The Supreme Court of Canada will look into whether a group’s challenge of a federal ethics report on Justin Trudeau’s involvement in a decision about WE Charity can proceed.
The top court’s ruling on Thursday revived one thread of a controversy that made headlines during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In May 2021, then-federal ethics commissioner Mario Dion concluded that Trudeau, who was the prime minister at the time, did not breach the Conflict of Interest Act when he participated in a decision about 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 pandemic-related community service.
Controversy followed over 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 had also taken part in paid activities for WE.
Trudeau acknowledged publicly he should have recused himself from government decision-making 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 act.
The group 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 the application should be tossed out—in part because the Conflict of Interest Act bars judicial review concerning questions of law and fact.
The Federal Court of Appeal granted the government’s motion to strike the application for judicial review.
In its decision last year, the Court of Appeal said the Conflict of Interest Act provides for “dual parliamentary and judicial oversight,” with an elaborate procedure to regulate ethical conduct through political consequences.
In the context of such a scheme, accountability is meant to lie primarily with the legislative branch, the court’s ruling said.
Democracy Watch then took its case to the Supreme Court, seeking leave to appeal.
The top court, following its usual practice, gave no reasons Thursday for agreeing to hear the case. No date for a hearing has been set.
