AGAR: Scheer knows Trudeau can't control the courts

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer walks to a press conference at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa on April 7, 2019. (THE CANADIAN PRESS)

There is a reason Andrew Scheer told Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to, “bring it on.”

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 SNC-Lavalin.

“If Mr. Trudeau intends to pursue this course of legal action, if he believes he has a case against me, I urge him to do so immediately,” Scheer said Sunday. “This is an urgent matter of public interest and it deserves to be heard in a legal setting where Liberals do not control the proceedings.”

There is the reason. Trudeau can’t control the courts.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau talks to media in St. Stephen, N.B., Thursday, March 28, 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Stephen MacGillivray

He seems to have tried to control legal proceedings from the outside, but in a courtroom, or prior to court in examination for discovery, Trudeau and others would be responsible to tell the truth in an environment they cannot control.

If Trudeau presses on with his threat and actually sues Scheer, the Conservative leader can and likely would plead justification, meaning he told the truth. At that point, Scheer can subpoena anyone he wants.

That would possibly start with discovery. Examination for discovery is a legal proceeding which enables a party to a civil action to examine another person before trial.

From my experience, (sometimes people take exception to what I say and write) here is how it works.

In my case, two lawyers from the other side showed up with me and my lawyer in the company of a court reporter who put it all on the record.

Their lawyers asked me questions in an attempt to refute what I had said on TV and in the newspaper. They pushed; they tried from different directions if one set of questions didn’t get them the answer they were looking for. They tried to catch me in inconsistencies.

They tried to intimidate me with aggressive questioning and with references to their huge binders of documents all numbered and annotated.

Just like a court case, it is likely to be embarrassing to the party not telling the truth.

I am not convinced that process and the possibility of actually going to trial is what Justin Trudeau wants to go through. Given the changing nature of his story ever since the Lavalin story broke, some of the questioning would likely become uncomfortable.

“Some people experienced it differently” is unlikely to prove satisfactory.

After discovery, the transcript can be used to point to contradictions or variations between a witness’s testimony in court and prior statements made by the same witness.

In Ontario, there is also something called the implied undertaking rule which means that with limited exceptions — discovery evidence cannot be used outside of the lawsuit and cannot be disclosed publicly. But it’s there and may be used at trial or on motions in the proceeding, which is public.

But of course they could skip all that and just go to court. It would be best for all of us if that took place prior to an election.

If Scheer is found to have slandered Trudeau, Scheer can deal with it. Voters could decide he is not prime minster material.

On the other hand, Scheer may prove his assertions in court, and voters can decide on Trudeau.

That is why Scheer said, “bring it on.”

This Week's Flyers

