The Supreme Court of Canada has made a significant ruling on government accountability, granting citizens the right to challenge agency decisions in court.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the citizens' rights group Democracy Watch has the right to apply for judicial review of a 2021 report by the former federal ethics commissioner that found Justin Trudeau did not violate the Conflict of Interest Act in the WE charity affair.
Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher said the ruling eliminates a provision in the act that prevented Canadians from applying for judicial review of decisions made by government agencies, boards, commissioners, and tribunals.
The Supreme Court ruled that the "partial privative clause" is unconstitutional, which Democracy Watch said has implications far beyond this one decision.
The ruling means that Canadians now have a constitutionally protected right to go to court and challenge unlawful government action, according to Democracy Watch co-counsel Paul Daly.
The decision stems from a 2021 report by the former ethics commissioner that found Trudeau did not violate the Conflict of Interest Act in the WE charity affair.
The former ethics commissioner had ruled that Trudeau created the appearance of a conflict of interest in rewarding the administration of the Canada Student Service Grant program to WE during the pandemic, given his family's relationship with it.
However, the commissioner said he could not issue a negative finding against Trudeau because the conflict law had no provisions for censuring a politician for an apparent conflict of interest.
Democracy Watch argued that Trudeau had engaged in both a real and apparent conflict of interest and applied to the Federal Court of Appeal for a judicial review of the commissioner's decision.
The federal government argued that Democracy Watch had no legal standing in the case and that issues related to facts and law in the commissioner's ruling could not be challenged in court.
The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, enabling Democracy Watch and eight other citizen organizations who intervened in the case to ask for a judicial review.
This ruling is significant, as it opens the door for citizens to challenge government agency decisions in court, ensuring accountability and upholding the rule of law.
