Previous 44 / 99 Next

Page: 44 election where there is evidence of an attempt to affect the results of that election through fraud. This is particularly true where the right to bring the application arises by statute and does not Ct). [115] Thus, even had I accepted the Henein affidavit as admissible and of probative value, I would dismiss the motion to strike the applications on the ground of champerty. The motion was, in my view, an attempt to derail these applications before they could be heard and determined on the merits and was brought without justification. (2) Are the Applications Statute-Barred? [116] The Election was held on May 2, 2011. The Election results for the ridings in question were published in the Canada Gazette between May 17, 2011 and May 26, 2011 [117] The applications were filed on March 23, 2012 [Burkhart (Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar), Reid (Elmwood-Transcona), McEwing and Kerr (Winnipeg South Centre), and Ferance and Walsh Craig (Nipissing-Timiskaming)] and March 26, 2012 [Kafka (Vancouver Island North), and Parlee (Yukon)]. The respondent MPs submit that they are out of time as they were not filed within 30 days of the date on which the applicants knew or ought to have known of the occurrence of the fraud or the corrupt or illegal practice relating to the telephone calls. Even if the applicants did not know of these until the media reports appeared in February 2012, by the respondent MPs’ calculation they still missed the 30 day limitation period, in part because 2012 was a leap year. 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) find its basis in any agreement with the third party: S v K (1986), 55 OR (2d) 111 (Ont District

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