Previous 10 / 99 Next

Page: 10 [15] The Notices of Application were filed on March 23 and March 26, 2012. Pursuant to s 525(3) of the Act, such applications are to be "dealt with without delay and in a summary way". 2873, [2012] OJ No 2308 (QL) [“Wrzesnewskyj”] at paragraphs 32-33, this means that they are to be dealt with without all of the customary legal formalities. To proceed in “a summary way” imposes limits on the evidence that may be gathered and heard. An additional limitation in this particular context is the fact that the vote is secret. [16] That the applications are to be dealt with expeditiously did not prevent the parties, particularly the respondent MPs, from bringing a considerable number of interlocutory motions. It is, I think, helpful to provide an overview of the preliminary proceedings to explain why this case has taken so long to be completed and to provide some background to the issues dealt with in these reasons. [17] On May 22, 2012, two months after the applications were filed, the respondent MPs moved to have them dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, an abuse of process and not brought within the time required under s 527 of the Act. The motions to strike were dismissed on all grounds, save that of timeliness, on July 19, 2012 following a hearing before Prothonotary Milczynski. [18] Recognizing that the Act provided a mechanism to prevent abusive objections to election results from interfering with the democratic process, Prothonotary Milczynski found that such a situation had not been established on the record before her: 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) As discussed by Mr. Justice Lederer in Wrzesnewskyj v Canada (Attorney General), 2012 ONSC

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