Sudbury byelection bribery trial: 'wheeling and dealing' not illegal, defence argues

The Sudburybyelectionbribery trial resumed for six hours of arguments on Tuesday and is now into another two-week break.

The defencetoldJudge Howard BorensteinTuesday morningthat the Crown has no case and askedhim to immediately find the two accused Liberals not guilty with what's known as a "directed verdict."

Borenstein will deliver his ruling on that Oct. 24 when the trial resumes in a Sudbury courtroom.

For tendays last month, Crown prosecutors laid out their case against former top Liberal Pat Sorbara and party organizerGerry Lougheed.

They are accused of bribing would-beLiberal candidate Andrew Olivier to step aside so Sudbury's New Democrat MP Glenn Thibeault could defect and run for the Ontario Liberals.

Sorbara is also charged with bribing Thibeault to become a Liberal with paid jobs for two loyal staffers Darrell Marsh and Brian Band coming with him from the NDP.

The defence has said for two years now that the Crown has no case and these charges never should have been laid and argued that once again on Tuesday.

Michael Lacy, the lawyer for Sudbury businessman Gerry Lougheed, told the court that the Crown is trying to "expand the definition" of candidate to cover internal party business througha"tortured linguistic exercise" that would "render the act absurd" by "putting a square peg into a round hole."

"The Crown might not like the fact that internal party politics" involve "wheeling and dealing" but "that's not an offence," Lacy argued.

Sorbara's lawyer Brian Greenspan further argued that the only evidence the Crown has that Thibeault was induced to run for the Liberals isthe "notion" commitments were made to possibly get paid jobs for his former NDP staffers, calling the Crown's theory "gobbledegook."

For the first time, Justice Howard Borenstein revealed some of his perspective on the charges, questioning why the Crown alleges these paid jobs constitute a bribe.

"I'm having some difficulty understanding what the problem is here," Borenstein said.

"Again, we find it difficult to understand why we're here," Greenspan answered him.

Crown prosecutor Rick Viscaargued that there are several kinds of candidates under the law, including "someone who looks in a public way... to run for office" or "one who aspires to" run for office.

Viscaargues that definition includes Andrew Olivier, who made himself a candidate for the Sudbury byelection by declaring on Facebook Nov. 21, 2014his intention to seek the Liberal nomination.

He argued that "jobs are the currency of politics" and this is why the Liberals offered them to Olivier and to Thibeault's loyal staffers and friends.

But Judge Howard Borensteindidn't share that view when it comes to Thibeault deciding who wouldwork on his byelection campaign.

"There seems to be nothing wrong with that," he told Visca.

Citing some of the testimony the court heard about the Liberal serach for a Sudbury candidate, Visca says it's clearpolitical parties "can control the messages being sent to the community."

"The potential for abuse of the electoral process is high," Visca told the court, arguing that the bribery provisions in theElection Act were meant to protect against a "broad range of activities."

"I have your point, whether I agree with it or not," Borenstein toldVisca.

We will find out who the judgeagrees with on Oct. 24 when he issues his ruling.