Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Warman et al., (2014) 456 N.R. 200 (FCA)

• Judge: Evans, Gauthier and Stratas, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: November 14, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 456 N.R. 200 (FCA);2014 FCA 18

CHRC v. Warman (2014), 456 N.R. 200 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.R. TBEd. FE.002

Marc Lemire (appellant) v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, Richard Warman, The Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and African Canadian Legal Clinic (intervener)

(A-456-12; 2014 FCA 18; 2014 CAF 18)

Indexed As: Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Warman et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Evans, Gauthier and Stratas, JJ.A.

January 31, 2014.

Summary:

Warman filed a human rights complaint, alleging that Lemire had communicated or caused to be communicated hate messages over the Internet in breach of s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). Lemire sought to have s. 13 and the related remedial provisions in ss. 54(1) and (1.1) of the CHRA declared to be in breach of s. 2(b) of the Charter (i.e., freedom of expression), and not saved by s. 1.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT), in a decision with neutral citation 2009 CHRT 26, found that Lemire contravened s. 13 by posting an article on a website, but declined to grant a remedy. The CHRT held that the restrictions imposed by s. 13, when combined with ss. 54(1)(c) and (1.1) (the penalty provisions) were contrary to s. 2(b) of the Charter and did not constitute a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1. The Canadian Human Rights Commission applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported 419 F.T.R. 162, allowed the application. The court agreed with the CHRT that the penalty provisions of the CHRA were not saved by s. 1 as a minimal impairment of s. 2(b) rights, and granted a declaration pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Charter that ss. 54(1)(c) and 54(1.1) (the penalty provisions) were of no force or effect. However, the court allowed the application for judicial review on the ground that the offending provisions could be severed from the CHRA so as to preserve the validity of s. 13. The court rejected Lemire's other constitutional objections to s. 13. In the result, the court remitted the matter to the CHRT to issue a declaration that the article posted by Lemire was in contravention of s. 13 and to exercise its jurisdiction under s. 54(1)(a) of the CHRA to make a cease and desist order or under s. 51(1)(b) to award compensation. Lemire appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, but varied the order of the Federal Court by setting aside the declaration pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Charter that ss. 54(1)(c) and 54(1.1) were of no force and effect. Because the Commission did not seek the imposition of a penalty in this case, it was not necessary to require the CHRT to determine whether to make an award against Mr Lemire under ss. 54(1)(c) and 54(1.1) to remedy his breach of s. 13.

Civil Rights - Topic 950.1

Discrimination - Communicating hate messages telephonically (incl. via Internet) - General - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) found that Lemire had communicated a hate message contrary to s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), by posting an article on a website - However, the CHRT declined to grant a remedy, holding that the restrictions imposed by s. 13, when combined with the remedial provisions in ss. 54(1) and (1.1) were contrary to s. 2(b) of the Charter (i.e., the freedom of expression) and did not constitute a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the CHRT should not have taken the conduct of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in enforcing s. 13 into account in its s. 1 analysis, but not because its jurisdiction to determine Lemire's constitutional challenge to s. 13 was narrower than that of the court - See paragraphs 32 to 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 950.1

Discrimination - Communicating hate messages telephonically (incl. via Internet) - General - Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) made it a discriminatory practice to communicate a hate message - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the application of s. 13 to the communication of hate messages through the Internet constituted a minimal impairment of the right to freedom or expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 53 to 70.

Civil Rights - Topic 950.1

Discrimination - Communicating hate messages telephonically (incl. via Internet) - General - Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) made it a discriminatory practice to communicate a hate message - Where a discriminatory practice was established, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal could, inter alia, impose a penalty of not more than $10,000 (s. 54(1)(c)) - Section 54(1.1) set out the factors to be considered in determining whether to impose a penalty under s. 54(1)(c) - At issue was whether the penalty provisions contained in ss. 54(1)(c) and 54(1.1) were invalid because they were punitive in nature - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the penalty provisions were not penal in nature - Rather, they constituted a minimal impairment of the right to freedom of expression rights in s. 2(b) of the Charter, and were thus justifiable under s. 1 - See paragraphs 71 to 107.

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.2

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Hate messages and literature - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 950.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7061

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - General - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 950.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7197

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Penalties - [See first and third Civil Rights - Topic 950.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 950.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Whatcott v. Human Rights Tribunal (Sask.) et al., [2013] 1 S.C.R. 467; 441 N.R. 1; 409 Sask.R. 75; 568 W.A.C. 75; 2013 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 5].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 5].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301; 2003 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 16].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 121, refd to. [para. 16].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 24].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 42].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 38 C.R.(5th) 209; 193 D.L.R.(4th) 193; [2001] 2 W.W.R. 1; 2000 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 42].

Gonzalez v. Driver Control Board (Alta.) et al. (2003), 330 A.R. 262; 299 W.A.C. 262; 2003 ABCA 256, refd to. [para. 42].

Thomson v. Alberta (Transportation and Safety Board) - see Gonzalez v. Driver Control Board (Alta.) et al.

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157; 231 N.R. 201; 223 A.R. 201; 183 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 45].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Conway (P.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765; 402 N.R. 255; 263 O.A.C. 61; 2010 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 50].

Canada (Attorney General) v. United States Steel Corp. et al. (2011), 419 N.R. 203; 2011 FCA 176, refd to. [para. 78].

Guindon v. Minister of National Revenue (2013), 446 N.R. 154; 2013 FCA 153, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 24 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 78].

Martineau v. Ministre du Revenu national, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 737; 328 N.R. 48; 2004 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 78].

JTI-Macdonald Corp. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610; 364 N.R. 89; 2007 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 89].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 2(b) [para. 23].

Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 13(1), sect. 13(2) [para. 20]; sect. 54(1)(a), sect. 54(1)(b), sect. 54(1)(c), sect. 54(1.1) [para. 21]; sect. 54(2)(a), sect. 53(3) [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (February 11, 1998), p. 3744 [para. 91].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Counsel:

Barbara Kulaszka, for the appellant;

S. Margot Blight, for the respondents;

Virginia Nelder and Bruce B. Ryder, for the intervener;

Andrew K. Lokan and Jodi Martin, for the intervener;

Baclay W. Johnson, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Barbara Kulaszka, Brighton, Ontario, for the appellant;

Borden Ladner Jervais LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents;

African Canadian Legal Clinic, Virginia Nelder and Bruce B. Ryder, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener;

Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Andrew K. Lokan and Jodi Martin, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener;

The Canadian Association for Free Expression and Baclay W. Johnson, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on November 14, 2014, before Evans, Gauthier and Stratas, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered in Toronto, Ontario, on January 31, 2014, for the court, by Evans, J.A.