Because of CHRC Willful Disregard for Disclosure Rules - The legality of each and every section 13 case is in question
In a motion filed on
With the revelations from the Canadian Human Rights Commission that they withheld very relevant information from every single victim of Section 13 – every “conviction” has to be reviewed!
Here is some excerpts of the motion filed:
TO: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal,
Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405
It is clear that the respondent cannot close his case in the circumstances given the evidence by Dean Steacy last week and the statement made by
Three things became clear from a review of the proceedings:
1: Firstly, and most importantly, Dean Steacy revealed that as an investigator he had signed onto the Freedomsite message board using a pseudonym. This was one of a number of message boards that he had accessed using false emails and personas. Nothing was ever disclosed about this to the respondent in these proceedings. Since four other people had access to the false email accounts, the question is raised of whether other investigators posted on the Freedomsite. As of this date,
The Commission has violated its duty of disclosure. Dean Steacy ignored the requirements of the subpoena issued by the Tribunal which required that he bring all documents with respect to monitoring the Internet. This case cannot be closed when it is now revealed that evidence going to the merits of the case exists and was never disclosed to the respondent. This evidence must be disclosed.
2: The evidence given by Alain
· the log files of the Freedomsite show that when Hannya Rizk accessed the site in 2003 and 2004 during her duties at the Commission, she did so through UUNET Canada. UUNet provided businesses with Internet access.
· Bell Sympatico is
It is submitted that the evidence shows that Dean Steacy, at the offices of the Commission on December 8, 2006 accessed Stormfront.org via a high-jacked wireless access point.
3: The evidence of Dean Steacy that there are no written agreements between police forces and the Commission regarding the exchange of information on respondents and therefore no legal authorization for such violation of the privacy rights of Canadian citizens also goes to the constitutionality of section 13. Information has been obtained or given over a dozen times according to
The documents produced by
In June of last year, I informed the Tribunal that the respondent had no further witnesses. I did not say that the respondent’s case was closed. It obviously was not closed since the respondent had commenced an application in the Federal Court to obtain answers to various questions
It is not the prerogative of this Tribunal to tell the respondent when his case is closed. The duty of this Tribunal is to ensure that the parties are given a fair hearing. There is no requirement in the Canadian Human Rights Act that cases be finished within a certain time. The Tribunal’s repeated statement that “This case is done” is, with respect, not a matter for the Tribunal to decide. The Tribunal’s duty is to ensure a fair hearing and that justice is done.
It is submitted that the revelations on March 25th show the outline of the following activities of the Commission:
1. They have failed to make major disclosure of vital and key information in all section 13 cases, including this one, of contacts with respondents or attempted contacts via false identities;
2. That Sgt. Stephen Camp (as “Estate”) and Richard Warman (as “Pogue
3. That only John Chamberlain, if even he, is the only person at the Commission who knows the full extent of the creation of false personas and false email accounts by Commission employees;
4. That a deliberate decision has been made by the Commission to use unsecured wireless Internet accounts of private Canadian citizens to access targeted sites and message boards;
5. That the Freedomsite message board was accessed by Dean Steacy in his “Jadewarr” persona with no disclosure of any facts concerning this made to the respondent.
The respondent therefore makes this motion for the following relief:
1. An order from this Tribunal that the Commission make full disclosure of
(a) all email accounts using false names used by Commission investigators in section 13 cases, such as firstname.lastname@example.org.
(b) all emails sent or received in those accounts;
(c) all pseudonyms used by Commission employees to post on message boards or websites;
(d) all pseudonyms used by Richard Warman, police officers, or any other persons, that the Commission coordinated and worked with in section 13 investigations;
(e) copies of all private messages (P
(f) copies of all Commission or investigator notes or other documentation or memos with respect to policies, strategies or activities using the false emails and pseudonyms or personas;
(g) disclosure of all documentation concerning the unauthorized use of private wireless access points;
(h) all documents relating to the exchange of private information on respondents or other individuals to police with respect to hate investigations by either police of the Commission;
2. An adjournment of the hearing until such disclosure is made, at which time the parties may make motions on the hearing of oral evidence or subpoenas.
I realize that the Tribunal has been criticized for lengthy hearings. However, in this case it is
The material at the heart of this complaint was removed by the respondent some four years ago. There is therefore no prejudice to the public interest.
This Tribunal has a duty to uphold the law. The evidence of
This evidence goes directly to the merits of the Lemire case and to the constitutional challenge of section 13 and its penalty provision.
The disclosure requested is required for the respondent to have natural justice and a fair hearing as required under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Whether the respondent will request further subpoenas as a result of this disclosure remains open.
The respondent’s case has not been closed when full disclosure from the Commission has never been made, even on the merits of the case. The announcement of
All of which is respectfully submitted.