The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously reopened a legal challenge over former prime minister Justin Trudeau's handling of the WE Charity controversy, ruling Canadians have a constitutional right to seek judicial review of ethics commissioner decisions.In a 9-0 decision, the country's highest court struck down a provision of the Conflict of Interest Act that shielded rulings by the federal Ethics Commissioner from court review, handing advocacy group Democracy Watch a major legal victory after five years of litigation."This appeal concerns the constitutional role of the courts in preserving the rule of law," Chief Justice Richard Wagner wrote on behalf of the court."I agree with Democracy Watch," Wagner added, writing that Canadian courts have long held that "irrational administrative decisions are unlawful."Blacklock's Reporter said the decision sends Democracy Watch's challenge back to court for a fresh hearing.The case stems from Trudeau's approval in 2020 of a $43.5 million federal grant to WE Charity without disclosing that members of his family had received $481,751 in benefits from the organization, including speaking fees, gifts and travel to London and New York..Former ethics commissioner Mario Dion concluded in his 2021 Trudeau III Report that Trudeau had not violated the Conflict of Interest Act, despite acknowledging the close relationship between the Trudeau family and WE Charity.Dion wrote that Trudeau's mother and brother had been paid to speak at WE Charity events, while his wife served as an official ambassador for the organization.He also noted that Trudeau had participated in WE Charity events and benefited from publicity generated by the organization.Those relationships, Dion wrote, created "a strong appearance of conflict" between the Trudeau family's ties to WE Charity and the prime minister's duty to act in the public interest.However, Dion concluded that appearances alone were insufficient under the law."The appearance of a conflict of interest does not constitute a contravention of the Act," the report stated. "The conflict must be real."Democracy Watch argued the ruling improperly interpreted the legislation and attempted to challenge it in Federal Court. The organization lost after courts relied on Section 66 of the Conflict of Interest Act, which stated that every decision of the Ethics Commissioner "is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any Court."The Supreme Court has now struck down that provision."There is nothing in the Conflict of Interest Act that provides interested parties like Democracy Watch with an alternative forum to seek the remedy available on judicial review," Wagner wrote..Following the ruling, Democracy Watch said the decision strengthens government accountability."All Canadians have a constitutionally protected right to go to court to challenge unlawful government action," the organization said in a statement.At the time Dion cleared Trudeau, Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher criticized the decision."It's a horrible precedent," Conacher said in 2021. "If this is allowed, what is not allowed?""That's not how you enforce a law," he added. "You don't let the Prime Minister off with a ruling that is legally incorrect and ignores the purpose of the law."During parliamentary hearings into the controversy in 2020, former ethics commissioner Mary Dawson defended Trudeau's intentions, saying she believed he was acting in good faith."I feel that the Prime Minister's heart is in the right place," Dawson told MPs. "I feel he tries to do the right thing. He tries to do good. And I just think these things have been oversights, basically."She added that ethics violations can vary in severity, with some amounting to carelessness while others are significantly more serious.
