Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Douglas Christie – Canadian Free Speech League
CANADIAN FREE SPEECH LEAGUE
PO Box 24052
4420 West Saanich Road
Victoria, BCÃ‚Â V8Z 7E7
Telephone 250-590-2979Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Fax 250-479-3294
October 6, 2009
Nancy LaFontant, Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
160 Elgin Street, 11th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4
Dear Ms. LaFontant:
Re:Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Harry Abrams and The League of Human Rights of BÃ¢â‚¬â„¢nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com
Complaint No. : 20071016
I would like to indicate, on behalf of the Canadian Free Speech League, that the decision of Member Hadjis in Lemire is morally binding and legally persuasive to the argument that the hearing against Mr. Topham should not proceed. This would be a waste of judicial time and contrary to fundamental justice. We are of the view, in light of the Canadian Human Rights CommissionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s seeking of judicial review, that the CHRC regards Member HadjisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s decision as more than just affecting penalty clauses.
Our view is that this matter should be dealt with by a preliminary motion in order to avoid unnecessary waste of time and expense in the defence of the matter and the re-litigation of the constitutional question, which would be inevitably necessary, if this matter were to proceed.
It is unfair in the extreme, for government-funded entities like the Commission and well-funded organizations like BÃ¢â‚¬â„¢nai Brith to put private individuals and small-organizations defending free speech to the expense of a full-blow hearing, when the constitutional validity of the enabling legislation is impugned by the Tribunal itself. The principle of stare decisis requires this matter be resolved by a higher authority, if there is any doubt, and there certainly seems to be doubt in the mind of the Commission, considering its decision to seek judicial review.
Our view is that this issue of whether to proceed or not needs a separate hearing as soon as possible. Would the Tribunal please accept this as a motion on our part, accepting the issue of constitutional validity directly: That a date be set for argument about constitutional validity and the existing hearing dates be abandoned.
Douglas H. Christie