Sunday, May 11, 2008

CHRC Disclosure like a Game Show. They want to give "clues" and you are supposed to guess the answers

CHRC Disclosure like a Game Show.  They want to give “clues” and you are supposed to guess the answers

CHRC makes a complete mockery of the Rules of Disclosure in order to hide evidence



Like the old Canadian CBC game show “Front Page Challenge”,  where contestants would be given clues and try to guess the answer, the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission’s new policy for disclosure is to black out most of the page, but leave what they call “clues”.  What sort of disclosure that that?

On May 9, 2008 Commission counsel – Margot Blight sent in a submission on Lemire/CFSL/CAFÉ’s request for full disclosure.  In that letter Ms. Blight states:

The disclosure materials which were disclosed in a less-redacted form yesterday, were re-redacted taking into account the following principles:

1: Names of individuals employed by the Commission at and below the level of Manager are to be redacted but names of individuals employed at the Director level and abode should not be redacted.  Exception was made for Dean Steacy, whose name was not redacted.

2: With respect to individuals outside the Commission and as a general rule, information identifying an individual’s name and coordinates is to be redacted and information about the organization he or she is associated with should not be redacted.  Co-ordinates can include IP address and the like.

[See complete letter by Blight]

This new policy put in place by the CHRC makes a complete mockery of the rules of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which requires the CHRC to disclose anything that is “arguably relevant”.  No such exemptions in law exists that the CHRC is trying to invoke.

 Rule 6(1) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure stipulates that all arguably relevant documents for which no privilege is claimed, whether favourable to the parties' cases or not, must be disclosed. It does not matter whether the information might be obtained by other means. If the documents exist and are in the possession of the parties, they must be disclosed unless privilege is being claimed. [Ruling]

  With the Commission now doing everything possible to hide their actions, their self-serving policy would in effect:

·        Block the names of every investigator at the Commission, including Sandy (Travel Agent) Kozak, Hannya Rizk, and others.

·        Any documents there were sent to or received by people like:  Richard Warman, Matthew Lauder, Warren Kinsella, Karen (The MANTRA) Mock, etc

  Recently it was revealed that the CHRC had a “policy” to lie to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and every Section 13 respondent, by not revealing the spying operations they were conducting.  This alone is a scandal of the highest order.

MS BLIGHT: Perhaps I can answer that question, Mr. Chairman.

Until recently the Commission was taking that position that that information was protected from disclosure. That position has changed and the information is now being disclosed through this witness.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a second, please.

One slight problem with that, Ms Blight, and that is that our rules of procedure say that where privilege is claimed with regard to information that should otherwise be disclosed, a list is to be provided with the reasons why the information is not being disclosed and then the privilege claims can then be challenged.

Lemire Transcript | Volume 26 | Page: 5838


But the CHRC isn’t just happy with redacting (blacking or whiting out material they wish to hide) but now they have an all new way absurd to disclose material. Now they want to leave “clues” in the material.

According to Canadian Human Rights Commission:

Since the March 25 hearing date, those documents have been reviewed again twice, and the Commission will be re-disclosing those documents in a less-redacted form in the next few days.  The redaction principle for personal information listed above, will be applied.  It is anticipated that some additional Commission employee names will be identifiable and that more clues will remain which will indicate to the reader, the nature of contact information which has been redacted

 Can you believe that?  It’s become the theatre of the absurd.  What exactly are they trying to hide?

So the Commission will disclose documents and will leave a few “clues” in it.  What is this?  Front Page Challenge?  Some immunity challenge on the TV show Survivor?  Now in order to figure out the CHRC is disclosing, we are put to all the work to try to figure out who these people are in the letters? The disclosure in legal terms is pretty much meaningless.

 For the Canadian Human Rights Commission shenanigans and hiding of information which was ordered to be disclosed, at any real court, the case against Marc Lemire would have been thrown out – a long ago.  But then again, this is what the Ottawa Citizen, Macleans Magazine, National Post and many others call a “Kangaroo court”.   So the case continues….

  This disclosure by “clues” is the CHRC new strategy to drain every last cent from Marc Lemire, who is forced to make motion after motion to receive what he should have received 2 years ago when the Tribunal forced the CHRC to disclose the material then.

 This is yet another documented utter abuse of the process. And shows why Section 13 needs to be sent to the dustbin of Canadian History….



Donate via PayPal