Darren Lund v. Stephen Boissoin, The Concerned Christians Coalition Inc.
Decision Date: May 4, 2006
Decision Maker: Lori G. Andreachuk, Q.C.
Decision Level: Panel
Keywords: Practice – Preliminary Applications – Complainant’s application for an order compelling respondent to cease and desist publication and distribution of complainant’s personal and confidential information which was submitted in support of a human rights complaint – Publication bans, when ordered – A publication ban in these proceedings is not necessary to prevent serious risk to the proper administration of justice – Application dismissed.
Summary:
A preliminary application by the complainant seeking an order that the respondent coalition stop publication on its website of the complainant’s personal and private information which was submitted to the Commission in support of his complaint. The respondent also distributed by e-mail confidential complaint material which was filed by the complainant. The complainant argued the respondent published false and inflammatory material. As a consequence of the respondent’s conduct, the complainant received hate mail and other messages, which caused the complainant to worry about the safety of his family. The respondent argued there was no duty of confidentiality on the parties to a complaint and any restriction on the publication and distribution of complaint materials would infringe on the respondent’s right to freedom of expression on matters of public policy. HELD: Application dismissed. The Panel canvassed the law regarding publication bans in Canada. It noted there was no provision in the Alberta Act which extended the discretion of the Panel beyond the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A publication ban should only be ordered when: (a) such a ban is necessary in order to prevent a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial, because reasonably available alternative measure will not prevent the risk; and (b) the salutary effects of the publication ban outweigh the deleterious effects to the free expression of those affected by the ban. Publication bans in and of themselves generally require a weighing of the freedom of expression versus the right of a fair trial. A publication ban in these proceedings was not necessary to prevent serious risk to the proper administration of justice. The Panel held the salutary effects of a publication ban would outweigh the deleterious effects on the rights and interest of the parties and the public to freedom of speech. Finally, the Commission’s practice of stamping “Confidential” on complaint materials does not ban publication of such materials.
Cases Considered: Her Majesty the Queen v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Sun Media Corporation and Canadian Association of Journalists (intervener) (S.C.C.); Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; R. v. Mentuck [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442.
Statutes Considered: Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14; Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy, s. 16.
Read the complete decision PDF
Due to confidentiality concerns, the Commission cannot reply
to complaints of discrimination using the Internet.
Please contact the Commission by telephone or regular mail
if you have a specific complaint.
The Commission will make publications available in accessible multiple formats upon request. Multiple formats provide access for people with disabilities who do not read conventional print.
