Case dismissed


Helena Guergis’ lawsuit has been dismissed.

Judge Charles Hackland ruled Friday that Harper’s ability to appoint cabinet ministers was not a matter the court could rule on, even in the face of the Guergis’s claim of a conspiracy to oust her. “The subject of this alleged conspiracy is conduct protected by the doctrine of Crown prerogative and is, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of this Court,” he said in a written decision. “The plaintiff’s removal from caucus is similarly protected from review by the doctrine of parliamentary privilege and, on the same basis, is beyond review by this Court.”

This, Hackland said, was a matter of settled law and established in previous cases. Any judicial oversight of caucus membership “would undermine parliamentary privilege and subject this purely political decision-making to review by the courts,” Hackland wrote.

Ms. Guergis is apparently planning to appeal.


Case dismissed

  1. Last paragraph in decision:

    [56] Any of the moving parties who wish to seek costs of this motion may submit a claim inwriting to this Court within 21 days of the release of these reasons and the plaintiff may respond within 21 days of receipt of the defendants’costs submissions.“Hackland R.S.J.”
    Now an appeal? Enough already.

    I sincerely hope all parties rightly seek costs from Ms. Guergis.

  2. Well of course he can appoint or remove cabinet ministers at will.

    I thought she was suing over defamation of character. that he can remove her, but can’t blacken her name from one end of the country to the other…..even hinting she’s involved in illegalities.

    • The judge also ruled there was no defamation in the letter sent to the RCMP.

      • Ahhh missed that. Thanks.

        But he has blackened her name across Canada…..even if not in the letter to the RCMP

        • That’s correct. Either the case was ill-constructed by Guergis’ team, or the judge missed the forest for the trees.

          Dear Leader has the privilege of removing anyone from cabinet for any or no reason, and/or making a group decision in the process.

          But to the extent he publicly added to the mountain of defamatory public material as his premises without any supporting evidence whatsoever, he stepped over the line into the courts’ jurisdiction. This is supported by the statement of the cops that entailed that his claim was without merit.

          For reason of political optics alone, Harper name-dropped the RCMP as a brush to tar Geurgis publicly, supported by the equally false claim by his cronies that she ‘knew’ what the ‘serious (enough for criminal investigation by the police) what the issue was. That’s an abuse of the police for purely political reasons.

          I hope on appeal, judges will see well enough to parse out this chaff from the wheat and serve a warning to public leaders down the road.

          • correction:

            “…what the ‘serious (enough for criminal investigation by the police) allegations’ were that the issue was about.”

    • You are correct! The Statement of Claim is on-line. The claim was for damages, not to interfere in political decisions. The ruling is a shameful side step. This was a motion to strike the claim before it is even heard on its merits. The ruling on the motion represents a serious denial of the plaintiff’s Charter rights to access to justice. Very disturbing.

      • It disturbs me that charter rights for others as well as her seem to be tossed at a great rate these days

        If our judges do not uphold the law, who will?

  3. Prof. Anatole french, in his analysis, has been critical of the Hackland ruling, in part: “Hackland arrives at this nonsensical conclusion by lack of discernment.
    A correct analysis would discern all the legitimate political dimensions of a
    Prime Minister’s privileged decisions, which cannot be questioned by the courts
    under the true principle of Parliamentary Privilege, from any illegal
    components of a Prime Minister’s privileged decisions, which must be subject to
    the rule of law. In this correct analysis, the just remedy may or may not
    include reversals of decisions, even if the illegal behaviour is proved. But the
    plaintiff has a right that other remedies also be considered in order to
    achieve justice.”