{"id":212716,"date":"2019-05-03T23:21:13","date_gmt":"2019-05-04T03:21:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=212716"},"modified":"2019-05-03T23:21:13","modified_gmt":"2019-05-04T03:21:13","slug":"public-prosecutor-takes-aim-at-snc-lavalins-court-bid-for-remediation-deal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2019\/05\/03\/public-prosecutor-takes-aim-at-snc-lavalins-court-bid-for-remediation-deal\/","title":{"rendered":"Public prosecutor takes aim at SNC-Lavalin’s court bid for remediation deal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
SNC-Lavalin unsuccessfully pressed the director of prosecutions to negotiate a \u201cremediation agreement,\u201d an alternative means of holding an organization accountable for wrongdoing without a formal finding of guilt. (Tma5e \/ Shutterstock.com)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

OTTAWA \u2013 Canada’s director of public prosecutions is firing a new volley at SNC-Lavalin that could hobble the company’s ongoing legal fight for a special settlement agreement over alleged corruption in Libya.<\/p>\n

The prosecutor wants the Federal Court of Appeal to strike out a key element of the construction and engineering firm’s challenge of a ruling that went against the company.<\/p>\n

Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin faces corruption and fraud charges related to business deals in Libya from 2001 to 2011. A conviction could bar the company from receiving federal contracts for 10 years.<\/p>\n

SNC-Lavalin unsuccessfully pressed the director of prosecutions to negotiate a \u201cremediation agreement,\u201d an alternative means of holding an organization accountable for wrongdoing without a formal finding of guilt.<\/p>\n

In a March ruling, a judge tossed out the firm’s plea for judicial review of the 2018 decision.<\/p>\n

SNC-Lavalin is appealing the judge’s ruling, pointing to recent revelations from parliamentary committee testimony from former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould and others to bolster its arguments.<\/p>\n

The company says \u201cnew and deeply troubling facts\u201d that came to light in the political saga show that checks and balances intended to ensure accountability were \u201ccritically circumvented,\u201d amounting to a \u201cclear abuse of process.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, the director of prosecutions is asking the appeal court to prevent SNC-Lavalin from ever supplementing its original arguments with the new information. If the director’s motion succeeds, it would represent another legal setback to the company’s bid for a remediation agreement.<\/p>\n

SNC-Lavalin has been embroiled in a high-profile political storm since February, when the Globe and Mail newspaper reported that prime ministerial aides leaned on Wilson-Raybould to ensure a remediation agreement for the company. She resigned from cabinet days later.<\/p>\n

Wilson-Raybould told the House of Commons justice committee in late February she faced a campaign of relentless pressure to secure an agreement for SNC-Lavalin. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau denies officials acted inappropriately.<\/p>\n

The director of prosecutions formally told SNC-Lavalin on Oct. 9, 2018, that negotiating an agreement would be inappropriate in this particular case, prompting the company to ask the Federal Court for an order requiring talks.<\/p>\n

In its March ruling, the Federal Court said prosecutorial discretion is not subject to judicial review, except for cases where there is an abuse of process.<\/p>\n

In its filing with the Court of Appeal, SNC-Lavalin contends the process of determining whether to pursue a remediation agreement \u201cwas completely flawed.\u201d<\/p>\n

The company says testimony before the justice committee made it clear that on Sept. 4, 2018, director of prosecutions Kathleen Roussel provided Wilson-Raybould with a memo that apparently outlined the prosecutor’s case against a remediation agreement.<\/p>\n

By Sept. 16, Wilson-Raybould told the committee, she had formed the view it was unnecessary to intervene in the prosecutor’s decision.<\/p>\n

However, SNC-Lavalin stresses in its filing that a dialogue with the prosecutor’s office was still unfolding.<\/p>\n

In early September 2018, the public prosecutor agreed to receive additional SNC-Lavalin information addressing concerns, the company says. Its subsequent submissions came in letters to the prosecutor Sept. 7 and Sept. 17.<\/p>\n

SNC-Lavalin notes Wilson-Raybould made no mention of these developments and was likely not aware of them. As a result, her conclusion not to intervene \u201cwas based on incomplete information,\u201d the company says.<\/p>\n

SNC-Lavalin argues Roussel failed to advise Wilson-Raybould that she had agreed to receive additional information from the company and neglected to update her Sept. 4 memo to the then-attorney general.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

OTTAWA \u2013 Canada’s director of public prosecutions is firing a new volley at SNC-Lavalin that could hobble the company’s ongoing …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":205787,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-212716","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news-ca","category-news","mauthors-jim-bronskill","mauthors-the-canadian-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212716","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=212716"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212716\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":212717,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212716\/revisions\/212717"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/205787"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212716"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212716"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212716"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}