Federal appeal court upholds ‘bias’ finding linked to Gomery Inquiry

Jean Chretien secured a legal victory Tuesday when the Federal Court of Appeal upheld an earlier decision that struck down parts of the inquiry into the federal sponsorship scandal on grounds that the presiding judge, John Gomery, showed "a reasonable apprehension of bias" toward the former prime minister.

"We can detect no reviewable error," Justice Marc Noel wrote in a brief ruling from the bench following an Ottawa hearing.

The two-page decision upholds a June 2008 decision in the Federal Court, which Chretien’s supporters described as the time as "total vindication."

At that time, Justice Max Teitelbaum concluded that public statements Gomery made outside the inquiry showed the commissioner "prejudged issues under investigation and that he was not impartial" toward Chretien.

Teitelbaum chastised Gomery for his "pejorative comment" to the media describing Chretien as "small-town cheap" when he learned the former prime minister distributed free golf balls with his name on them.

Not only was that "a personal insult," Teitelbaum ruled, but it suggested Gomery had concluded Chretien acted improperly even before he gave evidence to the commission of inquiry.

It is widely believed that the sponsorship scandal was partially to blame for the Liberal government’s defeat in the 2006 federal election. The scandal involved misspent millions that went to Liberal-friendly advertising firms from a program set up to raise the federal profile in Quebec after a razor-thin victory in the 1995 referendum.

The appeal court decision comes five years after Gomery, a now-retired Quebec judge, handed down his explosive report on the sponsorship scandal.

The program was created to promote national unity and boost federalism in Quebec, but resulted in what Gomery called a complex web of financial transactions involving kickbacks and illegal contributions to the Liberal Party; inflated commissions, production costs and other expenses charged by communication agencies and subcontractors; and insufficient oversight at senior levels of the public service.