The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) received documents from the Canadian government justifying why it invoked the Emergencies Act. .“We have a very strong case against the government based on the evidence we have already,” said CCF lawyer Sujit Choudhry at a Tuesday town hall. .“And that case is a matter of public record.” .Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act across Canada to respond to the trucker protests. .READ MORE: UPDATED: Trudeau invokes the Emergencies Act in Canada.Trudeau said it has become clear there are “serious challenges” for authorities to enforce the law..“Today, to continue building on these efforts, the federal government is ready to use more tools at its disposal to get the situation fully under control,” he said. .Trudeau revoked the Emergencies Act one week later, even as the Senate continued to debate it. .READ MORE: BREAKING: Trudeau orders Emergencies Act stopped.He said after consulting with security officials, he decided to remove the emergency measures..Choudhry said the CCF has been seeking three kinds of documents about the Emergencies Act from the Canadian government. The documents are advice and recommendations made to a cabinet committee regarding the invocation, the minutes of the deliberations of the cabinet, and the recorded decisions. .Choudhry went on to say he's not received much of any of these documents. He said the role of the court in this lawsuit is to ensure the cabinet acted constitutionally in declaring a public order emergency. .The only way a court can determine that, he said, is to see all relevant submissions and evidence presented to cabinet. Without this evidence, he said the court “has one hand tied behind its back, because it can’t properly exercise its constitutional responsibility to ensure the rule of law is complied with.” .The CCF obtained documents on July 18 redacted to keep information confidential using three privileges. These privileges were respect to cabinet confidence, matters of national security, and solicitor-client privilege. .Choudhry called the redactions “extensive,” and noted the redactions were so extensive it was tough to make them intelligible. .One detail left unredacted was the Canadian government acting because of the Ottawa police failing to exercise its authority under the Criminal Code of Canada. If this information is true, Choudhry said it does not meet the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act. .Choudhry said there will be a motion hearing to attempt to lift some of these redactions on August 8 and 9. .“This case is not about partisan politics,” he said. .“It’s about executive power.”.The CCF announced its legal challenge about the Emergencies Act in February. .READ MORE: Legal challenge of Trudeau’s ‘illegal’ Emergencies Act.“The federal government invoked the Emergencies Act as a matter of political convenience,” said CCF litigation director Van Geyn. .“This is illegal and violates the rule of law, and that’s why we're challenging the government in court.”
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) received documents from the Canadian government justifying why it invoked the Emergencies Act. .“We have a very strong case against the government based on the evidence we have already,” said CCF lawyer Sujit Choudhry at a Tuesday town hall. .“And that case is a matter of public record.” .Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act across Canada to respond to the trucker protests. .READ MORE: UPDATED: Trudeau invokes the Emergencies Act in Canada.Trudeau said it has become clear there are “serious challenges” for authorities to enforce the law..“Today, to continue building on these efforts, the federal government is ready to use more tools at its disposal to get the situation fully under control,” he said. .Trudeau revoked the Emergencies Act one week later, even as the Senate continued to debate it. .READ MORE: BREAKING: Trudeau orders Emergencies Act stopped.He said after consulting with security officials, he decided to remove the emergency measures..Choudhry said the CCF has been seeking three kinds of documents about the Emergencies Act from the Canadian government. The documents are advice and recommendations made to a cabinet committee regarding the invocation, the minutes of the deliberations of the cabinet, and the recorded decisions. .Choudhry went on to say he's not received much of any of these documents. He said the role of the court in this lawsuit is to ensure the cabinet acted constitutionally in declaring a public order emergency. .The only way a court can determine that, he said, is to see all relevant submissions and evidence presented to cabinet. Without this evidence, he said the court “has one hand tied behind its back, because it can’t properly exercise its constitutional responsibility to ensure the rule of law is complied with.” .The CCF obtained documents on July 18 redacted to keep information confidential using three privileges. These privileges were respect to cabinet confidence, matters of national security, and solicitor-client privilege. .Choudhry called the redactions “extensive,” and noted the redactions were so extensive it was tough to make them intelligible. .One detail left unredacted was the Canadian government acting because of the Ottawa police failing to exercise its authority under the Criminal Code of Canada. If this information is true, Choudhry said it does not meet the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act. .Choudhry said there will be a motion hearing to attempt to lift some of these redactions on August 8 and 9. .“This case is not about partisan politics,” he said. .“It’s about executive power.”.The CCF announced its legal challenge about the Emergencies Act in February. .READ MORE: Legal challenge of Trudeau’s ‘illegal’ Emergencies Act.“The federal government invoked the Emergencies Act as a matter of political convenience,” said CCF litigation director Van Geyn. .“This is illegal and violates the rule of law, and that’s why we're challenging the government in court.”
