The CHRC is in total disarray: They have no clue how many Section 13 complaints they have even received!

The CHRC is in total disarray

They have no clue how many Section 13 complaints they have even received!

 

 

Like a scene out of a Benny Hill comedy, the Canadian Human Rights Commission are in complete disarray.  From allegedly “misplacing” key disclosure items for over two years, then … magically it’s found only days before the Lemire hearing.  To the hiding of evidence that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered them to disclose. To the latest revelation that the CHRC actually has no idea how many Section 13 (internet censorship provision) complaints they have received and processed.

 

For more information on the CHRC censorship campaign see:  http://www.freedomsite.org/legal

 

 

 

Lemire Tribunal Transcript.   

CHRT Case No. T1073/5405

Volume: 24 | Page: 5266-5267

 

MS. KULASZKA: This letter is dated April 16, 2007, so it's very up-to-date. It says,

 

 "Thank you for your request made under the Access to Information Act received in this office March 16, 2007. Pursuant to your request concerning Section 13 cases received by the Canadian Human Rights Commission our data shows that:

 

Received: 100 complaints.

Number that had been refused to deal with under section 41 of the Canadian Human Rights Act: 14.

 

The remaining 86 complaints either have been otherwise determined by the Commission and/or are at various stages of

the Commission complaints process."

 

Now that is since 1978, since the inception of the Act.

…

MS. BLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, may I add for the record that I am familiar with this as counsel for the Commission, and I can advise Ms. Kulaszka and yourself that the number of 100 was based on the Commission's electronic recordkeeping system, and the Commission is not, in fact, able to conclusively confirm the accuracy of that number but it is the best number that the Commission has been able to produce based upon the records that it has at this time.

 

THE CHAIRPERSON: And to the date of around March/April 2007.

MS. BLIGHT: Yes. It was intended to be current at the time the response was provided.