Warman v. Canadian Human Rights Commission

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: Harrington, J.
• Citation: (2012), 420 F.T.R. 290 (FC),2012 FC 1296
• Date: 07 November 2012

Warman v. CHRC (2012), 420 F.T.R. 290 (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. NO.036

Richard Warman (complainant) v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (commission) and Terry Tremaine (respondent)

(T-293-07; 2012 FC 1296; 2012 CF 1296)

Indexed As: Warman v. Canadian Human Rights Commission

Federal Court

Harrington, J.

November 7, 2012.

Summary:

Following a complaint regarding alleged hate messages posted on two websites, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a cease and desist order against Tremaine in February 2007 and registered the order with the Federal Court. In March 2009, alleging that Tremaine was in contempt of the order, the Canadian Human Rights Commission moved for a show cause order. The motion was supported by an affidavit exhibiting internet downloads from the two websites in 2007, after the cease and desist order had been registered.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 538, issued a show cause order. The show cause hearing proceeded.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at (2010), 378 F.T.R. 299, dismissed the contempt charge. The Commission appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Pelletier, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at (2011), 423 N.R. 120, allowed the appeal, found Tremaine to be in contempt of the Commission's order and remitted the matter to the Federal Court for sentencing. Tremaine sought leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision reported at (2012), 435 N.R. 391, denied leave to appeal.

The Federal Court sentenced Tremaine as follows: (1) he was to cease communicating material that was contrary to s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to take steps to have material removed from two websites and to provide evidence that he had complied with the order within 15 days of service; (2) whether or not he complied with the order, he was to be imprisoned for 30 days; and (3) if he failed to comply with the order, he was to be imprisoned for a further six months or until he complied with the order.

Civil Rights - Topic 950.1

Discrimination - Communicating hate messages telephonically (incl. via internet) - General - [See Contempt - Topic 3325 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1169

Discrimination - Remedies - Cease and desist order - [See Contempt - Topic 3325 ].

Contempt - Topic 3301

Punishment - General (incl. considerations) - [See Contempt - Topic 3325 ].

Contempt - Topic 3325

Punishment - Imprisonment - When appropriate - Following a complaint regarding alleged hate messages posted on two websites, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a cease and desist order against Tremaine - Tremaine was found to be in contempt of the order - The Federal Court sentenced Tremaine as follows: (1) he was to cease communicating material that was contrary to s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to take steps to have material removed from two websites and to provide evidence that he had complied with the order within 15 days of service; (2) whether or not he complied with the order, he was to be imprisoned for 30 days; and (3) if he failed to comply with the order, he was to be imprisoned for a further six months or until he complied with the order - Tremaine had clearly intended to flout the law, to demean the Tribunal and the court, and had not apologized - As to Tremaine's assertions regarding the constitutional validity of s. 13, the court noted that it "is a principle of the law of contempt that orders that have not been set aside must be obeyed, whether or not their foundation is unconstitutional".

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Pontes (P.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 44; 186 N.R. 81; 62 B.C.A.C. 241; 103 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 12].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Warman et al. (2012), 419 F.T.R. 162; 2012 FC 1162, refd to. [para. 15].

Ontario Securities Commission v. Gaudet (1988), 65 O.R.(2d) 424 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Miller, Jeffrey, The Law of Contempt in Canada (1997), p. 24 [para. 28].

Counsel:

Richard Warman, on his own behalf;

Daniel Poulin, for the commission;

Douglas H. Christie, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Daniel Poulin, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Commission;

Douglas H. Christie, Victoria, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This matter was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 9 and 10, 2012, by Harrington, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order at Montreal, Quebec, on November 7, 2012.