Previous 15 / 99 Next

Page: 15 Electoral Reform and Party Financing tabled in 1992, five reports produced by a Special Committee of the House of Commons during 1992 and 1993 and others submitted to Parliament [31] These reports called for the repeal of the existing legislation, the former Canada Elections Act dating from 1970, the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, RSC 1985, c C-39, the Disenfranchising Act RSC 1985, c D-3, originally enacted in 1894, and the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act RSC 1985, c C-45, adopted in 1876. They also called for consolidation of the administrative framework for federal elections, the offences and penalties for violations and the procedures for contesting or controverting electoral results into one comprehensive code. [32] One of the effects of the adoption of these recommendations in the 2000 Act is that the jurisprudence under the former legislation may be of limited value in interpreting the new enactments. [33] In considering the relevant provisions of the 2000 Act, I have had the benefit of the views expressed by Justice Lederer in Wrzesnewskyj, above, and those of the majority and minority opinions of the Supreme Court of Canada on appeal from that decision in Opitz v Wrzesnewskyj, 2012 SCC 55, [2012] SCJ No 55 (QL) [Opitz]. [34] As stated by the majority in Opitz at paragraph 1, section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter], and the provisions of the Canada Elections Act have the clear 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) by the Chief Electoral Officer, notably that following the 36th General Election in 1997.

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