XPost: can.politics, tor.general, ab.general   
   XPost: ott.general, mtl.general   
      
   From: "Paul Fromm"    
   To:    
   Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:42:09 -0400   
      
   Marc Lemire demands adjournment of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal   
   until Federal Court rules on CHRC abuse of Section 37   
      
   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:   
      
   Canadian Association for Free Expression,   
      
   P.O. Box 332,   
      
   Rexdale, ON   
      
   M9W 5L3   
      
   Canada   
      
      
   To: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal,   
      
   160 Elgin St., 11th Floor,   
      
   Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4   
      
      
   To the Tribunal:   
      
   This is a motion for an adjournment sine die pending the disposition of the   
   respondent’s application to the Federal Court of Canada in Lemire v. Warman et   
   al., Court File No. T-860-07, for a determination of the claim to public   
   interest immunity by the Canadian Human Rights Commission pursuant to section   
   37 of the Canada Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as “the CEA.”)   
      
   The respondent filed the Notice of Application on May 17, 2007. The   
   application concerns the invocation of section 37 of the CEA on May 9 and 10,   
   2007 by the Commission during the testimony of Hannya Rizk and Dean Steacy. It   
   also concerns the invocation of section 37 by the Commission in response to   
   the motion by the respondent for a subpoena of Bell Canada.   
      
   The Tribunal was served with the Notice of Application on May 25, 2007.   
      
   Notices of Appearance in the proceeding have been filed by the Canadian Human   
   Rights Commission, the Attorney General of Canada, the Canadian Association   
   for Free Expression Inc. and the Canadian Free Speech League.   
      
      
   The Law   
      
   It is submitted that the normal and expected procedure where a section 37   
   objection has been made is for the inferior court or tribunal to adjourn the   
   proceedings to allow the matter to be taken to the superior courts. The   
   following are examples from the case law:   
      
   1. In R. v. Richards (1997), 115 C.C.C. (3d) 377 (Ont. C.A.), the judge in a   
   preliminary hearing adjourned the inquiry to allow the Crown to bring an   
   application under s. 37 of the CEA for an order prohibiting disclosure of the   
   information. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated:   
      
   “¶ 2 In the course of the preliminary inquiry, the Crown objected to   
   disclosure of information pertaining to the location from which the police   
   officer observed the alleged sale and the description of the automobile used   
   by the undercover officers when the alleged drug purchase was made. Judge   
   Casey, of the Provincial Division, concluded, correctly in our view, that the   
   information was relevant to the issue of identification, and could not be   
   excluded under the very limited power to exclude relevant defence evidence set   
   down in R. v. Seaboyer (1991), 66 C.C.C. (3d) 321 (S.C.C.) at 391. We do not   
   read Judge Casey's reasons as having determined the Crown's public interest   
   privilege claim. Instead, he adjourned the inquiry to allow the Crown to bring   
   an application under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5 for   
   an order prohibiting disclosure of the information.   
      
   …..   
      
   ¶ 16 In those cases where the judge conducting the preliminary inquiry orders   
   disclosure, there will be some delay in the completion of the preliminary   
   inquiry if the Crown chooses to bring a s. 37 application. The Crown also has   
   the option of avoiding the delay by terminating the preliminary inquiry and   
   proceeding by way of a direct-line indictment under s. 577.2 The resultant   
   delay, while unfortunate, is necessary to give effect to Parliament's clear   
   intention that the Crown have access to the superior court before being   
   required to disclose information which it claims is protected by the public   
   interest privilege.”   
      
      
   2. In R. v. Vaillancourt [1995] O.J. No. 898 (QL) (Prov. Div.), a preliminary   
   inquiry was adjourned so that an objection under section 37 could be   
   adjudicated in the superior court:   
      
   Crown counsel, during the court of defence counsel's cross-examination of one   
   of its witnesses on a preliminary inquiry, has objected to that witness,   
   Detective Gauthier, answering certain questions by certifying orally pursuant   
   to section 37(1) of the Canada Evidence Act, that the witness' answers should   
   not be disclosed because they would reveal the identity of a police informer.   
   Crown counsel objected to this disclosure after the witness had refused to   
   answer certain questions and I had ruled that the information sought was   
   relevant to the defence and had compelled the witness to answer.   
      
   The preliminary inquiry was then adjourned, so that the issue of police   
   informant privilege could be determined by application to the General Division   
   of this court, pursuant to the procedure set out in section 37(3) of the   
   Canada Evidence Act.”   
      
      
   3. In Regina v. Philip (1993), 80 CCC (3d) 167 (Ont. C.A.), the trial   
   proceedings were adjourned to allow counsel to challenge the privilege claim   
   by the RCMP under section 37 of the Act. The Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed   
   the chronology in part as follows:   
      
   “June 12, 1991 -- The trial commences with a voir dire to determine the   
   admissibility of the seized material.   
      
   June 13, 1991 -- After approximately one and one-half days of evidence on the   
   voir dire, counsel for the R.C.M.P. appears and objects to the disclosure of   
   certain material in the police files. The objection is based on "public   
   interest" grounds. Counsel provides certificates under s. 37 of the Canada   
   Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-10, certifying the privilege claim. The trial   
   proceedings are adjourned to allow counsel to challenge the privilege claim in   
   the superior court as provided for in s. 37(3) of the Canada Evidence Act.”   
      
   4. In Re Attorney General of Canada et al. and Sander (1994), 90 CCC (3d) 41   
   (BCCA), the court held that an application under section 37 to a superior   
   court is an independent inquiry and not an interlocutory appeal or a review   
   and that therefore the trial proceedings should be adjourned to allow the   
   superior court to make its determination under the provision. It held:   
      
      
   “A s. 37 application is an independent inquiry which, by statute, may require   
   the attention of a judge other than the trial judge. Section 37(3) makes that   
   plain: 37(3) Subject to sections 38 and 39, where an objection to the   
   disclosure of information is made under subsection (1) before a court, person   
   or body other than a superior court, the objection may be determined, on   
   application, in accordance with subsection (2) by   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)