Conservative motion in robocall case struck down

Decision clears way for federal judge to hear evidence regarding effect on voters

OTTAWA — The federal court has quashed a Conservative party motion seeking a $260,000 surety in the robocalls lawsuit, finding the party’s lawyers “unnecessar- ily delayed and encumbered these proceedings.”

The ruling, a rebuke for the governing party, clears the way for a federal judge to hear evidence in Ottawa in December. The lawsuit is seeking to overturn the election results in seven close ridings, alleging fraudulent or deceptive calls suppressed the votes of opposition supporters, putting the election of seven Conservative MPs in doubt.

The Conservatives have complained the lawsuit is an attempt by partisan opponents to overturn election results they can’t accept and have repeatedly sought to derail or stop the case, which Steven Shrybman, the lawyer leading the case for the Council of Canadians, has complained amounts to legal obstructionism.

On Friday, the court agreed with him, saying the Conservatives “have filed motion after motion, causing significant delays and adding to the costs of the litigation. The present motion for security for costs, say the applicants, is no different, and the respondent MPs should not be rewarded for their conduct.”

The court ordered the Conservatives to pay unspecified costs to the lawyers for the plaintiffs. Neither Shrybman nor Arthur Hamilton, lawyer for the Conservatives, would comment on the decision on Friday.

James Duggan, lawyer for the unsuccessful NDP candidates in all seven ridings, said the court, which previously stated the case is serious and worthy of consideration, restated that forcefully Friday.

“That issue is cited again by the court, saying look, we’ve already told them this is a very important case and it’s serious,” he said. “Notwithstanding having been told that once, the respondent MPs came with this motion on costs, so they had to be told that again.”

In July, in response to an earlier Conservative motion to kill the case, the court said fraudulent electoral calls “could shake public confidence and trust in the electoral process.”