Warman v. Western Canada for Us

Warman v. Western Canada for Us

Adjournment denied because the respondent failed to show he would be legally compelled to incriminate himself at the Tribunal or that any compelled testimony would create specific, extraordinary prejudice to his criminal defence; statutory and constitutional protections (Charter s.13 and Canada Evidence Act s.5(2)) and the Tribunal's power under s.52 to order confidentiality mitigate fair trial risks; the human rights proceeding serves a legitimate public purpose distinct from the criminal prosecution and indefinite delay is unjustified.

Citation
2006 CHRT 23
Parties
Complainant: Richard Warman; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Western Canada for Us; Respondent: Glenn Bahr
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under S.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act / Pre Hearing Motion to Adjourn Prior to Hearing Scheduled May 23, 2006
Outcome
Motion to adjourn denied
Legal Topics
Hate Speech, Self Incrimination, Publication Ban, Adjournment, Natural Justice, Compellability of Witnesses, Confidentiality Orders
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Hate Speech Self Incrimination Publication Ban Adjournment +3 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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Warman

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Western Canada for Us

Respondent

Glenn Bahr

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under S.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act / Pre Hearing Motion to Adjourn Prior to Hearing Scheduled May 23, 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceeding with the Tribunal hearing would compel the respondent to incriminate himself
  2. 2 Whether the respondent demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting adjournment pending criminal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether publicity from Tribunal proceedings would undermine a criminal publication ban and jeopardize fair trial rights

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment denied because the respondent failed to show he would be legally compelled to incriminate himself at the Tribunal or that any compelled testimony would create specific, extraordinary prejudice to his criminal defence; statutory and constitutional protections (Charter s.13 and Canada Evidence Act s.5(2)) and the Tribunal's power under s.52 to order confidentiality mitigate fair trial risks; the human rights proceeding serves a legitimate public purpose distinct from the criminal prosecution and indefinite delay is unjustified.

Court Disposition

Motion to adjourn denied

Orders

  • Request for adjournment denied
  • Hearing to proceed as scheduled (commencement May 23, 2006)