Murray Wood: Saskatchewan is ahead of it's time. Just ask B.C.
There used be an argument that Saskatchewan didn't move it's clocks because it was resistant to change. Turns out when y...
OTTAWA — A group that pushes for political accountability says the courts must be allowed to review the reasonableness of a federal ethics ruling about former prime minister Justin Trudeau.
In a filing to the Supreme Court of Canada, Democracy Watch argues the Federal Court of Appeal is entitled to examine and rule on its challenge of a federal ethics watchdog report on Trudeau’s involvement in a decision about WE Charity.
Read more:
- Carney arrives in Beijing today ahead of highly anticipated meeting with Xi
- Farmers considering conditions, tariffs and market swings heading into 2026 growing season
- Provincial, federal governments announce $10M in crop research funding as tariffs loom
Federal lawyers are asking the top court to dismiss the pro-democracy group’s appeal. In a submission to the court, they say the Conflict of Interest Act’s very design precludes the Court of Appeal from scrutinizing the watchdog report.
The Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments in the case — including input from several intervening parties — Wednesday and Thursday.
In May 2021, then-federal ethics commissioner Mario Dion concluded Trudeau, who was 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 COVID-19 pandemic-related community service.
Controversy ensued 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 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.
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 on the grounds that political oversight can be an adequate alternative to judicial review.
In its 2024 decision, 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, and the courts should clearly exercise judicial restraint, the ruling said.
Democracy Watch took its case to the Supreme Court, which agreed last May to hear the group’s appeal.
In its written filing to the Supreme Court, the group says that for centuries, the common law courts have jealously guarded their core function of ensuring lawful public administration against legislative and executive intrusion.
“This court should not let its guard down now.”
In their filing, federal lawyers say the Conflict of Interest Act reflects Parliament’s intention for the courts to intervene only in limited circumstances — when the commissioner acts outside of jurisdictional limits, unfairly or based on fraud or perjured evidence.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 14, 2026.
Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
