Tremaine’s jail term stands

Former University of Saskatchewan math lecturer Terrence Cecil Tremaine continues to face a jail term, his sentence appeal having failed.

Tremaine — previously handed a 30-day jail term for being in contempt of an order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) — had, in May, attended a hearing before the Federal Court of Appeal, asking the court to toss out the penalty.

But, in a unanimous decision issued this week, Justices Eleanor Dawson, Johanne Trudel and Wyman Webb dismissed the appeal.

“He’s disappointed but he’s not surprised by the result and he’s prepared to do what he’s been ordered to do,” Tremaine’s legal counsel Andrew Hitchcock said on Wednesday.

Hitchcock said he expects Tremaine will turn himself in within the next couple of days. It hasn’t yet been decided whether Tremaine will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Tremaine has made the news repeatedly for criminal and civil matters stemming from controversial and racist online comments posted to the Internet. Tremaine had once faced a criminal charge of promoting hatred, a charge that was eventually tossed out of court due to delay issues.

The case that was the subject of this week’s decision sprang from a human rights complaint that resulted in an order by the CHRT which Tremaine was unsuccessful in overturning. Federal Court Justice Sean Harrington ordered the 30-day jail term in November 2012, having found Tremaine in contempt of the tribunal’s order by continuing to post racist messages online. Harrington wrote that Tremaine “intended to flout the law” and “demean the Tribunal and this Court” by continuing his online activities in the face of the order.

Daniel Poulin, counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, had urged the Federal Court of Appeal panel to leave the 30-day sentence as is, saying Tremaine was not being sanctioned for his views but for his failure to follow the original order.

But Hitchcock, arguing the case on Tremaine’s behalf in May, asked the appeal court to consider that Tremaine was being punished for his words as well as disobeying the order. Tremaine also argued through his lawyer that the sentence imposed was too harsh and ignored certain mitigating factors.

While the appeal court agreed the sentencing judge “could have provided a more thorough discussion of the principles of sentencing,” it found nothing to show the 30-day sentence was unfit, noting sentences in similar cases ranging from one to three months. In fact, the court found the 30-day term is actually “at the lower end of the spectrum of sentences imposed in similar cases.”

The court also declined to find as mitigating the fact that Tremaine lost his job and suffered from depression.

“HE’S DISAPPOINTED BUT HE’S NOT SURPRISED BY THE RESULT AND HE’S PREPARED TO DO WHAT HE’S BEEN ORDERED TO DO.” LAWYER ANDREW HITCHCOCK

“Mr. Tremaine elected to communicate hateful messages and his employer decided to fire him on account of this voluntary behaviour,” the decision reads.

In reference to the arguments pertaining to freedom of expression, the court found the Charter section doesn’t serve as a mitigating factor, “nor does it indicate that Mr. Tremaine’s sentence is not proportional to the offence committed.” The appeal court stated it was for the tribunal to consider the Charter issue, not the sentencing judge.