Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., (1996) 192 N.R. 298 (FCA)

• Judge: Pratte, Strayer and Linden, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: January 25, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 192 N.R. 298 (FCA)

CHRC v. Cdn. Liberty Net (1996), 192 N.R. 298 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of proceedings before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Re: Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net and Derek J. Peterson

Canadian Liberty Net and Tony McAleer (alias Derek J. Peterson) (appellants) v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (respondent)

(A-339-92)

Indexed As: Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Pratte, Strayer and Linden, JJ.A.

January 25, 1996.

Summary:

A number of complaints were filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that Canadian Liberty Net operated a telephonic hate message system. The phone line was in the name of one Peterson. The Commission requested a Human Rights Tribunal to hear the complaints. Before the Tribunal met, the Commission sought an interlocutory injunction from the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, to prevent Canadian Liberty Net and Peterson from communicating hate messages by telephonic means pending a hearing by the Tribunal. An issue arose as to whether the court had jurisdiction to grant such an injunction, and if so, whether the injunction should be granted.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a judgment reported 48 F.T.R. 285, held that it had the necessary jurisdiction and granted the injunction. Canadian Liberty Net and Peterson appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, held that the court could not grant the injunction and set the injunction aside.

Civil Rights - Topic 7182

Federal or provincial legislation - Reme­dies - Interlocutory injunction - [See Courts - Topic 4034 ].

Courts - Topic 4034

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Prerogative relief, injunc­tions etc. - Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibited the com­munication of telephonic hate messages - Following complaints, the Canadian Hu­man Rights Commission requested a Hu­man Rights Tribunal hearing and sought an interlocutory injunction in the Trial Division to prevent the communi­cation of the telephonic messages pending the hear­ing before the Tribunal - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Trial Divi­sion could not grant the interlocutory injunction because the Act did not "nour­ish" the bare statutory grant of the general authority of the Trial Division, under ss. 25 and 44 of the Federal Court Act, to em­ploy the remedy of injunction - The Ca­na­dian Human Rights Act created no right in anyone enforceable by interlocu­tory injunction - See paragraphs 1 to 29, 36.

Courts - Topic 4038

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Where no other Canadian court has jurisdiction - Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibited the communication of telephonic hate messages - Following complaints, the Canadian Human Rights Commission requested a Human Rights Tribunal hear­ing and sought an interlocutory injunction in the Trial Division to prevent the com­munication of the telephonic messages pending the hearing before the Tribunal - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Trial Division could not grant the inter­locutory injunction - Pratte, J.A., stated that if one assumed "that by prohibiting certain discriminatory practices Parliament has impliedly authorized that injunctions be issued 'to prevent a flouting of the law at the interlocutory stage', that implied jurisdiction could certainly be exercised by the Provincial Superior Courts" - See paragraph 36.

Injunctions - Topic 301

Jurisdiction - General - [See Courts - Topic 4034 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Heritage Front and Droege, [1994] 1 F.C. 203; 68 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al. (1994), 170 N.R. 311 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Ter­minal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 11].

Siskina v. Distos Compania Naviera S.A. - see Ship Siskina, Re.

Ship Siskina, Re, [1979] A.C. 210 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 13].

Chief Constable of Kent v. V. et al., [1983] Q.B. 34 (Eng. C.A.), consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 17].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Cana­dian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 577, consd. [para. 18].

Winmill v. Winmill, [1974] F.C. 686; 5 N.R. 159 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 23].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 9, refd to. [para. 24].

Bhadauria v. Seneca College, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181; 37 N.R. 455, consd. [para. 24].

Lodge et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1979] 1 F.C. 775; 25 N.R. 437 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 25].

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em­ployees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (1994), 46 B.C.A.C. 243; 75 W.A.C. 243; 93 B.C.L.R.(2d) 176 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1995), 192 N.R. 239 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

United Steelworkers of America, Local 5795 v. Iron Ore Co. of Canada (1984), 45 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 150; 132 A.P.R. 150; 5 D.L.R.(4th) 24 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Burkart et al. v. Dairy Producers Co-operative Ltd. (1990), 87 Sask.R. 241; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 694 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Lamont v. Air Canada (1981), 126 D.L.R.(3d) 266 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Human Right Commission (Sask.) et al. v. Bell (1991), 96 Sask.R. 296; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 71 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

Nintendo of America Inc. v. 131865 Canada Inc. et al. (1991), 41 F.T.R. 237; 36 C.P.R.(3d) 346 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44, sect. 1(d) [para. 20].

Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 13 [para. 2]; sect. 53(2), sect. 54(1) [para. 14].

Exchequer Court of Canada, General Rules and Orders, rule 242 [para. 34, footnote 1].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 25, sect. 44 [para. 12].

Federal Court Rules, rule 469(3) [para. 13].

Judicature Act, 1873 (U.K.), 36 & 37 Vict., c. 66, sect. 25(8) [para. 13].

Law and Equity Act (B.C.), R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 224, sect. 36 [para. 27].

Rules of Court, Federal Court - see Fed­eral Court Rules.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Minister of Justice, House of Common Debates, February 11, 1977, p. 2976 [para. 17].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 9, para. 106 [para. 31].

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (2nd Ed. 1992), paras. 5.40 to 5.70 [para. 16]; 1.1100 to 1.1140 [para. 13]; 3.190 to 3.390 [para. 24]; 3.600 [para. 28].

Spry, I.C.F., The Principles of Equitable Remedies (4th Ed. 1990), pp. 323 to 326 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Douglas H. Christie, for the appellants;

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Douglas H. Christie, Victoria, B.C., for the appellants;

Arvay, Finlay, Victoria, B.C., for the re­spondent.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 6, 1995, by Pratte, Strayer and Linden, JJ.A, of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 25, 1996, and the following opinions were filed:

Strayer, J.A. (Linden, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 31;

Pratte, J.A. - see paragraphs 32 to 37.