At 9:00am ET, @TrueNorthCentre, @RebelNewsOnline and I are in Federal Court by videoconference for our press freedom case against the federal government and the Leaders' Debates Commission. True North and I are represented by @LDBildy and @JCCFCanada. I'll be tweeting!

For those seeking a primer on the case, you can check that out here. https://www.andrewlawton.ca/lawton-and-true-north-1-canada-0/

In a nutshell the government arbitrarily denied us access to cover the government-run election leaders' debates as a journalist. @RebelNewsOnline plus @TrueNorthCentre and me separately filed lawsuits. These were heard together at an emergency hearing the day of the first debate.

We won! The court granted an injunction allowing us to attend and cover the debates, which we did.

This case is about far more than the debates, though. It's about press freedom and a government that has continued to pick and choose who it recognizes as a journalist. So we are aiming to establish press freedom for us and other independent journalists in Canada.

The government is seeking to dismiss the case on the grounds that it's "moot" (as in no longer relevant because the debate is over). Our view is that this isn't just about the debate. This is what's being argued in the hearing today.

Court staff are currently working out Zoom issues, so standby.

All counsel are present – awaiting arrival of judge.

Attendees have been told that it is prohibited to record, broadcast or take screenshots of the hearing.

The judge has arrived.

Court is in session with the Hon. Justice Sylvie Roussel presiding.

The hearing is scheduled for five hours. There are three separate motions that are being addressed:

- The government's motion to dismiss
- True North's motion to amend application
- Rebel News' motion for better production of documents

Up now is the Leaders' Debates Commission's lawyer, Ewa Krajewska, laying out the government's desire to strike this case.

The government's lawyer is laying out the timeline of the initial hearing and the debates. In doing so she referred to Rebel's and True North's "journalists". This is great, because the whole case was about them saying we weren't actually journalists!

Krajewska says the court already granted what we wanted – debate accreditation – and says that anything else has no effect.

Government's lawyer says this is not an "exceptional" case wherein the court should exercise its discretion to hear a "moot" case, because the decision will not have a "practical" effect on rights of the parties. (I disagree because press freedom if long lasting, beyond debates).

Krajewska says the Leaders' Debates Commission's mandate is over because the election is over. The future of the Commission is in the hands of Parliament she says.

Krajewska restates that there is no longer a debate to be accredited to, so as such there's no point in making any further findings in the case.

Krajewska again referred to @TheRealKeean, David Menzies and I as "journalists or reporters." I'm sure it's not intentional, but this undermines the Leaders' Debates Commission's and federal government's definition of us.

Krajewska said it's only habeas corpus circumstances – where liberty has been taken – that judicial review can be extended to moot applications. Says there must be a larger "systemic" issue. (I'd argue press freedom not being respected by the government is both of those things).

Krajewska says Leaders' Debates Commission was just a "pilot", noting Parliament gets to decide what role, if any, LDC has in the future. Noting LDC might not be in charge of media accreditation in the future, so this case would "dictate how that relationship should function."

The relationship between the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Leaders' Debates Commission is not up for judicial review, Krajewska says. (Rebel and True North have both been seeking more information on this given LDC outsourced accreditation to PPG).

"You can't keep an application alive because of the fact-finding mission that it may open up," Krajewska says.

Krajewska is going through a number of cases she she says support her position that the court should not hear our case on grounds of mootness.

Justice Roussel asking Krajewska about order-in-council establishing Debates Commission: "The order-in-council itself does not establish that it's a temporary commission." Krajewska: "That's true." (Krajewska keeps insisting the temporary nature of LDC makes this case moot).

Krajewska says there's a "discussion about how this is a pilot" in a House of Commons committee in 2018, and notes that commissioner David Johnston's appointment had a term which ended.

There's a difference between interim and temporary. The Leaders' Debates Commission may be interim but the government has been clear about the desire to make a permanent fixture and the LDC has recommended as such. This is not over, especially with looming election.

Krajewska says the order-in-council doesn't address media accreditation for debates.

The Leaders' Debates Commission's report is now being discussed. It barely mentioned media accreditation, but notes peripherally that the question of accreditation went to Federal Court (our case).

Krajewska on True North and Rebel: "Both organizations were accredited and attended debates. Their rights were fully restored."

So is the government's lawyer admitting that the government took away our rights?

Krajewska says the parties "already had their day in court", referring to the injunction hearing (which we won).

Justice Roussel asks Krajewska why government filed an appeal. Isn't that acknowledging the case isn't moot, Roussel asks. Krajewska says government withdrew the appeal. (True, but doesn't address the substantive point of the question).

Krajewska says appeal was filed before seeing Justice Zinn's reasons for granting injunction and notes there's been no appeal of Zinn's final decision in the earlier case.

Krajewska concludes and hands things over to John Provart, a lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada.

Provart, for Attorney General of Canada, says the government supports striking this case on grounds of mootness. He says this case will have "no affect on the rights of the parties."

Provart says Rebel's requests for scrutiny and disclosure are not for court. Scrutiny can come through parliament and disclosure can come through access to information. Except Leaders' Debates Commission has not made itself subject to access to information requests.

Lawyer for attorney general cites case saying "abstract" issues – even constitutional ones – do not justify a "moot" case being heard. So the government thinks freedom of the press is both moot and abstract. Good to know.

Court taking a 10 minute recess. Will resume with Rebel's response to the government's motion.

Court is back in session. Up now is David Elmaleh for Rebel, arguing against the government's motion to strike our case.

David Elmaleh says government's motion is not the proper mechanism to dismiss case as it hasn't met high standard to strike.

Elmaleh says the Federal Court of Appeal has previously determined cases should not stricken on grounds of mootness unless they're bereft of any possibility of success, which this case isn't.

Elmaleh says it's only in cases where an application is "so clearly improper" that it should be summarily stricken. Ours is "not even close" to that standard, he says.

Elmaleh points out government appealed injunction on Oct. 17. "The fact that the commission appealed after the debates.... In my view that is an implicit admission that the Commission was of the view that the injunction order was not moot."

Elmaleh says government was clearly seeking order to set aside previous judge's decisions, meaning the case is very much a live and relevant one in the government's view (me: despite their claims to the contrary over the last two hours).

"The debate commission is alive and well," Elmaleh says, pointing out that order-in-council establishing commission is still in place, and despite report to parliament the Leaders' Debates Commission is, itself, still in place in its previous and current form.

Roussel asks Elmaleh if it's relevant that the Commissioner's mandate has expired. Elmaleh says it's not because the Commission still exists, and the absence of a commissioner doesn't change that.

To suggest that the Leaders' Debates Commission may take on a different form in the future is irrelevant as government bodies are always subject to change, Elmaleh says.

Great point from Elmaleh about the order-in-council: It sets out mandate for debates in "each general election", not just the 2019 election. This whole "temporary" business from the government's lawyer is inconsistent with the government's establishment of the commission.

Elmaleh says if there's even a chance or a possibility that the Rebel and True North cases have merit a full hearing is warranted, not a summary striking as the government is seeking.

"The issues are not academic. They are real. They are tangible. And they are ongoing," Elmaleh says, noting government stands by its position to deny accreditation and has conceded nothing.

Roussel asks what practical impact this will have if parliament establishes guidelines and criteria [on media accreditation] in the future. Elmaleh says we need to base submissions on what the rules and facts are right now.

"We are talking about matters of public importance – about media access, about elections, about government," Elmaleh says, adding debate commission is trying to "evade" judicial review.

Elmaleh points out that the Attorney General of Canada tried to deny this case even being heard as an injunction in the first place, and is now arguing everything's moot.

Elmaleh says any decision about mootness should be made after a full hearing – including evidence and cross-examination.