Canada’s highest court concluded final discussions on Thursday in a case revisiting the involvement of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the WE Charity controversy. The outcome of this case could potentially lead to significant changes in how Canadians can hold their elected officials accountable. The Supreme Court of Canada is now deliberating on the case and will release a formal decision at a later date.
Following a challenge by Democracy Watch against the 2021 ruling by the federal ethics commissioner clearing Trudeau of a conflict of interest, the high court concluded two days of hearings. The ethics commissioner had found that then-finance minister Bill Morneau breached the Conflict of Interest Act by not recusing himself from cabinet discussions on the contract awarded to WE Charity. However, the commissioner determined that Trudeau did not contravene the act.
Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, seeks the opportunity to appeal the commissioner’s decision in the Federal Court of Appeal to enhance the functioning of the ethics commissioner. Conacher argued that allowing challenges in court would prevent a closed-loop scenario where the ruling party selects their own watchdog without any accountability.
The case delves into the boundaries of political accountability, with suggestions from several Supreme Court justices that the case may be considered moot since Trudeau is no longer in office. Nonetheless, Democracy Watch insists that Dion’s decision should be reviewed to set a precedent for handling future ethical issues.
If Democracy Watch prevails, the decision could trigger a review of the 2021 ruling on Trudeau’s involvement with WE Charity and pave the way for challenging watchdog decisions in court. While this move could enhance governmental ethics standards, it might also lead to increased administrative burdens, costs, and delays in delivering justice, according to legal experts.
The case reached the Supreme Court after the Federal Court of Appeal rejected Democracy Watch’s initial plea for a judicial review, emphasizing that accountability through the Conflict of Interest Act primarily falls under Parliament’s jurisdiction. This marks the first instance where the political accountability group is a primary party in a case before the top court. Various parties, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, provided oral arguments on Thursday as interveners in the case.