Guy Regimbald

Senator Michael Duffy sued the Senate of Canada for over $7 million in damages, alleging his suspension and denial of expenses were politically motivated, unconstitutional, and violated his Charter rights, despite his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Senate moved to dismiss the action, asserting parliamentary privilege.

The court granted the Senate's motion, finding that the Senate's decisions regarding member discipline, internal affairs, proceedings, and freedom of speech were protected by parliamentary privilege and thus immune from judicial review.

The applicant, Senator Michael Dennis Duffy, sought an order requiring the Clerk of the Senate to produce an internal audit report prepared by Jill Anne Joseph regarding Senate expense policies and Senator Duffy's expense claims.

The Senate claimed parliamentary privilege over the document.

The court upheld the Senate's claim of privilege, finding that the internal audit report, prepared by a Senate employee and presented to a Senate subcommittee in camera, fell within recognized categories of parliamentary privilege including freedom of speech, exclusive cognizance over parliamentary proceedings, control over internal affairs, and disciplinary authority over members.

The court rejected arguments that the privilege had been waived and distinguished the case from R. v. Chaytor, which addressed expense claims themselves rather than internal audit reports.

Following an assessment hearing where the applicant law firm successfully proved the respondent corporation was its client and owed outstanding legal fees, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found that the respondent's defence was arguable and that the applicant shared responsibility for the dispute by failing to obtain a written retainer agreement.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, significantly reducing the claimed hours and travel disbursements to reflect what would have been reasonable had a standard retainer agreement been in place.

The respondent brought motions seeking to dismiss an order permitting the assessment of a law firm's accounts, arguing there was no evidence of a retainer and that the assessment process was unavailable because some work involved a patent agent.

The court held the respondent failed to establish that no retainer existed and found the documentary evidence ambiguous without supporting evidence from the respondent’s principal.

The court further held that services performed by a patent agent under the supervision of a law firm may fall within assessable legal services.

The applicant’s motion to amend the respondent’s name in the order due to misnomer was granted.

The respondent’s motions were dismissed.

Former leadership candidates sought a further extension of time to pay outstanding leadership campaign expenses under the Canada Elections Act after failing to comply with a prior judicial order extending the payment deadline.

The Chief Electoral Officer opposed the application, arguing that the statutory scheme permits only one judicial extension following authorization by the Chief Electoral Officer.

The court interpreted ss. 435.26 and 435.27 of the Canada Elections Act and held that the statutory precondition allowing a judge to grant an extension had already been exhausted by the earlier judicial order.

In any event, the applicants failed to establish that their inability to comply with the prior order resulted from reasons beyond their control.

The application for a further extension was dismissed.