Stefanson, Lamont argue conflict of interest positions in court - Action News
Home WebMail Tuesday, November 26, 2024, 01:05 PM | Calgary | -8.3°C | Regions Advertise Login | Our platform is in maintenance mode. Some URLs may not be available. |
Manitoba

Stefanson, Lamont argue conflict of interest positions in court

Lawyers for Manitoba Premier Heather Stefansonand Liberal Leader Dougald Lamont were in court in Winnipeg on Monday morning to argue whether Stefanson violated provincial conflict of interest rules.

Liberal leader's lawyer says premier should be suspended 90 days and pay $5,000

A man in a red jacket stands in front of the entrance to the provincial courthouse.
Manitoba Liberal Leader Dougald Lamont says it's ridiculous he had to take the premier to court to enforce conflict-of-interest rules, but there is no other way to do so. (Gil Rowan/CBC)

Justice Anne Turner has reserved her decision in a civil court case over whether Manitoba's premier broke conflict of interest rules.

Lawyers for Premier Heather Stefansonand Liberal Leader Dougald Lamont were in court in Winnipeg on Monday morning to present their arguments inthe civil lawsuit Lamont launched after Stefanson failed to promptly disclose propertysales by acompany she held shares in.

Under the provincial Conflict of Interest Act, MLAs must file disclosure paperwork within 30 days.

The trio of property sales byMacDonald Grainwere worth a combined $31 million. They took place in 2016 and 2019, before Stefanson became premier.

Stefanson apologized for the delay in January 2022 and has argued her failure to file the paperwork was inadvertent and thus not a violation of the act.

Speaking before the Court of King's Bench, Lamont's lawyer, David Hill, questioned how that could be an inadvertent mistake after she filed more than three dozen previous disclosures over the course of her career as an MLA, which dates back to 2000.

Hill wants Stefanson to be suspended for 90 days and for her to pay a $5,000 fine if Justice Anne Turner rules the premier did in fact contravene the act.

These penalties, Hill argued, would serve the public by preserving the integrity of the legislature.

Jonathan Kroft, Stefanson's lawyer, argued it is irrelevant whether his client ought to have known disclosure was mandatory. He described an inadvertent mistake as the opposite of a deliberate or calculated action.

He said if Turner rules against his client, she should not be subject to a significant penalty. The court, he argued, must be vigilant against the misuse of courts for partisan, political interests.

Kroft also said the existing conflict of interest rules will be replaced following the election by a new act, which will grant the legislature not the courts the power to settle conflict of interest complaints.

Justice Turner reserved her decision.

Outside the courthouse, Lamont said he had no choice but to take Stefanson to court in order to enforce conflict of interest rules.

"Right now, the only way to do this is through the courts. I think it's ridiculous thatI had to do this, but it's the only way of doing it, and no one else is willing to do it," Lamont said. "It had to be done."