Warman v. Winnicki

Warman v. Winnicki

Post-referral Internet material was admissible given notice and amendment; evidence (pseudonyms, content, timestamps, forum accessibility) established respondent repeatedly and willfully communicated Internet messages that, by language, imagery and tone, were likely to expose Jews, Black and other non-Caucasian persons to hatred or contempt in breach of s.13(1); same series of messages constituted retaliation in breach of s.14.1; remedies awarded: cease and desist orders (for hate messages and for retaliation), $500 for pain and suffering (s.53(2)(e)), $5,000 special compensation for willful/reckless retaliation (s.53(3)), penalty $6,000 (s.54(1)(c)); requests for hearing-expense...

Citation
2006 CHRT 20
Parties
Complainant: Richard Warman; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Tomasz Winnicki
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under Canadian Human Rights Act (s.13(1), S.14.1) / Post Hearing Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Both complaints substantiated (s.13(1) hate messages and s.14.1 retaliation).
Legal Topics
Hate Speech, Retaliation, Internet Communications, Remedies (cease and Desist, Damages, Penalty), Admissibility of Post Referral Evidence
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Hate Speech Retaliation Internet Communications Remedies (cease and Desist, Damages, Penalty) Admissibility of Post Referral Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Warman

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Tomasz Winnicki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under Canadian Human Rights Act (s.13(1), S.14.1) / Post Hearing Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tribunal may consider post-referral Internet material not in original complaint
  2. 2 Whether respondent communicated impugned messages repeatedly via Internet
  3. 3 Whether messages were likely to expose identifiable groups to hatred or contempt under s.13(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Post-referral Internet material was admissible given notice and amendment; evidence (pseudonyms, content, timestamps, forum accessibility) established respondent repeatedly and willfully communicated Internet messages that, by language, imagery and tone, were likely to expose Jews, Black and other non-Caucasian persons to hatred or contempt in breach of s.13(1); same series of messages constituted retaliation in breach of s.14.1; remedies awarded: cease and desist orders (for hate messages and for retaliation), $500 for pain and suffering (s.53(2)(e)), $5,000 special compensation for willful/reckless retaliation (s.53(3)), penalty $6,000 (s.54(1)(c)); requests for hearing-expense...

Court Disposition

Both complaints substantiated (s.13(1) hate messages and s.14.1 retaliation).

Orders

  • Cease and desist order: respondent to cease retaliatory Internet communications similar to evidence entered and to cease communicating Internet material of the type found to violate s.13(1);
  • Cease and desist order: respondent to cease communicating, by Internet or substantially similar means, material likely to expose persons identifiable by prohibited grounds to hatred or contempt;