Warman v. Lemire

Warman v. Lemire

The exclusion order was rescinded because the Commission's s.37-based claim of risk was undermined when it subsequently disclosed the information at issue (rendering the s.37 objection moot) and because the available material did not establish the real and substantial risk or serious possibility of danger required by s.52(1)(c) and s.52(1)(d) of the Act; accordingly the hearing must be conducted in public, while the separate prior prohibition on cameras remains in force.

Citation
2008 CHRT 7
Parties
Complainant: Richard Warman; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Marc Lemire
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding S.13 Hate Speech Complaint / Ruling on Exclusion Order (rescission)
Outcome
Previous exclusion order rescinded; hearing to be conducted in public; cameras remain excluded from Tribunal premises.
Legal Topics
S.52 Exclusion Order, S.37 Canada Evidence Act, Public Hearings, Witness Protection, Media Access
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Freedom of Expression Evidence Law S.52 Exclusion Order S.37 Canada Evidence Act Public Hearings Witness Protection +1 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Warman

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Marc Lemire

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding S.13 Hate Speech Complaint / Ruling on Exclusion Order (rescission)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-parties should be excluded from the hearing room pursuant to s.52 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
  2. 2 Whether the Commission's invocation of s.37 of the Canada Evidence Act justified non-disclosure of witnesses' visual appearance
  3. 3 Whether evidence established a real and substantial risk to persons or a serious possibility that life, liberty or security would be endangered under s.52(1)(c) and s.52(1)(d)

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion order was rescinded because the Commission's s.37-based claim of risk was undermined when it subsequently disclosed the information at issue (rendering the s.37 objection moot) and because the available material did not establish the real and substantial risk or serious possibility of danger required by s.52(1)(c) and s.52(1)(d) of the Act; accordingly the hearing must be conducted in public, while the separate prior prohibition on cameras remains in force.

Court Disposition

Previous exclusion order rescinded; hearing to be conducted in public; cameras remain excluded from Tribunal premises.

Orders

  • Previous order excluding non-parties from the hearing room rescinded; the hearing shall be conducted in public pursuant to s.52(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
  • Cameras remain excluded from the Tribunal's premises pursuant to the earlier May 7, 2007 ruling.