Previous 2 / 10 Next

Held, the request should be denied. Prior to the election being called, the applicants' interest in s. 329 of the Act was not purely hypothetical. It would not have been premature for them to bring this application prior to the election being called. Requiring the respondent to prepare for the hearing of the application within an expedited time frame would cause it significant prejudice. Moreover, the application judge would be required to provide an almost immediate decision in a complex case. An expedited determination of the issues raised in the application would not be in the public interest. Cases referred to Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., [1998] F.C.J. No. 859, 228 N.R. 355, 81 C.P.R. (3d) 443, 81 A.C.W.S. (3d) 141 (C.A.); Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Dragan, [2003] F.C.J. No. 434, 2003 FCA 139, 303 N.R. 112, 25 Imm. L.R. (3d) 163, 122 A.C.W.S. (3d) 7; Conacher v. Canada (Prime Minister), [2009] F.C.J. No. 1136, 2009 FC 920, [2010] 3 F.C.R. 411, 202 C.R.R. (2d) 136, 352 F.T.R. 162, 311 D.L.R. (4th) 678 (F.C.); MacKay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357, [1989] S.C.J. No. 88, 61 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 99 N.R. 116, [1989] 6 W.W.R. 351, J.E. 89-1289, 61 Man. R. (2d) 270, 43 C.R.R. 1, 17 A.C.W.S. (3d) 169; May v. CBC/Radio Canada, [2011] F.C.J. No. 519, 2011 FCA 130; R. v. Bryan, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 527, [2007] S.C.J. No. 12, 2007 SCC 12, 276 D.L.R. (4th) 513, 359 N.R. 1, [2007] 5 W.W.R. 1, J.E. 2007-530, 237 B.C.A.C. 33, 72 B.C.L.R. (4th) 199, 217 C.C.C. (3d) 97, 45 C.R. (6th) 102, 153 C.R.R. (2d) 316, 72 W.C.B. (2d) 362, EYB 2007-116393; Smith v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1924] S.C.R. 331, [1924] S.C.J. No. 15, [1924] 3 D.L.R. 189, 42 C.C.C. 215 Statutes referred to Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, s. 329 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2(b), 4 Rules and regulations referred to 2011 ONSC 2281 (CanLII) declaration that s. 329 violates s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is not saved under s. 1 of the Charter. They requested an urgent and expedited hearing of the application before the election was held. [page680]

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the broadcasting restricted and alleged Charter violations therein may be heard on an expedited review basis.

Alleged Acts: In March of 2011 the Parliament was dissolved and elections were called for May. The plaintiff in this case is the largest private television broadcasters. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act, which prohibits the transmission of election results to another district before the close all polling stations in the second district, violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Procedural history: The plaintiffs requested an expedited hearing and court denied stating that expedited nature of the case would require a judge to make an immediate decision on a complex case and would not be in the public interest.

Summary: The plaintiffs argue that the law was set forth far before the age of modern social media when the sole method of communicating election results was traditional broadcast media. The plaintiffs further assert that Canada has three different time zones, but does not have staggered voting times. Thus, in the era of Facebook and Twitter this restriction is virtually impossible. The defendants do not argue the merit of the argument but that application was brought too close to the impending election date.

Conclusion: The court determined that issues pertaining to the Charter are of significant importance to Canadian society and must be given due care and consideration. The application itself contained significant data and social science, which the court and respondent would need to evaluate in order to properly address. Thus, the court ultimately refused the request for an expedited hearing.

Legal Issue(s)

Social Media
Vote Verification and Transmission

Region: Americas

Country: Canada

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Apr 11, 2011

Geolocation

Latitude: 43.66785119051093

Longitude: -79.3679844822952

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada

Primary Documents

Notifications