Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Warman et al., (2012) 419 F.T.R. 162 (FC)

• Judge: Mosley, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 13, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 419 F.T.R. 162 (FC);2012 FC 1162

CHRC v. Warman (2012), 419 F.T.R. 162 (FC)

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: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.059

Canadian Human Rights Commission (applicant) v. Richard Warman, The Attorney General of Canada and Marc Lemire (respondents) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Association For Free Expression Inc., Canadian Free Speech League, African Canadian Legal Clinic, League For Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada, Canadian Jewish Congress and Friends Of Simon Wiesenthal Centre For Holocaust Studies (intervenors)

(T-1640-09; 2012 FC 1162; 2012 CF 1162)

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

Federal Court

Mosley, J.

October 2, 2012.

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 and ss. 54(1) and (1.1) 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 allowed the application. The court held that the CHRT was correct in declining to apply s. 54(1)(c) (the penalty provision) and s. 54(1.1) (the factors to be applied in determining when a penalty was appropriate). However, the CHRT erred in failing to apply s. 13 and to exercise its discretion under s. 54(1)(a) (the cease and desist provision) and/or s. 54(1)(b) (the compensation provision) of the CHRA to determine a remedy. The CHRT erred in adopting an all or nothing approach to the constitutional remedy (i.e., severance was appropriate in this case). 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) or (b) of the CHRA to consider the issuance of a remedial order against Lemire. The court declared that s. 54(1)(c) and 54(1.1) of the CHRA were of no force or effect pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 7115 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9051.1

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - The Federal Court stated that "As a result of R. v. Conway ... [SCC 2010] ... at para 81, the tests for determining the constitutional issues that may be decided by administrative tribunals have been merged. What is to be determined post-Conway is whether the tribunal has the authority to decide questions of law. The [Canadian Human Rights] Tribunal is a specialized body that has the statutory authority to determine questions of law (s. 50(2) of the [Canadian Human Rights] Act) and is therefore competent to consider and apply the Charter and Charter remedies when resolving the matters properly before it" - See paragraph 47.

Administrative Law - Topic 9051.1

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) made it a discriminatory practice to communicate a hate message - The Federal Court held that in determining whether to apply s. 13 of the CHRA it was not appropriate for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) to consider the manner in which the Canadian Human Rights Commission exercised its statutory mandate - For example, the CHRT had no jurisdiction over the exercise of the Commission's decision to reject or refer a complaint or to appoint a conciliator - In exercising its authority, the CHRT could not collaterally question a Commission decision that was within the statutory authority of that body - The Commission's administration of the CHRA was beyond the mandate of the CHRT and the scope of its authority - See paragraphs 51 to 71.

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 7115 ].

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 - In Taylor v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (1990), the Supreme Court of Canada determined that s. 13(1) of the CHRA infringed s. 2(b) of the Charter (the freedom of expression provision), but was justified under s. 1 - The Federal Court discussed whether Taylor remained binding, in light of legislative changes resulting in the addition of a penalty provision in s. 13 and the inclusion of Internet - See paragraphs 72 to 130.

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 issue a cease and desist order (s. 54(1)(a)), order compensation for the victim (s. 54(1)(b)) and/or 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 ss. 13(1), 54(1) and 54(1.1) were contrary to s. 2(b) of the Charter (freedom of expression) - The Federal Court held that while the provisions violated s. 2(b), only ss. 54(1)(c) and 54(1.1) were not justified under s. 1 of the Charter - Those sections could be severed from the statutory regime and were declared to be of no force and effect - See paragraphs 72 to 142.

Civil Rights - Topic 1164

Discrimination - Remedies - Damages - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 950.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1169

Discrimination - Remedies - Cease and desist order - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 950.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.2

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

Civil Rights - Topic 7061

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - General - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 9051.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7063

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

Civil Rights - Topic 7069.02

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - Decision to request board of inquiry - [See second Administrative Law - Topic 9051.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7071

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Compensation to victims - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 950.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7082

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Boards of inquiry - Jurisdiction - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 9051.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7107

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Orders - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 950.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - The Federal Court discussed the standard of review of a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that certain provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act were unconstitutional - The court stated that "In so far as the issues before the Court relate to constitutional matters, the Tribunal's findings are reviewable on a standard of correctness ... This Court, therefore, owes no deference to the Tribunal with respect to its determination of the constitutional questions" - See paragraph 48.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - The Federal Court discussed the standard of review of a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - The court stated that "Questions which require the Tribunal to interpret a provision in its own enabling legislation in relation to an issue falling within its core function and expertise will presumptively attract a reasonableness standard of review, and will only attract a correctness standard in limited circumstances ... The Tribunal's findings of fact as to the subject-matter of the complaint referred to it for determination are to be accorded deference and are reviewable on a standard of reasonableness ..." - See paragraphs 49 and 50.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 950.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7197

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

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

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

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.14

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Severance of portion of statute or section - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 950.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

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

Minister of National Revenue v. Craig (2012), 433 N.R. 111; 2012 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 5].

Whatcott v. Human Rights Tribunal (Sask.) et al. (2010), 346 Sask.R. 210; 477 W.A.C. 210; 2010 SKCA 26, leave to appeal granted (2010), 413 N.R. 388; 371 Sask.R. 318; 518 W.A.C. 318 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Warman v. Harrison, 2006 CHRT 30, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 27].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

McAleer et al. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1999), 247 N.R. 215; 175 D.L.R.(4th) 766 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

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, refd to. [para. 36].

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. 36].

Air Canada Pilots Association v. Kelly et al. (2011), 383 F.T.R. 198; 2011 FC 120, refd to. [para. 43].

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. 47].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 49].

Celgene Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 3; 410 N.R. 127; 2011 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 49].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 49].

Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat.

Mugesera et al. v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 100; 335 N.R. 229; 2005 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 51].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; 204 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 52].

Tranchemontagne v. Disability Support Program (Ont.) et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513; 347 N.R. 144; 210 O.A.C. 267; 2006 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 54].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 57].

Lévy (Sam) & Associés Inc. et al. v. Mayrand et al. (2006), 277 F.T.R. 50; 2005 FC 702, affd. (2006), 359 N.R. 145; 2006 FCA 205, leave to appeal dismissed (2006), 362 N.R. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

Prentice v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (2006), 346 N.R. 201; 2005 FCA 395, leave to appeal dismissed (2006), 356 N.R. 390 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

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. 70].

Gonzalez v. Driver Control Board (Alta.) et al. (2003), 330 A.R. 262; 299 W.A.C. 262; 2003 ABCA 256, leave to appeal denied (2004), 330 N.R. 196; 363 A.R. 398; 343 W.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

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

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; 2000 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 72].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270, refd to. [para. 75].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 75].

Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) et al. v. Rocket and Price, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232; 111 N.R. 161; 40 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 75].

Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re; Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. and Hydro Quebec et al. v. Attorney General of Newfoundland et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; 53 N.R. 268; 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 139 A.P.R. 125, refd to. [para. 75].

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. 76].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 78].

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 87].

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Winnicki (2005), 283 F.T.R. 235; 2005 FC 1493, refd to. [para. 96].

Black v. Breeden et al. (2010), 265 O.A.C. 177; 2010 ONCA 547, refd to. [para. 98].

Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia et al. (2004), 187 O.A.C. 238; 239 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony et al. v. Alberta, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; 390 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 1; 462 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 101].

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. 101].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

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. 110].

Martineau v. Ministre du Revenu national, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 737; 328 N.R. 48, refd to. [para. 111].

Elmasry v. Roger's Publishing Ltd., 2008 BCHRT 378, refd to. [para. 123].

Owens v. Human Rights Commission (Sask.) et al. (2006), 279 Sask.R. 161; 372 W.A.C. 161; 2006 SKCA 41, refd to. [para. 124].

Boissoin et al. v. Lund et al. (2010), 488 A.R. 41; 2009 ABQB 592, refd to. [para. 124].

Warman v. Kouba, 2006 CHRT 50, refd to. [para. 125].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 132].

Attorney General for Alberta v. Attorney General for Canada, [1947] A.C. 503, refd to. [para. 134].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 139].

Haig and Birch v. Canada et al. (1992), 57 O.A.C. 272; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 139].

Statutes Noticed:

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

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

Authors and Works Noticed:

Akdeniz, Yaman, Governing Racist Content on the Internet: National and International Responses (2007) 56 U.N.B. Law J. 103, generally [para. 96].

Beaudouin, Gerald A., and Thibault, Pierre, La Constitution du Canada (3rd Ed. 2004), pp. 862 to 864 [para. 133].

Brun, Henri, Tremblay, Guy and Brouillet, Eugénie, Droit Constitutionnel (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 1004, 1005, [para. 133].

Bryden, Philip and Black, Wiliam, Mediation as a Tool for Resolving Human Rigths Disputes: Evaluation of the BC Human Rights Commission's Early Mediation Project (2004), 37 U.B.C.L. Rev. 73, generally [para. 64].

Canada, Annual Report 2006, http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/pdf/ar_2006_ ra_en.pdf, pp. 7, 21, 24 [para. 64].

Canadian Human Rights Commission, Freedom of Expression and Freedom from Hate in the Internet Age (2009), pp. 9, 10 [para. 85].

Gosnell, Chris, Hate Speech on the Internet: A Question of Context (1997-1998), 23 Queen's Law J. 369, generally [para. 98].

Hogg, Peter, Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed. 2007) (Looseleaf), pp. 38-36 to 38-43 [para. 101]; 40-12 to 40-15 [para. 133].

McNamara, Lawrence, Tackling Racial Hatred: Conciliation, Reconciliation and Football (2006), 6(2) Austl. J.H.R. 5, pp. 22 to 25 [para. 64].

Moon, Richard, Report to the Canadian Human Rights Commission Concerning Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet (2008), pp. 10 [para. 64]; 17 to 19 [para. 85]; 26, 27 [paras. 90, 96].

Sharpe, Robert J., and Roach, Kent, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (4th Ed. 2009), pp. 81, 82 [para. 101]; 390, 391 [para. 133].

Counsel:

S. Margot Blight, for the applicant;

Richard Warman, self-represented;

Barbara Kulaszka, representing Marc Lemire;

Not represented, Attorney General of Canada;

Jason Gratl, for the intervenor, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;

Andrew K. Lokan and Jodi Martin, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Gerald E. Langlois, for the intervenor, Canadian Association for Free Expressions Inc.;

Douglas H. Christie, for the intervenor, Canadian Free Speech League;

Moya Teklu and Ed Morgan, for the intervenor, African Canadian Legal Clinic;

Marvin Kurz, for the intervenor, League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada;

Not represented, Canadian Jewish Congress;

Steven Skurka, for the intervenor, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, for Holocaust Studies.

Solicitors of Record:

S. Margot Blight, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Barbara Kulaszka, Brighton, Ontario, representing Marc Lemire;

Not represented, Attorney General of Canada;

Jason Gratl, Gratl & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association;

Andrew K. Lokan and Jodi Martin, Paliaire Roland Rosenberg, Rothstein LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canada Civil Liberties Association;

Gerald E. Langlois, Charron Langlois LLP, Hawkesbury, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.;

Douglas H. Christie, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor, Canadian Free Speech League;

Moya Teklu and Ed Morgan, African Legal Clinic, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, African Canadian Legal Clinic;

Marvin Kurz, Dale, Streiman & Kurz LLP, Brampton, Ontario, for the intervenor, League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada.

Not represented, Canadian Jewish Congress;

Steven Skurka, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies.

This application was heard on December 13, 2011, in Toronto, Ontario, before Mosley, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on October 2, 2012.