EDITORIAL: Win for democracy at Supreme Court

Democracy Watch argued Justin Trudeau engaged in both a real and apparent conflict of interest in WE charity affair and applied to the Federal Court of Appeal for a judicial review of ethics commissioner's decision

Published Aug 01, 2026  •  Last updated 11 minutes ago  •  2 minute read

Justin Trudeau Photo by Christopher Goodney /Photographer: Christopher Goodne

Citizens’ rights group Democracy Watch won a significant victory last week for government accountability.

Article content

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that it has the right to apply for judicial review of a 2021 report by the then federal ethics commissioner that found Justin Trudeau did not violate the Conflict of Interest Act in the WE charity affair.

Article content

Article content

Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher said the ruling eliminates a provision in the act, and similar legislation elsewhere, that until now prevented Canadians from applying for judicial review of decisions made by government agencies, boards, commissioners and tribunals.

The Supreme Court ruled this “partial privative clause” is unconstitutional, which Democracy Watch said has implications far beyond this one decision by former ethics commissioner Mario Dion.

“The Supreme Court has unanimously confirmed that all Canadians have a constitutionally protected right to got to court to challenge unlawful government action,” Democracy Watch co-counsel Paul Daly said.

Read More

1. 

   GAFFES AND SCANDALS: Liberals' WE drama an unforgettable mess

2. 

   The scandals, missteps and affairs that defined the Trudeau decade
3. 

   GOLDSTEIN: What ‘sucks’ is Trudeau repeatedly violating the ethics law

Article content

Dion ruled 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.

But he 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 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 Dion’s decision.

The federal government argued 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.

It said because the ethics commissioner operates under the authority of Parliament, complaints about Dion’s decision had to be made to the PM and parliament.

RECOMMENDED VIDEO

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.

Prior to his decision on Trudeau’s actions with regard to WE, Dion ruled against him in the SNC-Lavalin affair in 2019, finding Trudeau and his staff violated the conflict law by improperly pressuring then attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to the Quebec company.

Article content