Warman v. Lemire
The s.37 certification by a Commission official validly prevents disclosure of the requested subscriber information; the certification need not be made in open court and may be written in advance; because the objection precludes admissible disclosure and determination of such an objection in this context lies with...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2007 CHRT 21
- 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 May 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Canadian Human Rights Complaint / Pre Hearing Subpoena Ruling
- Outcome
- Request for subpoena denied
- Legal Topics
- Subpoena, Public Interest Immunity, Canada Evidence Act S.37, Disclosure, Internet Subscriber Information, Jurisdiction
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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 Complaint / Pre Hearing Subpoena Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s.37 of the Canada Evidence Act bars disclosure of subscriber information held by Bell Canada
- 2 Whether an objection under s.37 must be made in open court or can be certified in writing in advance
- 3 Whether the Tribunal should issue a subpoena under s.50(3)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act for documents concerning IP address 70.48.181.203
Ratio Decidendi
The s.37 certification by a Commission official validly prevents disclosure of the requested subscriber information; the certification need not be made in open court and may be written in advance; because the objection precludes admissible disclosure and determination of such an objection in this context lies with the Federal Court, the Tribunal must refuse to compel production and thus the subpoena request to Bell Canada for records relating to IP address 70.48.181.203 is denied.
Court Disposition
Request for subpoena denied
Orders
- Request for subpoena to Bell Canada for all documents and information concerning IP address 70.48.181.203 is denied
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment