Court File No. C70739

The fact that accountability and transparency as values are at the centre of parliamentary privilege manifests in - 3 - at least three ways: (i) the historical roots of parliamentary privilege; (ii) the separation of powers; and (iii) the purposive approach taken by the courts regarding the “test” on parliamentary privilege. [...] There, the doctrine of parliamentary privilege developed in the 16th-17th century through “the struggle of the House of Commons” for independence from the other branches of government.8 As Chief Justice Lamer explained, “the Crown and the courts showed no hesitation to intrude into the sphere of the Houses of Parliament.” 9 Members of the House of Commons “were arrested by the sovereign if he disa. [...] Provincial Court Judges’ Association of BC, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that parliamentary privilege is a "corollary to the separation of powers" because it helps protect the ability of the Senate, the House of Commons, and the provincial legislative assemblies to perform their constitutionally-assigned functions.16 Such reasoning mirrors previous Supreme Court of Canada decisions. [...] The historical roots of parliamentary privilege, the role of such privilege in preserving the separation of powers, and how the courts have articulated the test governing parliamentary privilege all affirm a single proposition: the democratic imperatives of accountability and transparency lie at the core of parliamentary privilege. [...] While the Court should start its interpretation of section 18 with the text of the provision (as urged by the Appellant),22 that is not the end of the analysis.