Andrew Sahai

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Election Finances Act that imposed a 12-month pre-writ restricted spending period for third-party political advertising.

The government had previously enacted similar amendments that were struck down under section 2(b) of the Charter, but re-enacted them using the section 33 notwithstanding clause.

The applicants argued the amendments violated the right to vote under section 3 of the Charter, which is not subject to the notwithstanding clause.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the spending limits were carefully tailored to the egalitarian model of elections and did not infringe the right to meaningful participation in the electoral process.

Following a trial where the defendants successfully defended against the plaintiff's claim regarding a restrictive covenant, the defendants sought costs of $163,328.87.

The plaintiff argued for a reduced partial indemnity award of $53,191.82, citing an unproven fraud allegation by the defendants.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs but noted the importance of the indemnity principle given the employment-like relationship.

Costs were fixed at $110,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff, an IT service provider, sued the defendant independent contractors for breach of a non-competition clause after they declined to renew their sub-contracts and instead provided services to the RCMP through a competitor.

The court found that one defendant was not bound by the clause because it was inserted into an electronic renewal without notice, while the other defendant was bound but the clause itself was unreasonably broad and unenforceable.

The court held that the plaintiff had no proprietary interest in the identity of the client (the RCMP) and the restriction was an unjustified restraint of trade.

The action was dismissed.