[LINK] "Conservative MP Ted Opitz can keep seat in Etobicoke Centre, Supreme Court rules"

[rfmcdonald]

I've been following the ongoing court suit regarding the outcome of the 2011 federal election in the west Toronto riding of Etobicoke Centre, where incumbent Liberal MP Boris Wrzesnewskyj lost by a very thin and disputed margin to Conservative Ted Opitz. (I mentioned it first in February then in April.) Today, as reported by the Toronto Star's Tonda MacCharles and Les Whittington, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled to let the election results stand. News reports suggest the court was guided by its expected reluctance to override the outcomes of tight elections and so undermine democracy.

Conservative MP Ted Opitz won his Etobicoke Centre riding by a slim margin even at the top court, with a 4-3 ruling that sets new ground rules for how future contested elections will be decided.

The Supreme Court of Canada narrowly split over voting irregularities that included lost or unsigned voter registration certificates, calling them procedural or “administrative errors” that are not serious enough to trump the Charter right of electors to have their ballot counted, or to make Opitz give up his Commons seat.

The decision released Thursday is the first time the high court has pronounced on the modern version of Canada’s election act, and sets a high bar for overturning ballot results.

The court pointed to the need to discourage litigation as a means of settling ballot disputes, and concluded the entitlement to vote cannot be lightly tossed out.

On May 2, 2011, Opitz won by just 26 votes over Liberal incumbent Borys Wrzesnewskyj,

[. . .]

The majority decision, written by Justices Marshall Rothstein and Michael Moldaver, said the current Elections Act and Canada’s election system, which relies on an army of locally hired workers, aims to make voting accessible to all. It said administrative mistakes are “inevitable” in a system not designed for perfection or “certainty alone.” So the courts cannot demand “perfect certainty.”

“Rather courts must be concerned with the integrity of the electoral system.”

The court said burden of proof is squarely on the person alleging wrongdoing, and said if elections were easily annulled “on the basis of administrative errors, public confidence in the finality and legitimacy of election results will be eroded.”

[. . . ]
The ruling overturned a decision by an Ontario Superior Court judge who ruled in favour of Wrzesnewsky. Justice Thomas Lederer said problems with the registration of, or vouching for, 79 electors warranted cancelling their votes. The high court concluded at least 59 of the 79 votes should be restored.

The majority, including Justices Rosalie Abella and Marie Deschamps, said there was no reason to believe that the 20 remaining voters were not entitled to vote.

Because the remaining 20 votes were less than the “magic number” of Opitz’s election night 26-vote margin of victory, the court allows the May 2, 2011 outcome to stand.