Page: 5 [18] The Applicant contends that it is “ludicrous” to suggest that by simply having more candidates run, the voters’ attentions will be bombarded by too many different political platforms and messages, such that the integrity of the electoral system will be threatened. Witness Requirement Provision [19] The Applicant was informed that his nomination documents must be provided to the Returning Officer and the witness who is required to swear an oath on the prospective nominee’s behalf must do so in person at that time. He did not follow those directions. Nonetheless, he alleges that the Witness Requirement Provision, as he understands it, also breaches his Charter, s 3 rights. [20] The Applicant acknowledges, however, that s 73 of the Act allows him to bypass the inperson oath requirement. That section provides for electronic submission, and reads: 73 (1) A prospective candidate may send his or her nomination paper and the statement and instrument referred to in paragraphs 67(4)(b) and (c), respectively, by electronic means. In order for the nomination to be valid, the Returning Officer must receive the deposit referred to in paragraph 67(4)(a) and copies in electronic form of the nomination paper, statement and instrument by the close of nominations. The original documents must be received by the Returning Officer not later than 48 hours after the close of nominations. Deposit Requirement Provision [21] The Applicant provides affidavit evidence of his income information in recent years to the Court. He notes that he is married and has a child. His family of three lived on approximately $2000 per month. While he indicates that he could have made the $1000 deposit for the term of the election, it was a significant challenge for him and his family. [22] He also notes that the deposit, while refundable, might well be money needed for a prospective candidate during the election to further support a campaign. He notes that the Electoral Campaign Returns for independent candidates for the 2011 Federal Election reveal that election expenses for most such candidates were less than $5000, and sometimes even less than $1000. This fact, he alleges, demonstrates how the deposit can represent a large portion of the funds a candidate may have available to run their campaign. [23] The Applicant submits that while the deposit requirement is allegedly an attempt to deter frivolous candidates, it may well deter non-frivolous candidates who are not affluent. And neither, he maintains, would the deposit deter frivolous candidates that are affluent. [24] Finally, the Applicant notes that s 3 of the Charter confers a right that is of “special importance,” as it is not one of the sections that are enumerated in s 33(1) of the Charter that permits legislative override. Section 33(1) reads: “Parliament or the legislature of a province may 2017 ABQB 645 (CanLII) [17] Based on these statements from the Supreme Court, the Applicant submits that it is not a constitutionally valid objective to prevent “unpopular” candidates from running. It is improper, he argues, to attempt to determine the popularity of a candidate prior to election day, or have any requirements that rely on a minimum level of support prior to being declared a candidate