Tasha Kheiriddin is a well-known political writer and broadcaster who frequently comments in both English and French. In her student days, Tasha was active in youth politics in her hometown of Montreal, eventually serving as national policy director and then president of the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation of Canada. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Tasha moved back to Montreal in 2006 and served as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, and later director for Quebec of the Fraser Institute, while also lecturing on conservative politics at McGill University. Tasha now lives in Whitby, Ontario with her daughter Zara, born in 2009.

There are many arguments which can be deployed by the Conservative Party in its defence in the robocalls case currently before the Federal Court.

The case is frivolous. It lacks for evidence. But ‘champerty and maintenance’ — trying to benefit from someone else’s lawsuit? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black — or, in this case, blue.

According to the Tories’ lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, the case is “political payback” orchestrated by the Council of Canadians (COC). Hamilton stated that the COC decided, “this fits our narrative of sinking the Harper agenda so let’s go find some applicants and we’ll get the ball rolling.” He further charged that the COC will profit from its support by increasing its profile and fundraising. “Just the fact this is being talked about to the extent that it is can erode the credibility or erode the brand, which is Prime Minister Harper or the Conservative party — that’s its own victory, and the final outcome is of no moment.”

This is the legal equivalent of the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ argument, except that it’s being applied to the left wing, and it’s completely hypocritical. Plaintiffs across the ideological spectrum are routinely supported by groups that could profit from their success, either directly or indirectly. Interest groups intervene all the time to support or counter the arguments of individual plaintiffs. There are also organizations dedicated to bringing cases forward, offering their services to litigate free of charge, and raising funds for this very purpose.

On the left, LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund and EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) have intervened in dozens of legal cases since the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of those cases was brought by a LEAF founding lawyer, Beth Symes, who in 1985 sued for the right to deduct her nanny as a business expense. Meanwhile, Ecojustice is an organization which bills itself as “Canada’s leading charity using the law to protect and restore the environment”. It successfully represented the David Suzuki Foundation in a case over whale habitats in 2010 and is currently fighting the Northern Gateway pipeline.

On the right, the Canadian Constitution Foundation has been involved in sixteen lawsuits as intervenor, financer or litigator. The CCF has taken on issues ranging from freedom of speech for pro-life groups on campuses to a challenge to the Nisga’a treaty by an aboriginal chief. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation also has launched lawsuits in the public interest: in 2004 its then-federal director John Williamson (now the Conservative MP for New Brunswick Southwest) sued Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty for breaking his election promise not to raise taxes.

Full disclosure: I was the CTF’s Ontario director at the time, and while the lawsuit was launched to hold the premier accountable, it also proved an effective tool to raise funds for the organization and boost its profile — just as the Tories claim the Council of Canadians is doing with the robocalls lawsuit.

But the jewel in this crown involves none other than the prime minister himself. In 2000, Stephen Harper was president of the National Citizens’ Coalition. The NCC had a history of fighting for its political agenda through the courts, including supporting one of its vice-presidents, businessman David Stockell, in his 2000 lawsuit against three NDP MLAs who had failed to keep their election promises. That same year, Harper launched his lawsuit against the federal government, Harper v. Canada (A.G.), alleging that Ottawa had denied groups like the NCC freedom of speech by banning third party advertising during elections.

According to former NCC vice-president Gerry Nicholls, the NCC paid for everything, using Harper’s name for symbolic purposes, “fighting for free speech as an individual on behalf of individuals.” Harper ultimately lost the court challenge at the Supreme Court, but he and his organization gained exposure and recognition for the lawsuit, and the NCC counts it among its major campaigns for freedom. And — as Gerry told me today — it “fundraised the heck out of that court case” through letters, phone calls and dinners.

For Harper’s party to allege champerty and maintenance by the COC is thus pure hypocrisy. For the Tories’ lawyer to say that the COC believes it will succeed in “sinking the Harper agenda” by a set of lawsuits is laughable.

The COC will gain publicity, a soapbox for its cause, and donations from supporters new and old. But if the government’s agenda is so feeble as to fall over this lawsuit, then it doesn’t deserve to stand in the first place.

[email protected]

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.