PM asks court to toss ‘frivolous’ lawsuit
Guergis seeks $1.3M over 2010 cabinet ouster
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is asking a court to kill a “frivolous” and “vexatious” defamation lawsuit aimed at him and other key Conservatives by former Tory cabinet minister Helena Guergis.
The development came Friday, as a private-sector lawyer hired by the Conservative government to defend Harper and three others filed a motion in an Ottawa court to dismiss the legal action that was filed by Guergis in December.
The motion picks apart the statement of claim made by Guergis, who was dumped from cabinet by Harper in 2010 over allegations of improper conduct.
Now, as the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit, Guergis is seeking $1.3 million in connection with the affair, which she says damaged her reputation.
Specifically, with regards to Harper’s actions, her statement of claim seeks damages from the prime minister for his alleged “conspiracy, defamation, misfeasance in public office, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and negligence.”
But Harper’s lawyer contends there is no evidence to back up any of those allegations.
“It is plain and obvious that the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action,” says the motion.
“The action is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, and accordingly should be stayed or dismissed.”
Guergis was in Harper’s cabinet as minister of state for the status of women.
That ended suddenly in April 2010 when Harper announced that his office had become aware of “serious allegations” regarding her conduct, which he was forwarding to the RCMP and to the ethics commissioner.
Harper did not publicly identify the nature of the allegations, and Guergis says she was not told by the prime minister.
In the motion filed Friday, Harper’s lawyer wrote the prime minister merely had his staff pass on the allegations to the Mounties and ethics commissioner for further investigation.
“Those words are not defamatory and are incapable of sustaining a cause of action in defamation.”
In fact, says the motion, the defendants are protected by the “doctrine of absolute privilege” because the “statements” made by one “high officer of the state” to another related to their official duties.
Harper’s motion also says the Guergis lawsuit cannot go forward because its claims of conspiracy, misfeasance in public office and “intentional infliction of mental suffering” are not backed up with facts.
Moreover, it argues that the positions held by Guergis in cabinet and caucus, and as a Tory candidate, were subject to political decisions and not questions that could be left to the courts.
“The ability to appoint, promote, demote or dismiss cabinet ministers at pleasure is a Crown prerogative exercised by the Prime Minister,” says the motion.
The motion also was filed on behalf of three other people named in the lawsuit: Raymond Novak, the prime minister’s principal secretary; Labour Minister Lisa Raitt; and Conservative MP Shelly Glover.
Others named in the lawsuit, such as the Conservative party of Canada, have hired their own lawyers.
Among the other defendants are Guy Giorno, who served as Harper’s chief of staff from July 2008 to January 2011, and is no longer in government.
His lawyer also filed a motion this week seeking the dismissal of the lawsuit.
It’s expected lawyers acting on the case — which has the potential of becoming a political bombshell for the prime minister — will present oral arguments on the motions in an Ottawa court in September.
Stephen Victor, the lawyer representing Guergis, said he will “vigorously” oppose the motions.
“They are alleging that the statement of claim discloses no reasonable causes of action,” said Victor.
“It is our position that Ms. Guergis’s statement of claim discloses reasonable causes of action.
“We’re hopeful that the court will agree with our position, so that will enable the evidence to be presented in an open court of law and the evidence will see the light of day.”
In the lawsuit, Guergis alleges those being sued conspired to present various allegations about her behaviour — including fraudulent activity, extortion, association with prostitutes and cocaine use (including “snorting” the cocaine off a prostitute’s breast).
All the allegations are false and defamatory and have “resulted in damage to the plaintiff ’s reputation” and to her “political career, health, and well-being,” says her statement of claim.