Page: 4 Applicant’s Position [12] The Applicant argues that s 3 of the Charter, as well as previous Supreme Court of Canada decisions interpreting the provision, explicitly confirm that the right to stand for election is a Charter right. He argues that the fundamental purpose of s 3 is to ensure that all citizens (whether or not they are members of the political elite) have access to full participation in Canada’s democracy. He says that sections 66(1) (e), (f), & (g) and 67(2); 67(1), (3)(a), (b), & (c); and 67(4)(a) of the Act, restrict citizens from standing for election, and infringe upon that right. [13] The Applicant contends the impugned requirements effectively create a popularity test, an extensive administrative requirement, and a wealth test respectively. He argues that providing such requirements for citizens to exercise their Charter rights is unconstitutional. He submits there are many individuals, particularly the poor and marginalized, for whom the requirements represent a significant burden, effectively deterring them from standing for election. Signature Requirement Provision [14] The Applicant argues that the signature requirement imposes a significant administrative burden for potential candidates which restricts the ability to exercise their s 3 rights. He notes that even for a candidate who is able to meet the signature requirement, the time and money spent overcoming the restriction infringe on the candidate’s ability to use those resources on, and thus impeding, their campaign. [15] Referencing the Affidavit of Miss Kim, deposed on behalf of the Respondent, which indicates that the requirement to obtain 100 signatures is meant to prevent unpopular candidates from standing for election, the Applicant counters that the signature requirement is an attempt to aggregate political preferences. [16] He relies on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Figueroa v Canada, 2003 SCC 37 at paras 52-53, [2003] 1 SCR 912 [Figueroa SCC]. In that case, taxation rules that differed between candidates (depending on party size and affiliation) were alleged to be a Charter infringement. At paragraphs 52-54: The effect of the restriction on the right to issue tax receipts for donations received outside the election period is that parties that have satisfied the 50candidate threshold are able to raise more funds than they would otherwise be able to raise.... [T]he effect of the threshold is that political parties that have satisfied the threshold requirement have more resources at their disposal for the purpose of communicating their ideas and opinions to the general public. The flip side of the coin is that it is even more difficult for a party that has not satisfied the 50-candidate threshold to publicize its own ideas and views.... This, in turn, diminishes the capacity of the individual members and supporters of such parties to play a meaningful role in the electoral process. .... 2017 ABQB 645 (CanLII) Issue 1: Do the provisions of sections 66(1) (e), (f), & (g) and 67(2); 67(1), (3)(a), (b), & (c); and 67(4)(a) of the Canada Elections Act infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s 3 of the Charter?