Previous 22 / 99 Next

Page: 22 [51] Section 524 allows an elector or candidate to make an application to a court contesting an election on the grounds that the elected candidate was not eligible or that irregularities, fraud, or on the same grounds as those for which a recount may be requested. [52] Section 524 reads as follows: 524. (1) Any elector who was eligible to vote in an electoral district, and any candidate in an electoral district, may, by application to a competent court, contest the election in that electoral district on the grounds that 524. (1) Tout électeur qui était habile à voter dans une circonscription et tout candidat dans celle-ci peuvent, par requête, contester devant le tribunal compétent l’élection qui y a été tenue pour les motifs suivants : (a) under section 65 the elected candidate was not eligible to be a candidate; or a) inéligibilité du candidat élu au titre de l’article 65; (b) there were irregularities, fraud or corrupt or illegal practices that affected the result of the election. b) irrégularité, fraude, manoeuvre frauduleuse ou acte illégal ayant influé sur le résultat de l’élection. (2) An application may not be made on the grounds for which a recount may be requested under subsection 301(2). (2) La contestation ne peut être fondée sur les motifs prévus au paragraphe 301(2) pour un dépouillement judiciaire. 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) corrupt or illegal practices had affected the result of the election. An election cannot be contested

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