lawsuit between Elections Canada and Conservative Party of Canada

[jammer]

In regards to

"Tory tiff costs taxpayers $517,000 Elections Canada incurs huge bills over court case, investigation into 2006 campaign expenses" by

Glen McGregor, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Tuesday, July 22, 2008

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story....15-e23b289f16da

'If Elections Canada loses the court case, it could also be required to pick up the Tories' legal bills.'

Is the reverse also true?

The Tories are the ones causing the lawsuit.

[madmax]

In regards to

"Tory tiff costs taxpayers $517,000 Elections Canada incurs huge bills over court case, investigation into 2006 campaign expenses" by

Glen McGregor, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Tuesday, July 22, 2008

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story....15-e23b289f16da

'If Elections Canada loses the court case, it could also be required to pick up the Tories' legal bills.'

Is the reverse also true?

The Tories are the ones causing the lawsuit.

Here are the parts that interest me

The central issue in the court case is Mr. Mayrand's refusal to reimburse Tory candidates for $1.2 million in radio and television advertising purchased during the 2006 campaign. Elections Canada said there was no evidence that the candidates -- not the national Conservative party campaign -- directly incurred the costs of the ads themselves.

If the Tory candidates aren't allowed to claim the expenses, the cost could be transferred onto the books of the national campaign and push the party over its $18.3-million spending limit, in violation of the Elections Act.

Mr. Mayrand told a House of Commons committee last week he had examined expense claims for the 2004 and 2006 campaigns and did not find similar financial transactions by other parties, contrary to the Tories' claim that the Liberals, Bloc Québécois and NDP have all used in-and-out transfers to fund their own advertising campaigns.

The court case is now in its 15th month and is expected to continue well into the fall or beyond.

Elections Canada is represented by an outside legal firm, McCarthy Tetrault, led by Barbara McIsaac, a veteran litigator who previously acted for the federal government in the Maher Arar inquiry. The Conservatives are represented by Michel Décary of the Montreal firm Stikeman Elliott.

If reputation is anything, I would put my bets with the firm McCarthy Tetrault.

[bk59]

'If Elections Canada loses the court case, it could also be required to pick up the Tories' legal bills.'

Is the reverse also true?

The Tories are the ones causing the lawsuit.

I believe so. The party that loses must pay part of the winning party's costs. It is doubtful that either Elections Canada or the Conservative Party would have to pay 100%, but the losing party will probably end up paying something to the other party for their costs.

[fellowtraveller]

payment of opposing legal costs is up to the judge.

[bk59]

payment of opposing legal costs is up to the judge.

Sorry, that is correct. A losing party will not automatically be forced to pay the winning party's legal costs. It is up to the judge. However, usually the losing party will be ordered to pay some costs (generally not all costs). Unless there are special circumstances where it would be inappropriate to have the losing party pay. I don't see any special circumstances here though.

[Wild Bill]

Sorry, that is correct. A losing party will not automatically be forced to pay the winning party's legal costs. It is up to the judge. However, usually the losing party will be ordered to pay some costs (generally not all costs). Unless there are special circumstances where it would be inappropriate to have the losing party pay. I don't see any special circumstances here though.

Special circumstances? How about the fact that we're dealing with political parties?

After all, Dion just got an extension on paying his leadership debts! Apparently it was against the rules. Elections Canada seems to have pulled an extension out of their collective butt.

Some pigs are more equal than others, as Orwell wrote.

[bk59]

Special circumstances? How about the fact that we're dealing with political parties?

How is that special? Generally I don't think the identity of a plaintiff or defendant has anything to do with why legal costs should or should not be paid.

Are you saying that because this involves a political party that if the Conservative Party wins then Elections Canada should not have to pay costs? Are you saying that if Elections Canada wins the Conservative Party should not have to pay costs?

After all, Dion just got an extension on paying his leadership debts! Apparently it was against the rules. Elections Canada seems to have pulled an extension out of their collective butt.

It wasn't against the rules. Elections Canada has the discretion to give extensions for paying back debts of that sort as per the Canada Elections Act.

Some pigs are more equal than others, as Orwell wrote.

Only if you consider allegedly breaking the law to be equal to legally following an established procedure.

[jdobbin]

After all, Dion just got an extension on paying his leadership debts! Apparently it was against the rules. Elections Canada seems to have pulled an extension out of their collective butt.

The Tories have gotten extensions in the past too to pay back loans for election spending. It isn't against the rules.

Conservatives seem to want to try and discredit Elections Canada as a government department that supports the Liberals. It is a dangerous stance.