Previous 81 / 81 Next

156 opitz v. wrzesnewskyj [2012] 3 S.C.R. where they are established, shall declare the election null and void or may annul the election, respectively. constater la nullité de l’élection du candidat ou il peut prononcer son annulation. Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed, McLachlin C.J. and LeBel and Fish JJ. dissenting. Pourvoi accueilli et pourvoi incident rejeté, la juge en chef McLachlin et les juges LeBel et Fish sont dissidents. Solicitors for the appellant/respondent Ted Opitz: Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Toronto; Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, Toronto. Procureurs de l’appelant/intimé Ted Opitz : Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Toronto; Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, Toronto. Solicitors for the respondent/appellant Borys Wrzesnewskyj: Gardiner, Roberts, Toronto; Gowlings, Ottawa. Procureurs de l’intimé/appelant Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Gardiner, Roberts, Toronto; Gowlings, Ottawa. Solicitors for the respondents Marc Mayrand (Chief Electoral Officer) and Allan Sperling (Returning Officer, Etobicoke Centre): Borden Ladner Gervais, Toronto; Elections Canada, Ottawa. Procureurs des intimés Marc Mayrand (directeur général des élections) et Allan Sperling (directeur de scrutin, Etobicoke-Centre) : Borden Ladner Gervais, Toronto; Élections Canada, Ottawa. Sarah Thompson, on her own behalf. Sarah Thompson, pour son propre compte. Solicitors for the intervener Keith Archer (Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia): Waddell, Raponi, Victoria; Turnham Woodland, Victoria. Procureurs de l’intervenant Keith Archer (Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia) : Waddell, Raponi, Victoria; Turnham Woodland, Victoria. Solicitors for the intervener O. Brian Fjeldheim (Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta): Shores Jardine, Edmonton. Procureurs de l’intervenant O. Brian Fjeldheim (Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta) : Shores Jardine, Edmonton. Solicitors for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association: Koch Thornton, Toronto. Procureurs de l’intervenante l’Association canadienne des libertés civiles : Koch Thornton, Toronto.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj

Judgment

Question Presented: Were irregularities related to voter registration significant enough to annul the elections? Which approach should be followed in determining electoral irregularities?

Alleged Acts: Irregularities related to improper registration certificates from voters.

Procedural history: The petitioner won the Etobicoke Centre district election with 26 votes, to which the respondent petitioned to have the election annulled because there were irregularities impacting the results. The Ontario Supreme court found that 79 votes were irregularities and, being over the 26 vote plurality, annulled the election.

Summary: The Court recognizes two approaches- the strict procedural approach, where a vote is invalid if an election official fails to follow procedure, or the substantive approach- if persons not entitled to vote do so. The court applied the substantive approach and found that 59/79 votes should be restored, leaving the 20 votes to less than the 26 vote plurality. The court found that a voter does not need to be registered at their particular polling station, but rather just needs to be on the total voter roll. As such, the petition to annul should be dismissed.

Conclusion: Appeal allowed.

Legal Issue(s)

Disputing Results
Electoral Integrity

Region: Americas

Country: Canada

Language of Decision

English
French

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Oct 25, 2012

Geolocation

Latitude: 45.42663839423206

Longitude: -75.81085498225116

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

2012_3RCS_76.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj

Primary Documents

Notifications