CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL CANADIEN DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
[1] This is a ruling on a motion involving two complaints that are scheduled to be heard together on May 23, 2006. The Respondents, Mr. Glenn Bahr and Western Canada for Us (WCFU
), have requested that the complaint against Western Canada for Us (WCFU
) be dismissed. The complaints involve allegations that WCFU and Glenn Bahr communicated hate messages by means of the Internet contrary to s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
[2] Through his agent, Mr. Bahr argued that WCFU is neither a living human being nor a corporation. It is an Internet website. He further argued that, according to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Interpretation Act, a respondent in proceedings involving section 13 of the Act must be either a living human being or a corporation. In support of his motion, Mr. Bahr's agent produced the Investigation Report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which suggests that the Commission investigator thought that WCFU was the website found at the following Internet address: www.westerncanadaforus.com.
[3] The Complainant, Mr. Richard Warman, argued that the erroneous identification by the Commission investigator of the Respondent WCFU as a website is of no significance at this stage in the process. The proper recourse for disputes about the Commission's process is an application for judicial review before the Federal Court.
[4] The Complainant also argued that this Tribunal's Ruling in Warman v. Guille and Canadian Heritage Alliance 2006 CHRT 12 is applicable in the present case. In Warman v. Guille and Canadian Heritage Alliance, I held that the appropriate time to resolve the question of whether the Canadian Heritage Alliance was a group of persons acting in concert to communicate
was during the hearing on the merits of the complaint when the Tribunal would have the benefit of a full evidentiary record.
[5] The Commission argued that complaints involving s. 13 of the Act have been substantiated against unincorporated groups of persons as long as some or all of certain indicia are present identifying them as a group.
[6] The style of cause on the complaint form and the letter of referral from the Canadian Human Rights Commission indicate that the complaints are against Mr. Glenn Bahr and Western Canada for Us, not www.westerncanadaforus.com. Whether Western Canada for Us is a group of persons acting in concert to communicate messages over the Internet
within the meaning of s. 13(1) of the Act has yet to be determined. For the reasons that I stated in my ruling in Warman v. Guille, supra, this is a determination that must be made on the basis of adequate evidence. The evidence on the record at this time is inadequate to make such a determination.
[7] Although the Commission investigator stated that Western Canada for Us was a website, in his Statement of Particulars, Mr. Bahr identifies Western Canada for Us as an Alberta-based group dedicated to immigration reform and freedom of speech
. According to Mr. Bahr's Statement of Particulars, Western Canada for Us organized meetings and protests. Thus, there would appear to be different views about the identity of Western Canada for Us and the nature of the activities in which it was involved. The appropriate time to resolve these differences is during the hearing when there will be an opportunity for sworn testimony and cross-examination.
[8] Therefore, Mr. Bahr's request that the complaint against Western Canada for Us be dismissed is denied without prejudice to his right to renew the request at the hearing on the merits of the complaint.