PM orders review of military sex misconduct lawsuit
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau put Justice Department lawyers on notice Wednesday for their response to a proposed classaction lawsuit on military sexual misconduct, saying their arguments are out of line.
The lawsuit was brought forward last year by three former service members who say they were harassed or assaulted while in uniform. They are seeking $ 800 million for themselves and others in similar situations.
Justice Department lawyers filed documents in late December in which they asked the Federal Court to quash the suit, which comes as military leaders are pushing for a culture change to eliminate all forms of sexual misconduct in uniform.
The documents include a number of arguments for why the lawsuit has no reasonable chance of success and should therefore be dismissed before going to trial.
Officials for Justice Minister Jody Wilson- Raybould and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan refused last month to comment on the federal lawyer’s response because the case was before the courts.
But Trudeau on Wednesday said that the arguments were “of concern to me, and I’ve asked ( Wilson-Raybould) to follow up with the lawyers to make sure that we argue things that are consistent with this government’s philosophy.
“Obviously the lawyers’ argument does not align with my beliefs or what this government believes.”
Trudeau did not say exactly which arguments were of concern, and his office refused to provide further information.
But lawyer Rajinder Sahota, who is representing the three former service members involved in the lawsuit along with lawyers from five other legal firms, cited one statement as being of primary concern.
It says the government does not “owe a private law duty of care to individual members within the CAF to provide a safe and harassment- free work environment, or to create policies to prevent sexual harassment or sexual assault.”
That doesn’t mean the government is arguing it has absolutely no obligation to create a safe workplace or prevent sexual misconduct, said University of Ottawa law professor Bruce Feldthusen.
“What they’re saying is: ‘ We have an obligation to do it under the Human Rights Act, we have an obligation to do something under the Criminal Code, but we don’t have an obligation under negligence law,’ ” he said.
“We don’t have an obligation to compensate individual victims.”
Feldthusen said it makes sense for federal lawyers to make such an argument as part of their attempt to get the lawsuit tossed out of court, but he didn’t believe it had much chance of success.
The lawsuit was front and centre during a heated question period Wednesday on Parliament Hill, where concerns about sexual misconduct and the #MeToo movement have dominated debate for weeks.