From Free Dominion:
Abrams and BBC v. Topham and Radical Press – Position of the Commission
Dear Tribunal and Parties,
We write further to the correspondence that has been exchanged by the parties in regards to the impact of the Warman v Lemire decision recently rendered by the Tribunal.
It is the position of the Commission submits that the Tribunal should proceed on hearing the matter pending before it in the present case. Consequently, the matter should neither be adjourned sine die or simply dismissed.
In Warman v. Lemire, the Tribunal found that the penalty provision in s. 54(1)(c) was not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Charter. In the instant case, the Commission will no longer be seeking a penalty under 54(1)(c) of the Act as was originally included in its Statement of Particulars. The Commission therefore respectfully submits that the Tribunal ought to proceed with a hearing of the Complaint to determine if section 13 has been infringed, and if so, to exercise its discretion under s. 54(1)(a).
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Thanks to Blazing Cat Fur for pointing this out to me. You can read all about it over at his site.
More on this from Jay Currie, who comments:
Whether that is what Hadjis actually meant is a whole other question. His analysis of Taylor turns on the remedial and conciliatory assumption made by Dickson in Taylor. As I wrote earlier, the Warmanization of the Commission, its transformation into a prosecutorial entity when it came to “hate speech” cases, lies at the root of Hadjis decision.
But what is equally interesting here is that the Commission seems to be signaling that it will not appeal Lemire but rather try to brazen it out in Topham.
Which will be interesting as Topham and the intervenors are like to raise the constitutional issue at every turn.
Arthur Topham, godspeed to you in that regard.