This week the Prime Minister and several Cabinet members were sued for defamation -- a reader asked 'can they avoid being examined because of their position?'
The short answer is No. The longer answer is Probably Not.
In Canada only the Head of State (the Queen and (maybe) the Governor General) cannot be compelled to be witnesses because of their governmental role. The Prime Minister and Cabinet members are no different than anyone else. If sued they have to defend and testify just like the rest of us.
That's the short answer.
The slightly longer answer adds a caveat.
Policy discussions in Cabinet are privileged. That means, even though the Prime Minister can be called to testify, if he is asked about a Cabinet policy discussion (say why Canada dumped Kyoto) he can rightly say 'that's privileged and I won't answer'.
But that privilege is narrow and likely would not extend to discussions about an MP and whether she should be expelled from the CPC.
Similarly, the Wigmore criteria exclusions (which could in theory apply) are unlikely to give a confidential privilege for such discussions.
So the longer answer is, the Prime Minister and Cabinet will have to testify.
Of course, as pointed out a day or so ago, I think the claim itself has no legal merit and so the issue is probably moot regardless.
4 comments:
So when the other parties called for action to put the accused on ice, the prime minister acted.
Now where are they to defend their poster child of potentially poor behavior
Morton,
I wonder why you think the case has no legal merit? Others have made arguments why they think she has some grounds, at least against some of the persons involved. Guess we will find out soon enough how the courts view it.
However, I seem to recall that you thought the five meter rule for the G8/G20 fencing had merit and was actually advising people to obey what had turned out to be a "fake" law. Was I mistaken? LOL
Anon,
I've been wrong before and may be again. That said, I really think HG doesn't have a hope and her claim is PR only
Thank Morton. Appreciate the information.
I still don't quite see how HG doesn't have a hope. It seems that they said or implied things that were demonstrably false and those things demonstrably ruined her career. I suggest that if her case has no chance then there is something wrong with the law in this case. Or as the famous dictum has it, "the law is an ass."
I know you practice law and I mean no disrespect but I believe that a history of the law can demonstrate fairly readily that due to structural inequalities the law favours very dramatically those with more money and more power.
And it seems that this case is no different in the sense that if some 'average' persona had used some sudden opportunity to destroy the career of some very rich and powerful person, at the very least people would take the case much more serious.
Anyway thanks again.
Post a Comment