[7] Counsel for the respondent relies upon a decision of the Federal Court in Conacher v. Canada (Prime Minister), [2009] F.C.J. No. 1136, 2009 FC 920, 311 D.L.R. (4th) 678 (F.C.), refusing to grant an expedited hearing of the application on the eve of an election where contraventions of the Charter were being asserted. In that case, the court was of the view that the issues were weighty, substantial and complex and needed to be considered on the basis of a full factual record. The court refused to order an expedited hearing of the application on the merits. [8] Counsel for the Attorney General argues that the applicants could have brought this application in a more timely way with adequate notice to the respondent and the court. Counsel for the applicants submits that they could not have brought this application prior to an election being called because an application to challenge the constitutional validity of a provision cannot be brought in a factual vacuum. They contend that prior to the federal election being called, this application would have been based on a hypothetical set of facts without an evidentiary basis. They argue that they have acted as expeditiously as possible. Decision [9] A court will not grant a constitutional declaration if an issue is purely academic or hypothetical: see Smith v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1924] S.C.R. 331, [1924] S.C.J. No. 15. As Peter Hogg states in Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th ed. (Scarborough, Ont.: Thomson Carswell, 2007) at vol. 2, p. 791: A case is not "ripe" for decision if it depends upon future events that may or may not occur. In that situation, the case would involve a premature determination of what is still only a hypothetical question. For example, a challenge to the constitutionality of a bill that has not been enacted would 2011 ONSC 2281 (CanLII) constitutional validity of s. 329 will take at least one to two days and that there is insufficient time to allow for preparation and argument to be done prior to the date set for the election.