Canada’s highest court wrapped up final arguments on Thursday in a case revisiting the WE Charity scandal involving former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, potentially leading to significant changes in how Canadians can hold their elected leaders accountable. The Supreme Court of Canada will announce its decision in writing at a later date.
The court concluded two days of hearings following a challenge by Democracy Watch against a ruling by the federal ethics commissioner in 2021 that cleared Trudeau of a conflict of interest. This ruling was based on the government’s decision to award WE Charity a $43 million contract to manage a $912 million student grant program, despite connections between Trudeau, then-Finance Minister Bill Morneau, and the organization.
While the ethics commissioner found that Morneau breached the Conflict of Interest Act by not recusing himself from cabinet discussions on the contract, he determined that Trudeau did not. Democracy Watch’s co-founder, Duff Conacher, aims to contest the commissioner’s decision in the Federal Court of Appeal to enhance the ethics commissioner’s accountability.
The case addresses the boundaries of political accountability, with some Supreme Court justices suggesting that the appeal may be considered irrelevant since Trudeau is no longer in office. However, Democracy Watch insists on reviewing the decision to establish stronger federal government ethics standards for future ethical dilemmas.
If Democracy Watch succeeds, it could trigger a review of the ethics commissioner’s ruling on Trudeau’s involvement with WE Charity in 2021. This outcome would potentially permit challenges to any watchdog’s decisions in court, expanding the oversight of these bodies. The case also highlights the need for effective monitoring of watchdogs by the court.
Brandon Barnes Trickett, a partner at Dentons Canada specializing in public law litigation, noted that while increased accountability is vital, it may lead to higher administrative burden, costs, and delays in justice delivery. The case made its way to the Supreme Court after the Federal Court of Appeal rejected Democracy Watch’s initial request for a judicial review, emphasizing that parliamentary accountability under the Conflict of Interest Act is crucial. This marks the first instance of the political accountability group being a primary party in a case before the Supreme Court.
Numerous parties, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, and Canadian Council for Refugees, presented their arguments as interveners in the case alongside lawyers for Democracy Watch and the federal government.
