Previous 14 / 99 Next

Page: 14 champerty motion and the motion by the respondent MP in the Don Valley East riding to strike the Graves evidence. As noted above, the motion to strike the Graves evidence had been deemed dismissed. [28] On January 24, 2013 the applicants moved to be granted leave pursuant to Rule 312(a) of the Rules to adduce further affidavit evidence concerning another ITO sworn by John B. Dickson in the course of his investigations on behalf of the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, which had just become public. The respondent MPs opposed the motion. None of the other parties filed a response. By Order dated February 22, 2013 the Court granted the motion on the same terms as those under which the evidence of the other ITOs was introduced and subject to the same objections on admissibility, weight, and relevance. [29] I will now turn to the legislative and jurisprudential framework governing my determination of the issues raised in these proceedings. III. The Statutory and Jurisprudential Framework A. The Canada Elections Act [30] As noted at the outset, these proceedings were brought by applications under the Canada Elections Act. The present version of this statute was enacted by Parliament in 2000 to implement the recommendations of a series of reports, including that of a Royal Commission on 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) to be continued on behalf of the other respondent MPs when the Don Valley East application was

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

McEwing v. Attorney General

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the phone calls had any impact on the final election results and if those results were sufficient to annul the election results.

Alleged Acts: Public attention came to the phone calls made during the 2011 election when Elections Canada investigator started to address the phone calls in the Edmonton court. The plaintiffs from six electoral districts brought the case to annul the 2011 Election results on account of voter suppression methods including telephoning voters to inform that their polling locations changed the day before the election. Election Canada received over 700 complaints detailing these calls. Evidence presented alleged that persons who had access to voter information arranged the calls, not the political candidates themselves. The applicants seek to set aside the election because the voting intended to prevent citizens from voting.

Summary: The court determined that it must assess whether or not there was fraud and then whether or not that fraud impacted the elections. First, the court found that there was sufficient evidence of fraud because the voters were contacted by individuals other than Election Canada on and before election day stating that their polling station closed. The impact of the voting had a higher evidentiary burden because the plaintiffs themselves were able to vote. Thus, the impacted voters cannot be effectively counted unless they came forward.

Conclusion: The court determined that although there was fraud, there was not sufficient reliable evidence that the fraud impacted the election results. Thus, the court may not annul the election results.

Legal Issue(s)

Disputing Results
Electoral Integrity

Region: Americas

Country: Canada

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: May 23, 2013

Geolocation

Latitude: 45.42663839

Longitude: -75.81085498

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

McEwing v. Attorney General.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

McEwing v. Attorney General

Primary Documents

Notifications