A watchdog group can pursue a court challenge of a federal ethics report on Justin Trudeau's involvement in decisions about WE Charity, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.
In a unanimous decision issued Thursday, the top court found a provision of the Conflict of Interest Act barring such a challenge to be unconstitutional.
In May 2021, then-federal ethics commissioner Mario Dion concluded that Trudeau, prime minister at the time, did not breach the conflict of interest law when he participated in decisions concerning WE Charity, which operated in Canada and abroad.
The Liberal government chose WE Charity in 2020 to administer a multimillion-dollar program to encourage students to volunteer for COVID-19 pandemic-related community service.
Controversy followed due to the Trudeau family's links to WE Charity. Trudeau had participated in eight WE Day events since 2007 and his wife had been an honorary ambassador for the charity. Trudeau's mother and brother also had taken part in paid activities for WE.
Trudeau acknowledged publicly he should have recused himself from government decision-making on the matter because of the appearance of conflict.
Dion concluded that while it's always advisable to recuse oneself and inform the commissioner promptly when facing an apparent conflict of interest, there was no requirement to do so under the Conflict of Interest Act.
Democracy Watch applied in June 2021 for judicial review of Dion's ruling in the Federal Court of Appeal, alleging errors of law regarding the commissioner's interpretation of the act and an error of fact about Trudeau's relationship with one of the WE Charity founders.
Federal lawyers argued that the Conflict of Interest Act bars judicial review concerning questions of fact and law.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Democracy Watch's application, prompting the group to take its case to the Supreme Court.
In its 9-0 ruling Thursday, the top court sent the matter back to the Federal Court of Appeal, saying political oversight of the commissioner was not an adequate alternative to judicial review.
Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Richard Wagner said the Constitution guarantees the availability of "legality review — that is, review to ensure that an exercise of public power has not exceeded the boundaries of an administrative decision-maker's delegated authority."
Posted by IHateTrains123
1 Comment
TL;DR: *All* administrative actions are judicially reviewable under Canadian law.
The scope of that judicial review can be very narrow, and an administrative authority given enormous leeway.
However, basic rules of procedural fairness, proper exercise of jurisdiction, and lawful exercise of authority will always be subject to judicial review.