COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00613778-0000
DATE: 2021/11/26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
D!ONNE RENÉE
Applicant
- and -
CITY OF TORONTO, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Respondents
Tim Carre for the City of Toronto
Karlson Leung for the Respondent the Attorney General of Ontario
HEARD: November 24, 2021
PERELL, J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The Applicant, D!onne Renée was a mayoral candidate in the 2018 municipal election in the City of Toronto.
[2] On February 1, 2019, Ms. Renée brought an Application against the City of Toronto, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General of Ontario. In her application, Ms. Renée sought the following relief:
a. an Order declaring the 2018 Toronto Municipal Elections invalid (unconstitutional), or
b. an Order determining whether the 2018 Toronto Municipal Election is valid- as in an Order declaring that "the 2018 Toronto Municipal Election was unconstitutional and therefore is not valid"- whichever is appropriate by this Court;
c. An Order requiring a new Toronto Municipal Elections to take place that ensures accessibility, inclusion, transparency and democracy;
d. an Order that the Clerk shall not destroy the ballots, documents or materials and that they be retained;
e. an Order requiring the Clerk to publicly address how the Clerk verifies that each ballot cast is assigned to the right Candidate and what happens when votes are not rightly accounted for;
f. an Order requiring the Clerk to publicly explain how democracy is ensured in our elections in Toronto;
g. an Order requiring the Clerk to publicly explain what equitable measures are in place to ensure democracy in Toronto Elections;
h. an Order declaring that to ensure accessibility, inclusion, representation and democracy the Disabilities Community, including Candidates with Disabilities, should have been consulted with prior to any changes in the Municipal Elections Act and equitable measures be implemented to be valid (constitutional);
i. an Order declaring that to ensure accessibility, inclusion representation and democracy the Electorate of Toronto, including Candidates, should have been consulted with prior to any fundamental changes in the Municipal Elections Act affecting communications, accessibility, representation and/or Ward boundaries impacting the 2018 Toronto Municipal Elections to be valid (constitutional);
j. a declaration that Toronto residents were discriminated against during the 2018 Municipal Elections in Ontario wherein no other residents in a Municipality was treated in such a way;
k. a declaration that the discrimination residents in Toronto experienced was unfair, cruel and unusual and interfered with the guaranteed protected rights and freedoms found in the Charter including and particularly section 1;
l. a declaration that barriers must be removed to ensure democracy, inclusion, accessibility, transparency, equity, representation in elections;
m. an Order requiring the Clerk to directly answer the questions raised in emails to her from the Applicant, DIONNE Renée including but not limited to:
What is the probability of errors in this election?
How does the Elections office verify that votes were assigned to the right Candidate?
What happens when votes are not rightly accounted for?
Was the 2018 Toronto Election considered to be a "regular election"?
I thought I read somewhere that the Clerk is required to consult with the disabilities Community at least one year prior to an Election or something to that effect? Am I correct in this observation?
I note that unions and individuals who were actively promoting and supporting Candidates were not listed on your Third Party Advertisers list. Why? What is the outcome and impact of this breach?
Why wasn't John Tory subjected to penalties for exceeding the maximum amount concerning a Candidate's expenses in the 2014 Municipal Elections?
Any additional outstanding questions raised by the Applicant and/ or as this Court may permit and/or as Counsel may raise.
How is democracy ensured in an election?
n. If the Clerk is unable to publicly and tangibly verify that votes were assigned to the right Candidates and what happens when votes are not rightly accounted for, an Order to inspect and recount the ballots, documents and/or materials;
o. a declaration concerning Toronto's right to self-determination, independence in its elections and governance that prioritizes ensuring accessibility, equity, inclusion and Representation based on our population and demographics to ensure democracy;
p. an Order requiring the Clerk to obtain and publicly provide the identity, name and information of the "Toronto internet co-location provider" Dominion Voting Systems claimed caused disruption to Municipal Elections throughout Ontario and if necessary an Order compelling Dominion Voting Systems (the voting system used in the 2018 Toronto Municipal Elections) to publicly provide the identity, name and information of the "Toronto internet co-location provider";
q. an Order requiring the Clerk to obtain a full and transparent explanation to the following question: "How does Dominion Voting Systems verify that the system was not at risk of compromise or in any way insecure?" An answer similar to 'confidential' is not reasonable.
r. such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may deem just to ensure democracy, accessibility, transparency, equity, inclusion and Representation.
[3] The Respondent City of Toronto brought a motion to strike Ms. Renée’s Application. The City sought the following relief:
a. An Order striking out or dismissing or, in the alternative, staying the application as against the City of Toronto;
b. An Order granting leave to the City of Toronto to adduce evidence on this motion for the purposes of Rule 21.01(1)(a), if necessary;
c. Costs of this motion; and
d. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may deem just.
[4] The Respondent Attorney General brought a motion to strike Ms. Renée’s Application. The Attorney General sought the following relief:
a. An order striking out the application as against Ontario;
b. In the alternative, staying the application pending the release of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the ongoing City of Toronto litigation (Toronto (City) v Ontario (Attorney General), Court File No.: C65861); and
c. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Court may permit.
[5] Ms. Renée’s Application was assigned for case management. In the last two and a half years, the Application and the two motions to strike have had numerous attendances. For present purposes, all I need to mention is that Justice Darla Wilson ordered that the Respondents’ two motions to strike and Ms. Renée’s Application be made returnable today – peremptory.
[6] Over the almost three years of the Application, Ms. Renée has never filed any evidence in support of her Application.
[7] Ms. Renée did not appear today to oppose the two motions.
[8] In these circumstances, I grant Toronto’s and the Attorney General’s motions as unopposed motions. In granting the motions, I dismiss Ms. Renée’s Application. In any event, Ms. Renée’s Application is dismissed for failure to provide any proof.
[9] I discharge and vacate the Orders of February 5, 2019 and January 16, 2021 with respect to the retention of election voting ballots.
[10] The Attorney General did not seek costs. Toronto seeks costs of $500.00, which I grant.
[11] Judgment accordingly.
Perell, J.
Released: November 26, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00613778-0000
DATE: 2021/11/26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
D!ONNE RENÉE
Applicant
- and -
CITY OF TORONTO, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Respondents
REASONS FOR DECISION
PERELL J.
Released: November 26, 2021