News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.3K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 393     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Scheer urges Trudeau to follow through on libel threat over SNC, testify in court
By The Canadian Press
Sun., April 7, 2019

[...]
At issue in the threatened libel suit is a statement Scheer issued on March 29, in which he said documentation provided by Wilson-Raybould to the House of Commons justice committee — including a surreptitiously recorded phone conversation with the clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick — is “concrete evidence that proves Justin Trudeau led a campaign to politically interfere with SNC-Lavalin’s criminal prosecution.”
Porter called the statement “highly defamatory.”
“The prime minister supports wide-ranging and vigorous political debate on matters of public policy,” he said in his letter to Scheer. “However, your statement, in its entirety, is beyond the pale of fair debate and is libellous of my client personally and in the way of his occupation as prime minister.”
Porter said it’s “entirely false” to say Trudeau interfered in the SNC prosecution, which has not been halted, or that he personally directed Wilson-Raybould to “break the law” and “fired” her when she refused. It’s also entirely false to suggest Trudeau was aware of Wilson-Raybould’s concern that he was politically interfering in the SNC case but lied to Canadians about it, Porter said.
Scheer’s statement that the affair amounts to “corruption on top of corruption on top of corruption” was m
At issue in the threatened libel suit is a statement Scheer issued on March 29, in which he said documentation provided by Wilson-Raybould to the House of Commons justice committee — including a surreptitiously recorded phone conversation with the clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick — is “concrete evidence that proves Justin Trudeau led a campaign to politically interfere with SNC-Lavalin’s criminal prosecution.”

Porter called the statement “highly defamatory.”

“The prime minister supports wide-ranging and vigorous political debate on matters of public policy,” he said in his letter to Scheer. “However, your statement, in its entirety, is beyond the pale of fair debate and is libellous of my client personally and in the way of his occupation as prime minister.”

Porter said it’s “entirely false” to say Trudeau interfered in the SNC prosecution, which has not been halted, or that he personally directed Wilson-Raybould to “break the law” and “fired” her when she refused. It’s also entirely false to suggest Trudeau was aware of Wilson-Raybould’s concern that he was politically interfering in the SNC case but lied to Canadians about it, Porter said.

Scheer’s statement that the affair amounts to “corruption on top of corruption on top of corruption” was meant to suggest that Trudeau “had engaged in dishonest and corrupt conduct that would contravene the Criminal Code,” a crime deserving of up to 14 years in prison, Porter said. That too was “entirely false.”

In response, Scheer’s lawyer, Peter Downard, wrote back Sunday that Scheer “will not be intimidated” and is simply performing his “constitutional duty” to hold the government to account.

If Trudeau is serious about suing, Downard said he must immediately take steps to preserve all relevant documents and to notify all members of his government, past and present, who’ve been involved in the SNC-Lavalin matter that they can expect to be called to testify.

If Trudeau does not proceed with the threatened lawsuit, Downard said Scheer will conclude that Trudeau “has properly acknowledged that Mr. Scheer’s statements were appropriate and grounded in evidence before the Canadian people.”

eant to suggest that Trudeau “had engaged in dishonest and corrupt conduct that would contravene the Criminal Code,” a crime deserving of up to 14 years in prison, Porter said. That too was “entirely false.”
In response, Scheer’s lawyer, Peter Downard, wrote back Sunday that Scheer “will not be intimidated” and is simply performing his “constitutional duty” to hold the government to account.
If Trudeau is serious about suing, Downard said he must immediately take steps to preserve all relevant documents and to notify all members of his government, past and present, who’ve been involved in the SNC-Lavalin matter that they can expect to be called to testify.
If Trudeau does not proceed with the threatened lawsuit, Downard said Scheer will conclude that Trudeau “has properly acknowledged that Mr. Scheer’s statements were appropriate and grounded in evidence before the Canadian people.”
Click to expand...
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...-documents-related-to-snc-lavalin-affair.html
 
steveintoronto said:
Bumping this up.
Click to expand...

We'll see how this all shakes out. The Court may well rule again that the decision of the DPP is not subject to judicial oversight. SNC might try to argue that the DPP's refusal to consider 'new and compelling' evidence is somehow an abuse of power, which may beg several questions from the Court; is the subject information in fact new, compelling or even evidence; even if it is, is failure to consider it an abuse of power; even if it is, is it something to Court can rule on. As best as I can recall, there is no allegation that undue or inappropriate influence was attempted directly upon the DPP (I stand to be corrected here). The DPP did not decide to enter into a DPA negotiation; therefore the AG had nothing to agree to.

Hail Mary.
 
lenaitch said:
there is no allegation that undue or inappropriate influence was attempted directly upon the DPP (I stand to be corrected here).
Click to expand...
Unless there's info on this we don't know about, that's correct. JWR stood her ground, and refused to attempt intervention, as the Law states is to be the case save for a very narrow route, for which there was no reason by Law to take, again, as JWR testified.
lenaitch said:
The DPP did not decide to enter into a DPA negotiation; therefore the AG had nothing to agree to.
Click to expand...
That's my understanding too, although some of these details have yet to be published, mostly because they're made in confidence, and only the defendant or their counsel can release them, which is happening now to some extent, but being carefully manipulated.

I don't think the court will rule on it. They'll review the claims, and just state there's no new basis for a trial, but we'll see. I get the distinct feeling there's more skeletons in the closet than anyone's letting on.
 
I don't know why Trudeau is threatening to sue Scheer- why drag it out longer and risk all this and even more dirty laundry aired under oath in court?

As of now, it's a bluff- but let's see if Trudeau's prepared to do it.
 
lenaitch said:
...The Court may well rule again that the decision of the DPP is not subject to judicial oversight. SNC might try to argue that the DPP's refusal to consider 'new and compelling' evidence is somehow an abuse of power, which may beg several questions from the Court; is the subject information in fact new, compelling or even evidence; even if it is, is failure to consider it an abuse of power; even if it is, is it something to Court can rule on. As best as I can recall, there is no allegation that undue or inappropriate influence was attempted directly upon the DPP ...The DPP did not decide to enter into a DPA negotiation; therefore the AG had nothing to agree to.
Click to expand...
This is almost all borne out by this learned opinion, albeit some finer details are vague:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1114276231975800834
 
Last edited:
I dont get why politicians threaten to sue eachother in todays political climate.


Your supporters are like "yeah" but it also riles up your enemy into a frenzy and the people in the middle just roll their eyes.
 
[B]CBC News Alerts[/B]‏Verified account @[B]CBCAlerts[/B]
FollowingFollowing @CBCAlerts
More
CLARIFICATION: MP Jane Philpott today accused Justin Trudeau of violating her rights when he expelled her and Jody Wilson-Raybould from caucus, and said he may not have followed the rules. She did not accuse him of violating the law.
Click to expand...

I would be fine with defunding the CBC at this point. They recklessly claim that the PM "broke the law," which CPC partisans like the person above me jump on without fact checking.
 
I am not a lawyer, and this is not my field of expertise..........that said............. I looked up the law..........

The full text of which can be found here:

Parliament of Canada Act

Federal laws of canada
laws-lois.justice.gc.ca laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

This would appear to be the relevant section:

Expulsion of caucus member
49.2 A member of a caucus may only be expelled from it if
  • (a) the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 20% of the members of the caucus requesting that the member’s membership be reviewed; and
  • (b) the expulsion of the member is approved by secret ballot by a majority of all caucus members.

It certainly doesn't seem all that ambiguous.
 
Some Liberal MPs are saying that they agreed to let Trudeau make those decisions ... but do they have the right to do that? *notalawyereither*
 
steveintoronto said:
This is almost all borne out by this learned opinion, albeit some finer details are vague:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1114276231975800834
Click to expand...

Thanks. I would think that if the Court rules that the discretion of the DPP is subject to appeal - under any scenario - that the Crown will appeal to the SCOC. A high-level ruling that introduces a wedge into the principle of prosecutorial discretion has wide-ranging implications for the administration of justice.
 
Don Martin @DonMartinCTV
5h
We've checked with definitive parliamentary procedural authority @toccataprima and he says caucuses govern themselves. The Speaker has no jurisdiction to rule on what goes on in the caucus room, including on moves to kick out MPs. So @janephilpott's concerns aren't valid.
Click to expand...

There is this from Don Martin.
 
He may not be able to rule, but that doesn't mean her concerns aren't valid. And if they govern themselves, why is it addressed in the Parliament of Canada Act? Or, why doesn't it just say that? There are some very specific sections there. #stillnotalawyer
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top