Page: 10 [52] In the result, I find that the Witness Requirement Provision of the Act does not breach s 3 of the Charter. [53] The deposit requirement is one that has been frequently challenged. Both De Jong and Figueroa found breaches of s 3 rights created by deposit requirements. [54] In Figueroa SCC at para 33, the majority of the Supreme Court observed that: Where the impugned legislation is inconsistent with the express language of s 3, it is unnecessary to consider the broader social or political context in order to determine whether the legislation interferes with the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process. [55] I understand that failing to comply with the impugned Deposit Requirement Provision in the present matter will result in denial of one’s application to be a candidate. [56] It is pertinent to draw on the statements of Molloy J, of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division), in Figueroa v Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 43 OR (3d) 728 at para 16, 170 DLR (4th) 647, varied 137 OAC 252 (Ont CA), rev’d 2003 SCC 37, where she said that: Quite simply, a right is limited if one must pay $1000.00 before one can exercise it.... It is clear that $1000.00 is not a trifling sum of money. Indeed, the possibility of losing $500.00 was specifically intended by Parliament to act as a deterrent to those candidates who might otherwise be inclined to neglect their reporting responsibilities under the Act. For purposes of the analysis under s 3, it is not necessary for me to inquire beyond that. The requirement of paying $1000.00 is a disadvantage and therefore a limitation on the s 3 right. I therefore find that this provision of the Act violates s 3 of the Charter. [57] I agree. As such, in my view, the impugned Deposit Requirement Provision, prima facie, imposes limits and disadvantage on some potential candidates. [58] Further, I disagree with the Respondent’s argument in the present case that the Applicant has not established that the $1000 deposit requirement had an actual impact on his ability to qualify as a candidate. The Applicant appeared to this Court as an intelligent, educated and motivated individual who conveyed the impression that he would be an excellent candidate for any election, I am satisfied that his affidavit evidence described his income and accounted for his financial responsibilities. While he admitted that he could have produced the money to make the deposit, he indicated through his evidence that it would have resulted in a significant difficulty, ultimately then limiting his ability to finance a campaign. [59] I agree that the potential to prevent a serious and impressive candidate from running in an election, due to the financial pressure a $1000 deposit could create, is a real risk of the requirement. In my opinion, the impugned Deposit Requirement Provision would infringe many individuals’ – including the Applicant’s – ability to communicate their messages to the public, and participate meaningfully in the electoral process as a candidate: de Jong at para 22. 2017 ABQB 645 (CanLII) Deposit Requirement Provision