Key developments:

  • Retired Senate law clerk Mark Audcent was the Crown's first witness
  • The issue of a senator’s primary residence dominated the questions
  • Audcent said that senators must be residents of the area they represent, but he never policed senators to make sure they were meeting the residency requirements

 

THE SCENE

After nearly being crushed by reporters and camera operators on the first day of the trial, Duffy was dropped off in front of the courthouse Wednesday and walked into the building alone, without offering any comment.

His wife, Heather Duffy, walked in shortly after dropping the suspended senator off and parking the car. She smiled at reporters and said “No comment” when asked how she’s doing.

FIRST WITNESS

Former Senate law clerk Mark Audcent was questioned about Senate rules regarding residency requirements. He testified that senators are required to own property in the area that they represent, but they are not required to live there year-round. Senators must, however, be a resident of that area, Audcent said. He acknowledged that there was no single criterion that had to be met, but rather a fluid list that makes up a larger picture. That includes voting in the region, paying taxes and registering a driver’s licence and health card there.

At one point, Duffy’s lawyer Donald Bayne pulled out the Oxford English Dictionary and asked Audcent to read the definition of primary as "of chief importance or principal." Bayne argued that since the constitutionality of Duffy's appointment to the Senate hinged on him being a resident of P.E.I., the province must be his "primary" residence.

EVIDENCE

Among the exhibits tabled in court Wednesday:

  • Documents outlining Senate rules, including travel policy and guidelines for senators’ living expenses
  • Duffy’s primary residence declaration
  • Senators’ handbook on use of Senate resources

A TALE OF TWO HOMES

With files from Marlene Leung and The Canadian Press