[14] I am not persuaded that the applicants could not have brought this application some time prior to the election being called and in a time frame that would have allowed proper preparation and consideration of these complex issues. This is not a hypothetical situation as it was known for several months that there was likely to be a federal election and, in any event, the law is such that an election must be called at least every five years. The time frame proposed would not allow the respondent [page686] sufficient time to prepare properly. While the issue to be decided is relatively discrete, there is also the question of stare decisis and the issue of the application of the Charter. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in MacKay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357, [1989] S.C.J. No. 88, at para. 8: Charter cases will frequently be concerned with concepts and principles that are of fundamental importance to Canadian society. For example, issues pertaining to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and the right to life, liberty and the security of the individual will have to be considered by the courts. Decisions on these issues must be carefully considered as they will profoundly affect the lives of Canadians and all residents of Canada. In light of the importance and the impact that these decisions may have in the future, the courts have every right to expect and indeed to insist upon the careful preparation and presentation of a factual basis in most Charter cases. [15] The issues in this case involve complex matters that require careful analysis. This case is one which raises questions that go to the heart of a democratic system. 2011 ONSC 2281 (CanLII) side. Then counsel would be required to prepare and file facta and books of authorities. Requiring the respondent to prepare for the hearing of this matter in the expedited time frame proposed by the applicants would cause them significant prejudice. Prejudice to the respondent is a highly relevant factor when determining whether an application should be expedited: see May v. CBC/Radio, [2011] F.C.J. No. 519, 2011 FCA 130, at para. 13; Dragan, supra, at para. 13.