Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
- Thread starter Loachman
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,826
- Points
- 1,090
There's about to be a shortage of 
op:
Scheer says PM's lawyer threatened him with libel suit over SNC-Lavalin affair
OTTAWA -- Andrew Scheer is challenging Justin Trudeau to follow through on a threat to sue him over his assertion that the prime minister politically interfered with the criminal prosecution of Montreal engineering giant SNC-Lavlin.
The Conservative leader revealed Sunday that he received a letter on March 31 from Trudeau's lawyer, Julian Porter, threatening a libel suit.
op:Scheer says PM's lawyer threatened him with libel suit over SNC-Lavalin affair
OTTAWA -- Andrew Scheer is challenging Justin Trudeau to follow through on a threat to sue him over his assertion that the prime minister politically interfered with the criminal prosecution of Montreal engineering giant SNC-Lavlin.
The Conservative leader revealed Sunday that he received a letter on March 31 from Trudeau's lawyer, Julian Porter, threatening a libel suit.
- Reaction score
- 2,278
- Points
- 1,160
They are just baiting each other. Frig all of them, drama queens, every one of them.
- Reaction score
- 17,749
- Points
- 1,010
This is madness on the part of the Liberal Party? PMO?
Being sued is a gift for the Conservatives. You cannot buy that kind of publicity, as a political party.
Lets say for a second this was not an idle threat. What happens when the Conservative Party lawyers begin discovery and truckloads of documents get requested and everyone in Cabinet is named as a witness.
The Liberals may be calculating that nothing can happen in court until after the election (after which they will quietly drop the whole thing), but the Conservatives have way deeper pockets and as the "victims" probably have way better fund raising potential.This can potentially bankrupt the Liberals in lawyer fees alone, right as an election occurs.
Unless, as Jarnhamar has pointed out, this is a diversion from something way worse the Liberals don't want anyone to see.
Being sued is a gift for the Conservatives. You cannot buy that kind of publicity, as a political party.
Lets say for a second this was not an idle threat. What happens when the Conservative Party lawyers begin discovery and truckloads of documents get requested and everyone in Cabinet is named as a witness.
The Liberals may be calculating that nothing can happen in court until after the election (after which they will quietly drop the whole thing), but the Conservatives have way deeper pockets and as the "victims" probably have way better fund raising potential.This can potentially bankrupt the Liberals in lawyer fees alone, right as an election occurs.
Unless, as Jarnhamar has pointed out, this is a diversion from something way worse the Liberals don't want anyone to see.
- Reaction score
- 2,278
- Points
- 1,160
The discovery process for a libel suit need not be as complex as other forms of civil lawsuits. The process is designed to be somewhat expeditious. That being said....
"…An individual’s reputation is not to be treated as regrettable but unavoidable road kill on the highway of public controversy, but nor should an overly solicitous regard for personal reputation be permitted to “chill” freewheeling debate on matters of public interest…"
In addition to the public interest defence available to the leader of the opposition, there is also the defence of honest belief, and I'm not sure that they could be so successful on that one:
"Honest belief”, of course, requires the existence of a nexus or relationship between the comment and the underlying facts .... “could any man honestly express that opinion on the proved facts”
Further:
"...The test is not whether the words impute negative qualities to the plaintiff, but whether, in the factual circumstances of the case, the public would think less of the plaintiff as a result of the comment. Relevant factors to be considered in assessing whether a statement is defamatory include: whether the impugned speech is a statement of opinion rather than of fact; how much is publicly known about the plaintiff; the nature of the audience; and the context of the comment. "
The context here is, of course, politics alleging a criminal act by the Prime Minister and characterizing it de facto rather than opinion. Not a wise move....
"…An individual’s reputation is not to be treated as regrettable but unavoidable road kill on the highway of public controversy, but nor should an overly solicitous regard for personal reputation be permitted to “chill” freewheeling debate on matters of public interest…"
In addition to the public interest defence available to the leader of the opposition, there is also the defence of honest belief, and I'm not sure that they could be so successful on that one:
"Honest belief”, of course, requires the existence of a nexus or relationship between the comment and the underlying facts .... “could any man honestly express that opinion on the proved facts”
Further:
"...The test is not whether the words impute negative qualities to the plaintiff, but whether, in the factual circumstances of the case, the public would think less of the plaintiff as a result of the comment. Relevant factors to be considered in assessing whether a statement is defamatory include: whether the impugned speech is a statement of opinion rather than of fact; how much is publicly known about the plaintiff; the nature of the audience; and the context of the comment. "
The context here is, of course, politics alleging a criminal act by the Prime Minister and characterizing it de facto rather than opinion. Not a wise move....
I tend to agree with SeaKing in that this is madness. The entire issue would have died a natural death from lack of new materiel in about 2 weeks. It would have gone from page 1 above the fold to the Life section and then disappeared. This law suit stuff simply ensured that it remains front burner. If the facts that have been proven are all there is to the story all Justin simply had to wait. That he didn't says more about his immaturity and less about some possible nefarious liberal plot. It is more likely that he simply has his mouth on automatic, you know, make statement then engage brain. My :2c:
- Reaction score
- 6,341
- Points
- 1,160
Can't talk about it if the matter is before the courts, right?
This lawsuit is pocket change to trudeau. Cheap as hell if he can make Scheer shutup.
Mind, that only stops Scheer outside the House.
This lawsuit is pocket change to trudeau. Cheap as hell if he can make Scheer shutup.
Mind, that only stops Scheer outside the House.
- Reaction score
- 17,749
- Points
- 1,010
Cloud Cover said:
The largest libel award in Canadian history was $1.1 million. Even if the Sheer loses (not a certainty), his lawyer gets to drag the entire Liberal Party through the mud, for the entire run up to the october election. And the best Trudeau will be able manage? "Can't talk about it- it is before courts". Even if Trudeau wins- it it really isn't a win because it just confirms the impression that he is both petty and thin-skinned.
The best part? None of this gets counted as election spending and I am betting that Scheer has no trouble raising money to cover his legal bills. As I said earlier, this is a massive boon to the Conservatives and dumb politics for the Liberals. This all but guarantees that SNC Lavalin stays alive all summer, as an issue.
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 444
- Points
- 910
Cloud Cover said:
Based on the facts available, there seems to be an awful lot of people in Canada who will and have expressed the same opinion, so I'm not sure how this one is a stretch... I would be happy to testify under oath that, based on the evidence available, I have honestly concluded that JT is corrupt, lied to Canadians, and attempted to politically interfere in a criminal case.
- Reaction score
- 1,525
- Points
- 1,160
Anyway, do you really think Trudeau will tell the whole truth under oath at a trial? Will it be his truth, the truth as he envisages it, the truth as he conjures up, the truth of a Liberal, and so on.
I expect zero truth.
I expect zero truth.
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,239
- Points
- 1,140
The way I understand it so far, the suit would be by Trudeau personally against Scheer personally for comments Scheer made on social media and outside the house where he is not protected by Parliamentary privilege. It is, quite obviously, a SLAPP suit aimed at muzzling Scheer outside of the house and in front of the media. I would expect similar threats to be made against others such as Bergen, Rempel and Polivere.
- Reaction score
- 17,749
- Points
- 1,010
Haggis said:
I get that, but think of the optics, particularly in an election year. Trudeau, with his personal fortune up in the millions is going after (essentially) a middle class man with an opinion (Scheer).
It may not directly involve the Liberal and Conservative Parties, but who do think comes out of this looking like an underdog and who comes out looking desperate, petty and entitled, regardless of the legal outcome? Plus, this stays in the news cycle. I still contend that Scheer can go on the BBQ circuit this summer and easily fund raise his legal fees. Even people who would not normally vote Conservative probably would contribute to a Scheer legal defence fund, just to see Trudeau hammered for trying to silence the leader of the Opposition.
This is another disaster in the making for the Liberals.
- Reaction score
- 2,278
- Points
- 1,160
To be clear, I think that Trudeau would not succeed as Scheer could avail himself of the public interest defence. With respect to "honest belief", in general the facts have to be proven before the libellous statements are made, not after the libel suit commences. A person cannot wander about accusing people of having committed crimes, and then demand evidence to prove it after they've been served with a libel suit. That being said, there is obviously plenty of evidence, but whether it's proof - well just ask Jean Chretien- "a proof is a proof when I say it is". And he got away with it, FFS.
The total aggregate damages for Hill were about 1.6 million including 800K in punitive damages, plus costs. There were (i think) 2 defendants. This case with Trudeau does not come anywhere near the level of defamation that occurred in Hill, where the plaintiff was actually a prosecutor. Here, Trudeau is, at least perceptually, a conspirator.
The total aggregate damages for Hill were about 1.6 million including 800K in punitive damages, plus costs. There were (i think) 2 defendants. This case with Trudeau does not come anywhere near the level of defamation that occurred in Hill, where the plaintiff was actually a prosecutor. Here, Trudeau is, at least perceptually, a conspirator.
- Reaction score
- 4,596
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
Can I get a bit more clarification on something a bit more fundamental?
The business of the independence of the prosecutors?
Isn't it the case that we can "afford" to give the prosecutors, employees of the state, the freedom to prosecute who they like because prosecution is not the same as conviction?
My sense is that in the same context that anyone can enter into a dispute with anyone and then have that dispute resolved by a "disinterested" third party, the courts, then the state, as represented by the prosecutor, can enter into dispute with anyone and, likewise, take it to the courts for adjudication. The courts then test the arguments and decide if the prosecutor can make the case and demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the person is sufficiently guilty to warrant a sanction.
As people subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts my understanding of my protections are as follows:
The discretion of my neighbours to lay a complaint
The discretion of the police to arrest
The discretion of the prosecutor to charge
The discretion of the court to hear the case
The discretion of the judge and or jury to convict
The discretion of the judge to sentence
My discretion to appeal to superior courts
The discretion of the appellate courts to hear the case
The discretion of the appellate courts to uphold the conviction
The discretion of the appellate courts to uphold the sentence
My discretion to appeal to the Crown as represented by the Queen in Council, the government of the day
The discretion of the government of the day to uphold the findings of the courts.
That is an awful lot of people making judgments with little guarantee that all the people exercising their discretion will agree on an outcome. That puts a load onto many people but in particular it puts a load on the prosecutor because he or she is committing the reputation and budget of the state to a process that could severely injure both in the event of a failed prosecution - and failure is a real possibility.
With that background in mind - two thoughts.
One - the government has ample opportunity, at the end of the process, to assist its friends - if it chooses to do so - in the cold light of day - and if it is willing to put its decision to the discretion of the electorate at the next election.
Two - any organization willing to spend millions, and go to the extent of getting laws changed and risk the perception of corruption, to keep its case out of the courts must be fairly sure that the prosecutors have a case that the courts will ultimately accept and that will result in sanctions.
The business of the independence of the prosecutors?
Isn't it the case that we can "afford" to give the prosecutors, employees of the state, the freedom to prosecute who they like because prosecution is not the same as conviction?
My sense is that in the same context that anyone can enter into a dispute with anyone and then have that dispute resolved by a "disinterested" third party, the courts, then the state, as represented by the prosecutor, can enter into dispute with anyone and, likewise, take it to the courts for adjudication. The courts then test the arguments and decide if the prosecutor can make the case and demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the person is sufficiently guilty to warrant a sanction.
As people subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts my understanding of my protections are as follows:
The discretion of my neighbours to lay a complaint
The discretion of the police to arrest
The discretion of the prosecutor to charge
The discretion of the court to hear the case
The discretion of the judge and or jury to convict
The discretion of the judge to sentence
My discretion to appeal to superior courts
The discretion of the appellate courts to hear the case
The discretion of the appellate courts to uphold the conviction
The discretion of the appellate courts to uphold the sentence
My discretion to appeal to the Crown as represented by the Queen in Council, the government of the day
The discretion of the government of the day to uphold the findings of the courts.
That is an awful lot of people making judgments with little guarantee that all the people exercising their discretion will agree on an outcome. That puts a load onto many people but in particular it puts a load on the prosecutor because he or she is committing the reputation and budget of the state to a process that could severely injure both in the event of a failed prosecution - and failure is a real possibility.
With that background in mind - two thoughts.
One - the government has ample opportunity, at the end of the process, to assist its friends - if it chooses to do so - in the cold light of day - and if it is willing to put its decision to the discretion of the electorate at the next election.
Two - any organization willing to spend millions, and go to the extent of getting laws changed and risk the perception of corruption, to keep its case out of the courts must be fairly sure that the prosecutors have a case that the courts will ultimately accept and that will result in sanctions.
Similar threads
