A democratic watchdog made arguments at the Federal Court of Appeal on Monday that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau broke ethics laws in the approval of grants for WE Charity.The court case, filed in 2021 by Democracy Watch (DWatch), challenges Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s May 2021 ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau’s participation in the WE Charity grant approval process because the Commissioner made four key errors in letting Trudeau off even though Trudeau clearly violated the federal government ethics law.The case is FCA file #A-169-21, and anyone can click here and register to watch the hearing on Zoom. Michael Fisher of Ravenlaw is representing DWatch in the case.The Attorney General of Canada (AGC) handles the case when the Ethics Commissioner is challenged in court, which is strange given the Ethics Commissioner issues rulings on the AGC and other members of the federal Cabinet. Cases challenging Ethics Commissioner rulings go straight to the FCA. In 2021, the AGC filed a motion to try to stop the case, arguing that DWatch didn’t have standing to pursue the case and that errors in the Commissioner’s rulings can’t be challenged in court.Justice Stratas of the FCA ruled in December 2022 that DWatch had public interest standing to pursue the case, but he then ruled in February 2023 that the FCA had to first consider whether section 66 of the Conflict of Interest Act (which is known as a “partial privative clause”) prohibits challenging errors in the Commissioner’s rulings in court.The ruling on this Stage 1 issue in the case will set a precedent that not only determines whether DWatch’s case challenging errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling will go ahead, but also determines whether anyone can challenge errors in the rulings of any federal agency, board, commission or tribunal that has a “partial privative clause” in the law that governs it.DWatch argues that anyone should be able to challenge errors in Ethics Commissioner and other tribunal rulings in court to ensure that they interpret and enforce the laws they enforce properly. “Hopefully the court will allow the case to go ahead challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s error-filled ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau participating in the WE Charity grant approval and will set a precedent that allows future cases challenging of errors in rulings by all federal agencies, boards, commissioners and tribunals to ensure that they always enforce the law properly,” said Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch.“Former Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion contradicted himself, tied himself into knots, and cut the federal ethics law into pieces in his ruling letting Prime Minister Trudeau off even though he clearly violated the federal conflict of interest law by participating, and having his office staff participate, in the WE Charity grant approval."Conacher accused Dion of being a "lapdog" for Trudeau, a term Conacher has often applied to watchdogs who make rulings on the same prime minister who appointed them to office.“Democracy Watch is challenging his ruling in court because it sets a very bad precedent that will allow politicians and government officials to take part in future decisions to hand out money to individuals and organizations that have close relations with their families," Conacher said.Click here to see a backgrounder from DWatch summarizing what they see as four key errors in the ethics commissioner’s ruling.
A democratic watchdog made arguments at the Federal Court of Appeal on Monday that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau broke ethics laws in the approval of grants for WE Charity.The court case, filed in 2021 by Democracy Watch (DWatch), challenges Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s May 2021 ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau’s participation in the WE Charity grant approval process because the Commissioner made four key errors in letting Trudeau off even though Trudeau clearly violated the federal government ethics law.The case is FCA file #A-169-21, and anyone can click here and register to watch the hearing on Zoom. Michael Fisher of Ravenlaw is representing DWatch in the case.The Attorney General of Canada (AGC) handles the case when the Ethics Commissioner is challenged in court, which is strange given the Ethics Commissioner issues rulings on the AGC and other members of the federal Cabinet. Cases challenging Ethics Commissioner rulings go straight to the FCA. In 2021, the AGC filed a motion to try to stop the case, arguing that DWatch didn’t have standing to pursue the case and that errors in the Commissioner’s rulings can’t be challenged in court.Justice Stratas of the FCA ruled in December 2022 that DWatch had public interest standing to pursue the case, but he then ruled in February 2023 that the FCA had to first consider whether section 66 of the Conflict of Interest Act (which is known as a “partial privative clause”) prohibits challenging errors in the Commissioner’s rulings in court.The ruling on this Stage 1 issue in the case will set a precedent that not only determines whether DWatch’s case challenging errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling will go ahead, but also determines whether anyone can challenge errors in the rulings of any federal agency, board, commission or tribunal that has a “partial privative clause” in the law that governs it.DWatch argues that anyone should be able to challenge errors in Ethics Commissioner and other tribunal rulings in court to ensure that they interpret and enforce the laws they enforce properly. “Hopefully the court will allow the case to go ahead challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s error-filled ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau participating in the WE Charity grant approval and will set a precedent that allows future cases challenging of errors in rulings by all federal agencies, boards, commissioners and tribunals to ensure that they always enforce the law properly,” said Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch.“Former Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion contradicted himself, tied himself into knots, and cut the federal ethics law into pieces in his ruling letting Prime Minister Trudeau off even though he clearly violated the federal conflict of interest law by participating, and having his office staff participate, in the WE Charity grant approval."Conacher accused Dion of being a "lapdog" for Trudeau, a term Conacher has often applied to watchdogs who make rulings on the same prime minister who appointed them to office.“Democracy Watch is challenging his ruling in court because it sets a very bad precedent that will allow politicians and government officials to take part in future decisions to hand out money to individuals and organizations that have close relations with their families," Conacher said.Click here to see a backgrounder from DWatch summarizing what they see as four key errors in the ethics commissioner’s ruling.
