3 total
Only proven non-entitled votes can overturn an election result.
In a contested federal election application, the appeal examined whether voting process defects required annulment where the vote margin was narrow.
The majority adopted a substantive test requiring proof both of a statutory irregularity tied to entitlement and that a person not entitled to vote actually voted.
It held multiple disqualified ballots should be restored because the evidentiary record supported entitlement or failed to prove an entitlement defect on the required standard.
The remaining invalid votes did not meet the threshold to overturn the result.
The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and the fresh-evidence motion was dismissed.
Public interest election challenge results in no costs order.
Following a successful application contesting a federal election in which the court declared the election null and void due to voting irregularities, the applicant sought $90,000 in costs.
The court considered whether any respondent could properly be characterized as an unsuccessful party responsible for paying those costs.
The successful candidate was found to have done nothing wrong and stood in a similar position to the applicant, while the Chief Electoral Officer maintained neutrality and could not legally take positions favouring any candidate.
Given the public interest nature of the proceeding and the absence of a party properly liable for costs, the court declined to award costs.
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, and the applicant’s security for costs deposit was ordered returned.
Federal election declared null and void because the number of irregular votes exceeded the winning plurality.
The applicant, an unsuccessful candidate in a federal election decided by a plurality of 26 votes, brought an application to contest the election under s. 524(1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act.
The applicant argued that irregularities in voter registration and vouching affected the result.
The court found that the onus was on the applicant to prove on a balance of probabilities that irregularities occurred and affected the result.
The court identified 79 votes that were cast irregularly due to failures in registration and vouching procedures.
Because the number of irregular votes exceeded the plurality, the court declared the election null and void.
