G.K.Chesterwoman
2015-02-26 23:35:39 UTC
Ottawa Citizen February 25, 2015
Taxpayers paid legal bills for Tory MPs in robocalls case
The House of Commons paid a six-figure legal bill incurred by a group of
Conservative MPs named in an unsuccessful legal challenge of the 2011 election
results based on misleading robocalls.
Sources tell the Citizen that the Houses secretive Board of Internal Economy
agreed to approve payments for fees incurred by at least six MPs who were
named as respondents in the Federal Court challenge, which was backed by the
Council of Canadians, an advocacy group.
The court in 2013 had ordered the council to pay the MPs a total of $13,206
just a small share of the $355,907 their lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, had sought
to recover.
At the time, it was thought the Conservative Party would pay for the remainder
of MPs legal bills, but it now appears that the House stepped in and paid at
least part of it with taxpayers money.
In a May 2013 ruling, Judge Richard Mosley rejected the councils application
to have the results of the election tossed out in six ridings but still found
evidence that electoral fraud had occurred during the campaign. He did not
find any one party responsible but pointed to the use of the Conservative
Partys voter-contact database in misleading pre-recorded robocalls made to
voters.
A former Conservative campaign worker, Michael Sona, was convicted last year
for his role in deceptive robocalls sent to voters in Guelph on election day.
He is currently appealing the conviction and his nine-month jail sentence.
Loading Image...
The exact amount the House paid to Hamiltons firm, Cassels Brock, is not
known.
In June 2013, Hamilton asked the court to order costs of $355,907, which
included 577 billable hours of work performed by Hamilton and two of his
colleagues. He told the court even that amount represented a fraction of the
true costs. Hamilton charged $500 per hour, according to documents submitted
in court.
Included in the costs was $166,363 to pay for expert witnesses brought in to
provide evidence during the week-long hearing. It is unclear if the board
agreed that the House should pay those costs, too.
During the trial, Mosley assailed the respondents legal tactics, accusing
them of dragging out the litigation with legal trench warfare.
Hamilton could not be reached for comment this week.
The House of Commons would not confirm the payment and a spokesperson referred
inquiries about it to the published minutes of the board meetings.
The minutes are too vague to determine how much taxpayers money was paid, to
whom or for what reason. They cite at least one case involving a request to
pay legal bills incurred by more than one MP but do not say which ones or the
nature of the case. The amount paid is also not disclosed.
The Council of Canadians legal challenge argued that misleading live and
prerecorded calls changed the election outcome in six closely fought ridings,
represented by Conservative MPs Kelly Block, John Duncan, Jay Aspin, Joyce
Bateman, Lawrence Toet and Ryan Leef. Ontario MP Joe Daniel was initially
named as a respondent but was later dropped from the proceedings.
Duncan, who, as Conservative whip, sits on the board, declined comment but
Toet, a Manitoba MP, confirmed this week that the House has paid his legal
fees.
The House paid for that because it was a House expense, he said. He was
unable to remember the amount paid.
Bateman said she would check and follow up with a response but did not. The
other MPs named in the legal action did not respond either.
The board minutes from June 2013 show that The Board approved in principle
the payment of legal fees of Members in a complaint but requested that the Law
Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel make a thorough review of the legal fees to be
charged in this matter, and report back to the Board in the fall.
The minutes also show that one member of the board possibly Duncan recused
himself during a meeting in November 2013 and did not participate in the
discussion about a legal matter regarding a civil lawsuit.
Then, in February 2014, The Board approved the payment of legal fees in a
complaint. It is unclear if this is the robocalls case.
Taxpayers paid legal bills for Tory MPs in robocalls case
The House of Commons paid a six-figure legal bill incurred by a group of
Conservative MPs named in an unsuccessful legal challenge of the 2011 election
results based on misleading robocalls.
Sources tell the Citizen that the Houses secretive Board of Internal Economy
agreed to approve payments for fees incurred by at least six MPs who were
named as respondents in the Federal Court challenge, which was backed by the
Council of Canadians, an advocacy group.
The court in 2013 had ordered the council to pay the MPs a total of $13,206
just a small share of the $355,907 their lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, had sought
to recover.
At the time, it was thought the Conservative Party would pay for the remainder
of MPs legal bills, but it now appears that the House stepped in and paid at
least part of it with taxpayers money.
In a May 2013 ruling, Judge Richard Mosley rejected the councils application
to have the results of the election tossed out in six ridings but still found
evidence that electoral fraud had occurred during the campaign. He did not
find any one party responsible but pointed to the use of the Conservative
Partys voter-contact database in misleading pre-recorded robocalls made to
voters.
A former Conservative campaign worker, Michael Sona, was convicted last year
for his role in deceptive robocalls sent to voters in Guelph on election day.
He is currently appealing the conviction and his nine-month jail sentence.
Loading Image...
The exact amount the House paid to Hamiltons firm, Cassels Brock, is not
known.
In June 2013, Hamilton asked the court to order costs of $355,907, which
included 577 billable hours of work performed by Hamilton and two of his
colleagues. He told the court even that amount represented a fraction of the
true costs. Hamilton charged $500 per hour, according to documents submitted
in court.
Included in the costs was $166,363 to pay for expert witnesses brought in to
provide evidence during the week-long hearing. It is unclear if the board
agreed that the House should pay those costs, too.
During the trial, Mosley assailed the respondents legal tactics, accusing
them of dragging out the litigation with legal trench warfare.
Hamilton could not be reached for comment this week.
The House of Commons would not confirm the payment and a spokesperson referred
inquiries about it to the published minutes of the board meetings.
The minutes are too vague to determine how much taxpayers money was paid, to
whom or for what reason. They cite at least one case involving a request to
pay legal bills incurred by more than one MP but do not say which ones or the
nature of the case. The amount paid is also not disclosed.
The Council of Canadians legal challenge argued that misleading live and
prerecorded calls changed the election outcome in six closely fought ridings,
represented by Conservative MPs Kelly Block, John Duncan, Jay Aspin, Joyce
Bateman, Lawrence Toet and Ryan Leef. Ontario MP Joe Daniel was initially
named as a respondent but was later dropped from the proceedings.
Duncan, who, as Conservative whip, sits on the board, declined comment but
Toet, a Manitoba MP, confirmed this week that the House has paid his legal
fees.
The House paid for that because it was a House expense, he said. He was
unable to remember the amount paid.
Bateman said she would check and follow up with a response but did not. The
other MPs named in the legal action did not respond either.
The board minutes from June 2013 show that The Board approved in principle
the payment of legal fees of Members in a complaint but requested that the Law
Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel make a thorough review of the legal fees to be
charged in this matter, and report back to the Board in the fall.
The minutes also show that one member of the board possibly Duncan recused
himself during a meeting in November 2013 and did not participate in the
discussion about a legal matter regarding a civil lawsuit.
Then, in February 2014, The Board approved the payment of legal fees in a
complaint. It is unclear if this is the robocalls case.