The appeal concerned whether a defeated provincial election candidate could maintain a civil damages action against a chief electoral officer alleging bad-faith interference with his campaign.
The majority held that the claim was not a collateral attack on the election result, did not amount to an abuse of process, was not barred by parliamentary privilege, and was not precluded by the Election Act because the statutory immunity applied only to acts done in good faith.
Accepting the pleaded facts as true, the Court found the pleadings disclosed arguable claims in misfeasance in public office and trespass to chattel.
The majority declined to strike the loss of chance damages claim at the pleadings stage, while the dissent would have barred that head of damages on doctrinal and public policy grounds.
