Supreme Court Grills Government Lawyers In WE Charity Scandal Hearing Day 1

Supreme Court Grills Government Lawyers In WE Charity Scandal Hearing Day 1

Jan 14 2026

D'Watch at Supreme Court this week vs. Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that ignored PM Trudeau’s violation in WE Charity grant approval

Posted on January 12, 2026 

Stage 1 hearing of case is about whether errors in Ethics Commissioner rulings can be challenged in court when government tries to prohibit challenges

Federal ethics law prohibits all conflicts of interest and improper decisions, including improper apparent conflict that Trudeau had with WE Charity

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, January 12, 2026

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch announced that its Stage 1 appeal in the court case it filed in June 2021 will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) Wednesday and Thursday.  The case challenges Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s May 2021 ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau’s participation in the WE Charity grant approval process because the Commissioner made four key errors in letting Trudeau off even though Trudeau clearly violated the federal government ethics law.

The appeal is SCC file #41576, and the hearing is at the SCC in Ottawa at 301 Wellington St.:

Wednesday, Jan. 14 at 9:30 am ET
   (Lawyers for Democracy Watch and the Attorney General of Canada will present their arguments)
Thursday, Jan. 15 at 9:30 am ET
   (15 interveners will present their arguments, and Democracy Watch’s lawyers will reply)
To watch the hearings online, click here.

Democracy Watch is represented by Sujit Choudry of Circle Barristers and Paul Daly of the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.

The Attorney General of Canada (AGC) handles the case when the Ethics Commissioner is challenged in court, even though the Ethics Commissioner issues rulings on the AGC and other members of the federal Cabinet.  Cases challenging Ethics Commissioner rulings go straight to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA).  In 2021, the AGC filed a motion to try to stop the case, arguing that DWatch didn’t have standing to pursue the case, and that errors in the Commissioner’s rulings can’t be challenged in court.

Justice Stratas of the FCA ruled in December 2022 that DWatch had public interest standing to pursue the case, but he then ruled in February 2023 that the FCA had to first consider at Stage 1 whether section 66 of the Conflict of Interest Act (which is known as a “partial privative clause”) prohibits challenging errors of fact and law in the Commissioner’s rulings in court.

The FCA subsequently issued a ruling in October 2024 that did not decide the partial privative clause issue but, instead, concluded (in paras. 79-92) that the Ethics Commissioner operates under Parliament and, therefore, appeals of errors of facts and law in Ethics Commissioner rulings should be filed with the Prime Minister and Parliament.  The SCC approved DWatch’s appeal application last spring.

Democracy Watch’s legal arguments (and reply arguments) at the SCC contend that the Parliament of Canada Act states clearly that the Ethics Commissioner does not operate under Parliament when enforcing the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA), and that Parliament has no legal role in reviewing the Commissioner’s rulings.  As the FCA acknowledged in its ruling, the Commissioner was established in 2004 to take ruling on alleged violations out of the hands of partisan politicians.  In addition, DWatch (and the eight citizen organizations intervening in the appeal) argue that it is essential under the Constitution and the rule of law principle that the courts can review decisions of tribunals like the Ethics Commissioner to ensure they are enforcing laws properly.

The ruling on this Stage 1 issue in the case will set a precedent that will not only determine whether DWatch’s Stage 2 case challenging errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s Trudeau-WE Charity ruling will go ahead, but also will determine whether court cases can challenge errors in the rulings of any agency, board, commission or tribunal that has a “partial privative clause” in the statute that governs it.

Click here to see the Backgrounder summarizing the four key errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling.

“We are arguing that it would be absurd to appeal to the Prime Minister and MPs to have them review errors in a ruling by the Ethics Commissioner, especially when the ruling, as in this case, involves the Prime Minister who would be judging his own actions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “We say that insisting that an Ethics Commissioner ruling about any federal Cabinet minister, ministerial staff person or Cabinet appointee can only be reviewed by federal politicians is an inadequate safeguard for the rule of law and the profoundly important federal government ethics law.”

“Hopefully the Supreme Court will overturn the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling and allow the case to go ahead challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau participating in the WE Charity grant approval, and also set a precedent that allows all future cases challenging of errors in rulings by the Ethics Commissioner and all agencies, boards, commissioners and tribunals across Canada to ensure that they always enforce the law properly,” said Conacher.