Previous 19 / 99 Next

Page: 19 to maintain order at a polling place while the vote is ongoing (s 512; s 479(3)). Section 512 reads [45] 512. (1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a person other than the Director of Public Prosecutions without the Director’s prior written consent. 512. (1) L’autorisation écrite du directeur des poursuites pénales doit être préalablement obtenue avant que soient engagées les poursuites pour infraction à la présente loi. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an offence in relation to which an election officer has taken measures under subsection 479(3). (2) L’autorisation n’est pas requise pour les infractions pour lesquelles un fonctionnaire électoral a pris des mesures dans le cadre du paragraphe 479(3). (3) Every document purporting to be the Director’s consent under subsection (1) is deemed to be that consent unless it is called into question by the Director or by someone acting for the Director or for Her Majesty. (3) L’autorisation fait foi de son contenu, sous réserve de sa contestation par le directeur des poursuites pénales ou quiconque agit pour son compte ou celui de Sa Majesté. While it is theoretically possible, I find it difficult to conceive of any situation in which the Director of Public Prosecutions would consent to a private prosecution in relation to electoral fraud, a matter of great public interest. Thus the recovery of costs by a private prosecutor is possible but unlikely in this context. 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) as follows:

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