Article content continued

In recently filed documents, the DPP is asking the judge to strike out the amendments, arguing SNC-Lavalin should have raised them in the first place. “The amendments also contain new allegations, which purport to be facts but are largely based on speculation and assumption,” it says.

In particular, the DPP contests an allegation that then-attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould was unaware of new information from SNC-Lavalin when she declined to intervene in the DPP’s decision to reject a remediation agreement.

“This argument is based on a misapprehension of the role of the attorney general in the conduct of criminal prosecutions,” the DPP says.

This argument is based on a misapprehension of the role of the attorney general in the conduct of criminal prosecutions

The DPP points to legislation that allows the attorney general to issue a direction to the DPP or to take over a prosecution, as long as the move is publicly posted.

“The decisions that the DPP makes are independent of the Attorney General and, subject to the examples noted above, the Attorney General does not have a role in specific prosecutions,” the court filing says. “Consequently, the Proposed Amendments on Appeal have not affected the outcome of the (Federal Court ruling). The decision at issue in this case was that of the DPP and the Proposed Amendments on appeal relate to information the Attorney General had.”

Over the past few months, this issue blew up into the largest political scandal of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s tenure after the Globe and Mail reported Wilson-Raybould felt inappropriately pressured by Trudeau and his staff to intervene in the case. The scandal resulted in extraordinary testimony from senior government officials at the House of Commons justice committee, and SNC-Lavalin points to that testimony as one of the reasons it is filing this appeal, arguing crucial new information emerged.