Friday, April 25, 2008

Conservative MP Supports Repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship)

Below is a letter written to Glenn Bahr, a victim of the Canadian Human Rights Commission by Conservative MP James Rajotte.

 

 

 

 

Dear Glenn:

 

The office of the Honorable Rona Ambrose, MP, has recently forwarded me a copy of your correspondence to her regarding your dealings with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

 

While I am only aware of the generalities of your specific case with the Tribunal and it would be inappropriate for me to comment without full knowledge of the situation, rest assured that I am in agreement with you that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (as well as similar bodies at the provincial level) has recently overstepped its original mandate and is in need of reform. Its mandate is to protect the human rights of Canadian citizens, not to curtail free speech and impose censorship on an open, democratic society.

 

I give you my assurance that when motion M-446 comes before the House of Commons it will have my support. Furthermore, the passage of M-446 in no way prevents the enactment of further legislation to reform human rights bodies in Canada, should the need arise in the future.

 

Thank you for taking the time to bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues and myself, I hope that my support of M-446 is reassuring to you. Should you have any further questions or concerns please don not hesitate to contact my office.

 

Yours truly,

James Rajotte, MP

Edmonton-Leduc

http://www.jamesrajotte.com/

 

 

 

Groups and Writers that Support Repeal of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html

 

Liberal MP Keith Martin

Liberal MP Dan McTeague

Ezra Levant

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Rex Murphy)

Catholic Insight Magazine

Catholic Register

Halifax Chronicle Herald (Paul Schneidereit)

Victoria News

PEN Canada

CDN Association of Journalists

Mary Steyn (Macleans Magazine)

Calgary Herald

Western Standard Magazine

London Free Press

B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune

Sask Leader-Post

Deborah Gyapong

Calgary AM770

Globe and Mail

National Post

David Warren (Ottawa Citizen)

Eye Magazine (Toronto)

Toronto Star

Toronto Sun

Interim Magazine

Sault Ste. Marie – SooToday

Winnipeg Free Press

Oak Bay News

 

 

 

 

MACLEANS: Please Send more Complaints

Otherwise how will our taxpayer-funded hate police manage to keep their cozy sinecure?

MARK STEYN | April 23, 2008 |  MACLEANS MAGAZINE

Last week's letters page included a missive from Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., chief commissioner of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, defending her employees from the accusation of "improper investigative techniques" by yours truly. Steyn, she writes, "provides no substantiation for these claims," and then concludes:

"Why is this all important? Because words are important. Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free rein. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred."

Hmm. "History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes." Commissar Lynch provides, as she would say, "no substantiation for these claims." But then she's a "hate speech" prosecutor and, as we know, Canada's "human rights" procedures aren't subject to tiresome requirements like evidence. So she's made an argument from authority: the great Queen's Counsel has risen from her throne in the Star Chamber and pronounced, and let that suffice. Those of us who occupy less exalted positions in the realm might wish to ponder the evidence for her assertions.

It's true that "hurtful actions that undermine freedom" and lead to "unspeakable crimes" usually have some fig leaf of intellectual justification. For example, the ideology first articulated by Karl Marx has led to the deaths of millions of people around the planet on an unprecedented scale. Yet oddly enough, no matter how many folks are murdered in the name of Marxism-Leninism, you're still free to propound its principles at every college in Canada.

Ah, but that's the Good Totalitarianism. What about the Bad Totalitarianism? You know, the one everybody disapproves of: Nazism. Isn't it obvious that in the case of Adolf Hitler, "hateful words" led to "unspeakable crimes"? This argument is offered routinely: if only there'd been "reasonable limits on the expression of hatred" 70 years ago, the Holocaust might have been prevented.

There's just one teensy-weensy problem with it: pre-Nazi Germany had such "reasonable limits." Indeed, the Weimar Republic was a veritable proto-Trudeaupia. As Alan Borovoy, Canada's leading civil libertarian, put it:

"Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."

Inevitably, the Nazi party exploited the restrictions on "free speech" in order to boost its appeal. In 1925, the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Adolf Hitler from making any public speeches. The Nazis responded by distributing a drawing of their leader with his mouth gagged and the caption, "Of 2,000 million people in the world, one alone is forbidden to speak in Germany."

The idea that "hate speech" led to the Holocaust is seductive because it's easy: if only we ban hateful speech, then there will be no hateful acts. But, as professor Anuj C. Desai of the University of Wisconsin Law School points out, "Biased speech has been around since history began. As a logical matter, then, it is no more helpful to say that anti-Semitic speech caused the Holocaust than to say organized government caused it, or, for that matter, to say that oxygen caused it. All were necessary ingredients, but all have been present in every historical epoch in every country in the world."

Just so. Indeed, the principal ingredient unique to the pre-Hitler era was the introduction of Jennifer Lynch-type hate-speech laws that supposedly protect vulnerable minorities from "unspeakable acts." You might as well argue that Weimar's "reasonable limits" on free speech led to the Holocaust: after all, while anti-Semitism is "the oldest hatred," it didn't turn genocidal until the "reasonable limits" proponents of the day introduced group-defamation laws to Germany. 'Tween-wars Europe was awash in prototype hate-crimes legislation. For example, the Versailles Conference required the new postwar states to sign on to the 1919 Minorities Protection Treaty, with its solemn guarantees of non-discrimination. I'm sure Canada's many Jews of Mitteleuropean origin will be happy to testify to what a splendid job that far-sighted legislation did.

 

Continue:  http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080423_31672_31672

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

Biased and Unfair | TRUTH is NO Defence | 100% Convictions | Lifetime Speech bans

Censors ... HANDS OFF THE INTERNET!

 

Stop Section 13: http://www.StopSection13.com

 

Marc Lemire Legal Case and CHRC Documents

 

 

FACTUM - Written Submissions on Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act  (This is a MUST read)

 

 

 

 

 

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Active and Past cases: 46  |  Cases the tribunal ruled on: 37

 

·         NOT A SINGLE respondent have ever won a section 13 case

·         98% of cases have poor or working class respondents

·         90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers

·         $99,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003.

·         35 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.

 

 

Groups and Writers that Support Repeal of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html

 

Liberal MP Keith Martin

Liberal MP Dan McTeague

Ezra Levant

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Rex Murphy)

Catholic Insight Magazine

Catholic Register

Halifax Chronicle Herald (Paul Schneidereit)

Victoria News

PEN Canada

CDN Association of Journalists

Mary Steyn (Macleans Magazine)

Calgary Herald

Western Standard Magazine

London Free Press

B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune

Sask Leader-Post

Deborah Gyapong

Calgary AM770

Globe and Mail

National Post

David Warren (Ottawa Citizen)

Eye Magazine (Toronto)

Toronto Star

Toronto Sun

Interim Magazine

Sault Ste. Marie – SooToday

Winnipeg Free Press

Oak Bay News

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, April 18, 2008

Privacy Act complaint filed against Canadian Human Rights Commission for unauthorized use of an Internet connection

Privacy Act complaint filed against Canadian “Human Rights” Commission for unauthorized use of an Internet connection

 

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/CHRC_privacy_complaint.html

 

 

APRIL 18, 2008: The Privacy Act makes it a violation of governments to invade the privacy of Canadians without proper justification.  On April 4, 2008, the Canadian Press Reported "The unauthorized use of someone's computer or network could constitute a serious breach of privacy, the office of Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart said. "The possibility that the (Canadian Human Rights Commission) was accessing someone else's computer without their permission, and in effect using their network to communicate, is something we're certainly going to look into," Colin McKay, who is Stoddart's communications director, said from Ottawa."

A criminal complaint has already been filed with the Ottawa Police and the RCMP.

  

Text of complaint filed

 

To: Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

112 Kent Street

Place de Ville

Tower B, 3rd Floor

Ottawa , Ontario , K1A 1H3

 

NAME OF COMPLAINANT:

 

Marc Lemire

545-152 Carlton Street

Toronto, Ontario

M5A 2K1

 

 

 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF RESPONDENTS:

 

Canadian Human Rights Commission

344 Slater Street, 8th Floor,

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E1, Canada

Telephone: (613) 995-1151

Fax: (613) 996-9661

 

 

 

 

ALLEGATION:

 

On December 8, 2006 at 3:29pm (EST) Dean Steacy and/or John Chamberlin and/or Sandy Kozak, used the pseudonym “Jadewarr” to access the Stormfront.Org website.  In order to hide their identity, the respondents wilfully and with malicious intent connected to the wireless access point of Nelly Heckme, without her knowledge and/or approval, in violation of Canadian law and the Privacy Act.

 

 

PARTICULARS:

 

On December 8, 2006 at 3:29pm, (EST), Dean Steacy, an investigator at the Canadian Human Rights Commission logged onto the Stormfront.Org website using the pseudonym “Jadewarr” to print off a post entitled “Italy for Italians”  This print out was entered into evidence by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), during a hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal), File No. T1106/8705, on December 12, 2006.   (Beaumont case)

 

The material submitted by the CHRC showed that the pseudonym logged into Stormfront was “Jadewarr”  Attached to this my complaint and marked Exhibit A is the transcripts of  December 12, 2006 Tribunal hearing.

 

On March 25, 2007, I accessed the Stormfront.Org member public profile for user “Jadewarr”. The user profile shows that the last activity (last logon) was 12-08-2006 03:29PM.  As well it showed a join date of 02-02-2005 and the E-mail address jadewarr@yahoo.ca. Attached to this my complaint and marked Exhibit B is the Stormfront member public profile for “Jadewarr”.

 

In March, 2007, I requested and received the IP address and e-mail address associated with the Stormfront member “Jadewarr” from Don Black, the owner and operator of Stormfront.Org.

 

He provided me with the following information:

 

·                    IP Address:  70.48.181.203

·                    Host Name: bas2-ottawa23-1177597387.dsl.bell.ca

·                    E-Mail address used: jadewarr@yahoo.ca

 

Attached to this my complaint and marked Exhibit C is the affidavit of Marc Lemire, dated 12 February 2008.

 

On May 10, 2007, at the hearing of Warman v. Lemire, before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the CHRC invoked Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act to block all questioning on the “Jadewarr” account.  Dean Steacy was the witness on the stand.

 

On May 14, 2007, Marc Lemire filed a motion before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a subpoena of Bell Canada’s records for:

 

User account and subscriber information for the user of IP Protocol address:  70.48.181.203, with hostname bas2-ottawa23-1177597387.dsl.bell.ca, that was connected to the Bell Sympatico and/or Bell Canada network on: December 8th, 2006 at 03:29 PM (EST)

 

On May 15, 2007, The Canadian Human Rights Commission replied:

The Commission, pursuant to section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-5, formally objects to the disclosure of this information.  We certify to the Tribunal that this information should not be disclosed on the basis of the public interest as the disclosure of this information would be prejudicial to the Commission’s investigative process

 

On May 17, 2007, the Tribunal ruled that Section 37 has been invoked by the CHRC for the Bell Canada Subpoena, and that only the Federal Court of Canada can review the application. Attached to this my complaint and marked Exhibit D is the ruling by the Tribunal.

 

On May 17, 2007, Marc Lemire filed a Notice of application with regard to Judicial

Review of all Section 37 invocations, before the Federal Court of Canada.

On December 20, 2007, Margot Blight, counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission gave in on all Section 37 objections and made voluntary admissions on the identity of Jadewarr.  The information revealed by the CHRC, in admissions certified as true by counsel, in regards to Dean Steacy was:

 

2. Getting back to Jadewarr, do Commission employees sign up accounts on Stormfront, under pseudonyms such as “Jadewarr”?

o       I used the Jadewarr email address to create an account on Stormfront.  I am not aware whether or not other investigators have created other accounts on Stormfront.

3. Do you know who Jadewarr is?

o       Jadewarr is not a person, it is an email address and a user account on Stormfront.org.  I created the Jadewarr email address on yahoo.ca and the Jadewarr account on Stormfront.  I have used the Jadewarr email address and the Jadewarr account on Stormfront on occasion, in the course of investigating complaints.  I am not aware of anyone else having used the Jadewarr email address or account.

 

Attached to this my complaint and marked Exhibit E is the admissions by the CHRC dated December 20, 2007.

 

On January 15, 2008 before the Federal Court of Canada, CHRC counsel Margot Blight withdrew their Section 37 objection to the subpoena of Bell Canada.  Attached to this my complaint and marked Exhibit F is the ruling by the Federal Court of Canada.

 

On March 3, 2008 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal allowed the issuance of a subpoena of Bell Canada’s records for the “Jadewarr” records. Attached to this my complaint and marked Exhibit G is the ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

 

On March 25, 2008, Alain Monfette, director of the law enforcement support team for Bell Canada, testified under oath before the Tribunal (Warman v. Lemire) that the owner of the IP address 70.48.181.203 on December 8, 2006 at 3:29PM was:

 

Nelly Hechme

570 Laurier Ave W

Ottawa, Ontario

User ID: b1cgsw59

Connection date and time: December 7, 2006 from 18:37:22 to December 8, 2006 at 21:35:56

 

Attached to this my complaint and marked Exhibit H is the subscriber information as provided by Bell Canada.

 

On March 25, 2008, Dean Steacy testified under oath before the Tribunal (Warman v. Lemire) that he used the “Jadewarr” account and printed the webpage as used in the Beaumont case.  Dean Steacy also testified that: John Chamberlin, Sandy Kozak and his assistant also had the password to the “Jadewarr” account.  Mr. Steacy also testified that he does not know who Nelly Hechme is.

 

On March 26, 2008, the National Post newspaper in a front page story entitled “Jeers and Loathing at tribunal” reported the following:

 

Reached by phone last night, Ms. Hechme, 26, told the National Post she has no connection to the tribunal, has never known any of the investigators, and has never accessed a Web site as Jadewarr. She said that in the relevant period in 2006 she did have a Bell Sympatico account with a wireless connection that was not password controlled, meaning anyone within range of her apartment could have accessed the Internet with it.

 

Attached to this my complaint and marked Exhibit I is the March 26, 2008 National Post article.

 

On March 26, 2008, Marc Lemire attended the address of Nelly Hechme at 570 Laurier Ave W.  Upon arriving, it was clear that the Canadian Human Rights Commissions office was merely 1 block from her apartment.

 

A mapquest review of the location shows that between the CHRC’s office at 344 Slater Street, 8th Floor and Nelly Hechme’s apartment at 570 Laurier Ave W, is separated by a large open field. Attached to this my complaint and marked Exhibit J is a satellite view of the area.

 

It takes a purposeful intent to connect to a wireless access point.  The person would have to scan for wireless access points.  And then select the one you wanted to connect to. It was no accident they connected to Nelly Hechme’s access point, in order to impersonate her internet IP address and conceal what they were doing on internet websites.

 

The Canadian Human Rights Commission employees have taken numerous steps in the past to hide their real internet IP address, by using Internet anonymous redirecting services such as “the-cloak.com”.

 

In an attempt to cover up their actions, the CHRC has attempted to block the issuance of a subpoena of Bell Canada’s records on at least three occasions.

 

  1. Initial motion filed for Bell Canada Subpoena (Motion filed: May 14, 2007, Section 37 of CEA invoked by CHRC on May 17, 2007)
  2. Federal Court of Canada (CHRC initially made submissions on why it should not be released.  And then at the hearing date on Jan 15, 2008, the CHRC revoked their Section 37 of the CEA objection)
  3. Tribunal on issuance (CHRC against tried to block the Tribunal from issuing a subpoena.  Tribunal issues subpoena on March 3, 2008)

 

The dominant motive of the CHRC was to hide what their employees did and thus conceal from the public the questionable actions on their employees.

 

A wireless signal from a wireless access point can easily travel a city block.

 

 

COMPLAINT:

 

Dean Steacy and/or other Commission employees willfully connected to the wireless access point owned by Nelly Hechme, in order to hide their online identity.  Then impersonating Mrs. Hechme, via her internet connection, browsed to Stormfront.Org website and printed documents that were submitted as evidence of material fact before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

 

1.     By wilfully and with malicious intent connecting to Nelly Hechme’s wireless access point and then using her internet connection without authorization, they have violated the Privacy Act.

 

2.     By wilfully and with malicious intent connecting to Nelly Hechme’s wireless access point and then using her internet connection without authorization, they have committed other violations which this Privacy Office may deem applicable.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted;

 

 

Marc Lemire

7 April 2008

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

Biased and Unfair | TRUTH is NO Defence | 100% Convictions | Lifetime Speech bans

Censors ... HANDS OFF THE INTERNET!

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://wwwStopSection13.com

 

 

 

 

 


 

Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge

 

Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law 

and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !

 

·         Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:

Marc Lemire

152 Carlton Street 

PO Box 92545 

Toronto, Ontario 

M5A 2K1 

Canada

 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Motion for Disclosure of CHRC fake names and to reopen hearing over CHRC WiFi Hacking

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 March 31, 2008 before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Marc Lemire is demanding that the CHRC disclose the fake names they used on internet message boards and to reopen the hearing so that the CHRC employees can be cross examined.

 

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,

160 Elgin St., 11th Floor,

Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4

 

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 Ms. Margot Blight at the hearing concerning the change in disclosure policies of the Commission.

 

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, Marc Lemire has not received any disclosure about the signing up and posting of material on Freedomsite by Commission employees. This goes directly to the merits of the case since most of the material which forms the basis of this case comes from the Freedomsite message board.

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.

 

Ms. Margot Blight, for the Commission, stated to the Tribunal on March 25th that it had been the Commission’s policy up until the Federal Court decision in Lemire in January of this year, not to disclose to any respondent in a section 13 case that the Commission investigators were communicating under false names with respondents via emails and/or were signing up accounts under false names on their own message boards or message boards such as Stormfront. This included the respondent. This admission by the Commission shows that not one respondent in a section 13 case obtained full disclosure from the Commission and that matters going directly to the merits of these cases were hidden from respondents and the Tribunals hearing their cases. This admission brings into question the legality of each and every section 13 case decided by the Tribunal.

 

2: The evidence given by Alain Monfette of Bell Canada was extremely puzzling to me and to the respondent. However, after further investigation, Mr. Lemire has informed me of the following facts:

·        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 Bell’s RESIDENTIAL internet provider.  Bell Nexia is Bell’s BUSINESS internet provider  (http://www.bellnexia.com/).

 

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. Ms. Nelly Hechme lives just down the street from the Commission offices and it appears her unsecured wireless access was used by the Commission in an attempt to hide their tracks. If this is correct and the Commission is using the Internet accounts of private citizens, without their knowledge, on section 13 cases, this goes directly to the constitutionality of section 13.

 

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 Mr. Steacy. This goes directly to the constitutional challenge as the Commission is indirectly accessing information from police which it could not obtain lawfully through its own procedures.

 

The documents produced by Ms. Blight on March 25th included emails of jadewarr@yahoo.ca showing that the Commission employees had over 50 emails at that time in the email inbox. No disclosure was made of these emails or other contacts with respondents or other persons via false name emails or postings or private messages.

 

 

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 Mahone”) on Stormfront, worked together on the Stormfront message board from the fall of 2003 until their false personas were revealed. “Jadewarr” was simply part of the same strategy. None of this was disclosed to respondents who were brought before this Tribunal for postings on Stormfront;

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 jadewarr@yahoo.ca.

(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 (PM’s) sent or received using pseudonyms on message boards or websites;

(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 Mr. Lemire who is the one who stands to lose the most from this complaint. Richard Warman is demanding a penalty of $9,000.00 to be assessed against Mr. Lemire [Vol. 4, p. 695] as well as a lifetime cease and desist order.

 

Mr. Warman, in the meantime, has left the proceedings and has not returned. He suffers no prejudice whatsoever from a full hearing of the evidence.

 

Ms. Blight, for the Commission, stated earlier on the last conference call that the Commission wished to have final submissions in the Fall. The Commission therefore sees no problem with a delay to the autumn for final submissions, giving ample time for this disclosure to be made and for further hearings, if necessary.

 

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 March 25th shows that the Commission has not followed the law or the rules of natural justice in the section 13 cases decided prior to this one or in this one. It did not make highly relevant disclosure to respondents.

 

This evidence goes directly to the merits of the Lemire case and to the constitutional challenge of section 13 and its penalty provision.

 

Mr. Lemire is entitled to a hearing which is lawful and where the Commission is required to obey the law. He has never delayed proceedings and never complained about delay in the proceedings. The time a case takes is irrelevant to whether justice is done. In this case, given the incredible statement of Ms. Blight on March 25th that the policy of the Commission has now changed, it means that this case just changed.

 

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 Ms. Blight last Tuesday on the change of policy of the Commission means that that disclosure must now be made.

 

All of which is respectfully submitted.

 

 

 

Barbara Kulaszka