Where is the Welcome Jadewarr document?

Bernard Fournier
Directeur, Services administratifs /
Director, Administrative Services /
Canadian Human Rights tribunal /
Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne
Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4 / Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 1J4
Bernard.Fournier@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca
Telephone / Téléphone 613-995-1707
Facsimile / Télécopieur 613-995-3484
teletypewriter / téléimprimeur 613-563-6460
Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Dear Mr. Fournier,

As you are aware, I had previously asked for the entire contents of Tab 17 and 19 of Warman vs. Beaumont Tribunal Hearing which took place between December 11 – 13, 2006.

In the recorded transcript on December 12, Richard Warman indirectly referred to the enclosed document which I was able to secure from persons associated with the respondent’s representative in the case, Mr. Paul Fromm, who kept a copy of it for his own personal records. 

The document was presented and discussed during the Tribunal Hearing. I have provided the relevant portion of the transcript below for your review.   It is my understanding that this document was placed in Tab 17 (page 123, line 6) and later referred to by Mr. Warman as “this document” on page 123 line 12.

When I requested to see the entire contents of Tab 17 (and Tab 19), you provided me with a very similar 2 page document, but it was not the exact document referred to on page 123, line 12 since the one you provided to me did not have the “Welcome Jadewarr” text near the top right of the page.

From my understanding, there was never a motion to remove this document from the official record. 

Can you please provide an explanation as to why this document was not provided to me as part of my request?

Yours truly,

John Pacheco

123

1 All rise. Please be seated.

2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

3 MR. VIGNA: Mr. Warman, under the

4 same oath as this morning, we had left off at tab 12.

5 I believe we had finished speaking about tab 12 and

6 we’re going to jump to tab 17.

7 The same questions: Do you recognize

8 the document? If so, why did you print it, where did

9 you get it, and then we’ll file it and continue on.

10 Do you recognize the document?

11 MR. WARMAN: Sorry, Mr. Chair, if I

12 may, there’s another copy of this document that I will

13 be able to identify, and the pages 2 and 3 of that are

14 about to come up in another exhibit. So I just think

15 there’s a bit of — if we could just skip to tab 19 I

16 think is the next one. (Source)

5 thoughts on “Where is the Welcome Jadewarr document?

  1. Another great Post Mr. Pacheco.

    I think the reason the Tribunal doesn’t have it, was because the “Welcome Jadewarr” post was removed from the Binder at the request of the parties.

    See the Beaumont Transcript – Dec 12, 2006.
    Page 276

    THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to have it removed? Mr. Fromm wants to have it removed. Do you have any objection to it being removed. Mr. Vigna?

    MR. VIGNA: No.

    THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fromm, since there’s no objection, you can have the document removed. Is that what your request is?

    MR. FROMM: Yes.

    THE CHAIRPERSON: For the record, we are removing the first page. Page 2 is produced, which is now the only page. Tab 17 consists of one page that
    was handed up this morning.
    ———————————

    Now I am not one to generally talk decent about the Tribunal, but their access to information office is the best one I have ever dealt with, over the close to 100 access requests I have filed in the past 3 years.

    I have done probably over 15 access requests to the Tribunal, and I have to say that are generally very prompt and provide the requested information in a professional manner.

    Now the CHRC is the exact opposite. I have filed a similar number of requests to them, and they refused almost every one or “neither confirm nor deny the requested information exists”. Which makes it very hard to appeal.

    For instance, back in 2006 I filed the following access requests to the CHRC:

    1:
    Total amount of monies paid to Richard Warman for the following Canadian
    Human Rights Tribunal case: Richard Warman and Canadian Human Rights
    Commission Vs. WCFU/Glenn Bahr. Tribunal file number: T1087/6805. Location: Edmonton, Alberta. Dates: 2006/05/23 to 2006/06/01. Richard Warman was a witness for the Commission. Please give a total amount and a breakdown of costs. This includes, but not limited to: witness fees, travel expenses, accommodation (hospitality) expenses, meal allowances, preparation fees and/or any fees and disbursements paid. If a summary of costs can not be provided, then a copy of all receipts.

    2:
    Total amount of monies paid to Richard Warman for the following Canadian
    Human Rights Tribunal case: Richard Warman/CHRC Vs.
    Kulbashian/Richardson/CECT. Tribunal file number: T869/11903. Location:
    Oakville, ON. Dates: 2004/08/30 to 2004/09/03, 2004/10/15, 2004/11/08 to 2004/11/17 and 2005/02/23 to 2004/02/25. Richard Warman was a witness for the Commission. Please give a total amount and a breakdown of costs. This includes, but not limited to: witness fees, travel expenses, accommodation (hospitality) expenses, meal allowances, preparation fees and/or any fees and disbursements paid.

    3:
    Total amount of monies paid to Richard Warman for the following Canadian
    Human Rights Tribunal case: Richard Warman and Canadian Human Rights
    Commission Vs. Tomasz Winnicki. Tribunal file number: T1021/0205. Location: Toronto, Ontario. Dates: 2005/07/09 and 2005/10/17 to 2005/10/21. Richard Warman was a witness for the Commission. Please give the total amount and a breakdown of costs. This includes, but not limited to: Witness fees, travel expenses, accommodation (hospitality) expenses, meal allowances, preparation fees and/or any fees and disbursements paid. Provide a summary of costs, or receipts.

    In a letter dated October 12, 2006, the Canadian Human Rights Commission denied my request for information saying “Pursuant to subsection l0(2) of the Act, we will neither confirm nor deny the existence of the information you are seeking. If such information did exist, it would be exempted from access under s. 17 and s. 19(1) of the Act.”

    I filed three appeals with the Information Commission of Canada on the grounds that:

    This information should be released and the sections of the Act quoted as reasons to deny me are outrageous. I am seeking the amount of taxpayer’s money that was given to a witness in a public hearing.

  2. Oh I just wanted to add that the “Welcome Jadewarr” issue shows the Tribunal for the most part complicit in making sure that document disappeared.

    And the conflicting testimony of Richard Warman and Dean Steacy as you have broke the story here is quite shocking and disturbing.

    Great work you have done to shine light of truth on this saga of the CHRC.

  3. >>Another great Post Mr. Pacheco.

    I think the reason the Tribunal doesn’t have it, was because the “Welcome Jadewarr” post was removed from the Binder at the request of the parties.

    See the Beaumont Transcript – Dec 12, 2006.
    Page 276

    THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to have it removed? Mr. Fromm wants to have it removed. Do you have any objection to it being removed. Mr. Vigna?

    MR. VIGNA: No.

    THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fromm, since there’s no objection, you can have the document removed. Is that what your request is?

    MR. FROMM: Yes.

    THE CHAIRPERSON: For the record, we are removing the first page. Page 2 is produced, which is now the only page. Tab 17 consists of one page that
    was handed up this morning.

    _________________

    Yes, I know they said that there was only one page in Tab 17, but there was no motion to remove pages 2 and 3 and there was no agreement made by Paul Fromm (unlike the first removal of evidence). There was simply a declaration from the Chairperson that there would be only 1 page in Tab 17.

    That’s a BIG problem for the Tribunal — removing evidence without the explicit approval of the Respondent or her representative. It’s bad enough that it was being done even if there was approval. That’s not how it works in a real court…but then again we’re not dealing with a real court.

    As for your other comments regarding the co-operation of the CHRC regarding the Access to Infromation, I am going to post this on my blog. That’s outrageous.

  4. Pingback: SoCon Or Bust » Blog Archive » “Not another nickel…”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
30 + 7 =