A federal lawyer argued Wednesday that it was not Justice John Gomery's responsibility to protect former prime minister Jean Chrétien's reputation in preparing his sponsorship inquiry report.

Lawyers for Gomery and the federal government were in court in Montreal Wednesday to fight a legal challenge from Chrétien over the retired judge's findings against him in the sponsorship inquiry.

Chrétien, his ex-chief-of-staff Jean Pelletier and former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano have each filed an application for a judicial review.

Lawyers want some of the conclusions drawn by Gomery regarding the three men to be quashed or annulled in order to restore their reputations, which they say were damaged by the report.

Francisco Couto, a federal lawyer defending Gomery's findings, said it was the commissioner's job to seek out the facts surrounding the scandal — not to protect certain players from bad publicity.

In his report, Gomery concluded that Liberal politicians mismanaged the sponsorship program, and some Liberal party organizers in Quebec sought and received donations from ad companies that had received lucrative government contracts starting in the mid-1990s.

The report said Chrétien and Pelletier must be held responsible for the flawed running of the federal sponsorship program from 1994 to 2003.

Chrétien argues that Gomery shouldn't have assigned part of the blame to him because his conclusions aren't supported by the evidence.

In a 33-page affidavit filed in court, Chrétien disputed Gomery's findings, saying they "are erroneous, perverse, capricious and made without regard for the material before the commission."

Among his arguments, Chrétien claims that Gomery was biased against him and based his conclusions on witnesses whose testimony damaged Chrétien and ignored those witnesses who supported him.

But a summary of Gomery's defence says he "had more than ample evidence to support his finding that [Chrétien] was accountable" for sponsorship funds.

Gomery also responded that Chrétien was repeatedly cautioned by the Clerk of the Privy Council about the lack of oversight of sponsorship funds.

Chrétien, Pelletier and Gagliano all filed applications for a judicial review of Gomery's report soon after the first volume was released in November 2005.

During the sponsorship inquiry, lawyers for Chrétien filed papers in Federal Court, asking that Gomery be removed over concerns that he lacked objectivity.

They later withdrew their demands.

With files from the Canadian Press