Warman v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al., 2010 FC 1198

• Judge: Harrington, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 29, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2010 FC 1198;(2010), 378 F.T.R. 299 (FC)

Warman v. CHRC (2010), 378 F.T.R. 299 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.007

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

(T-293-07; 2010 FC 1198)

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

Federal Court

Harrington, J.

November 29, 2010.

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 dismissed the contempt charge.

Editor's Note: For a decision related to this motion, see [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 462.

Administrative Law - Topic 9051.1

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - [See Contempt - Topic 682 ].

Contempt - Topic 682

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Requirement of knowledge of court order - 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 - In June 2010, finding a prima facie case, the court issued a show cause order - The Federal Court dismissed the contempt charge - The Commission had established beyond a reasonable doubt that Tremaine had early knowledge of the cease and desist order - However, it had not established that he had knowledge that the order had been registered with the Federal Court until March 2009 at the latest - The Tribunal, itself, had no inherent jurisdiction to enforce its order or to find someone in contempt - The "lynchpin" had to be the registration of the order with the Federal Court and knowledge by the alleged contemptor of the registration - The charges of contempt, as set out in the show cause order, had to be dismissed because all of the events occurred before Tremaine had knowledge of the order's registration - See paragraphs 22 to 37.

Contempt - Topic 2648

Defences - Particular defences - Lack of notice of disobeyed court order - [See Contempt - Topic 682 ].

Contempt - Topic 5508

Jurisdiction to punish for contempt - General - Boards and tribunals - [See Contempt - Topic 682 ].

Cases Noticed:

Tremaine v. Warman et al. (2008), 334 F.T.R. 78; 2008 FC 1032, refd to. [para. 7].

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901; 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 9].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Knapp v. Québec Police Commission, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 618; 28 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 11].

Chrysler Canada Ltd. v. Competition Tribunal (Can.) et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 394; 138 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 11].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 11].

Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor - see Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Winnicki, [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 188; 2006 FC 350, refd to. [para. 14].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Winnicki (2007), 359 N.R. 101; 2007 FCA 52, refd to. [para. 15].

Services aux enfants et adultes de Prescott-Russell v. N.G. et al. (2006), 214 O.A.C. 146; 82 O.R.(3d) 686 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Prescott-Russell Services for Children and Adults v. G. (N.) et al. - see Services aux enfants et adultes de Prescott-Russell v. N.G. et al.

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Torroni et al. (2009), 246 O.A.C. 212; 94 O.R.(3d) 614; 2009 ONCA 85, refd to. [para. 17].

Hobbs v. Hobbs (2008), 240 O.A.C. 202; 54 R.F.L.(6th) 1; 2008 ONCA 598, refd to. [para. 17].

Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) v. Fuzion Technology Corp. et al. (2009), 349 F.T.R. 303; 2009 FC 800, refd to. [para. 17].

Smith v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2009] 1 F.C.R. 3; 348 F.T.R. 290; 2009 FC 228, refd to. [para. 21].

Khadr v. Prime Minister (Canada) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44; 397 N.R. 294; 2010 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 21].

Bhatnager v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 217; 111 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 24].

Bell Canada et al. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada et al. (2010), 409 N.R. 102; 323 D.L.R.(4th) 42; 2010 FCA 220, refd to. [para. 35].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Miller, Jeffrey, The Law of Contempt in Canada (1997), generally [para. 12].

Counsel:

Richard Warman, on his own behalf, for the complainant;

Daniel Poulin, for the Commission;

Douglas H. Christie, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Litigation Services Division, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Commission;

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

This motion was heard at Victoria, British Columbia, on November 8-10 and 12, 2010, by Harrington, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order on November 29, 2010.