruling on Commission Motion During Hearing (motion to Adopt Special Measures)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should permit Commission witnesses to testify by video with the respondent excluded from the hearing room
  2. 2 Whether s.52 provides authority to exclude a party from a public inquiry to protect witness identity
  3. 3 Whether limiting questions to constitutional matters for witnesses is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Section 52 permits confidentiality orders to protect the public but does not authorize excluding a party from observing evidence; excluding the respondent would infringe s.50(1) and natural justice because he must be able to view witnesses, assess demeanour and instruct counsel. The Commission produced no evidence linking the internet threats to the respondent or demonstrating that exclusion was necessary; less intrusive measures could address the risk. Therefore the requested special measures (remote testimony with respondent excluded and restriction of questioning) are unjustified and the motion is dismissed, although a prohibition on cameras is warranted to prevent further publication...

Court Disposition

Commission's motion as presented dismissed; limited relief granted (ban on cameras)

Orders

  • The Commission's request to have witnesses testify by video from another location with the respondent excluded is denied
  • The Commission's request to restrict questions to the constitutional issue is denied (except as to Hannya Rizk where investigation questions were proposed and will be dealt with if objected to)