[2013] 1 F.C.R. D-6
Elections
Motions by respondents seeking to strike applications brought under Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, s. 524(1)(b) contesting results of 2011 federal general election in seven ridings—Applications alleging that election results affected by fraudulent or corrupt or illegal activities, practices engaged in by person or persons unknown—Respondents submitting, inter alia, that applications frivolous, vexatious, fatally flawed, failing to plead sufficient material facts to sustain existence of campaign to suppress votes—Also submitting that applications null on grounds that each commenced beyond thirty day time limit within which application to be commenced under Canada Elections Act to contest election results—Not clear at this stage that applications will fail on those grounds—Applications raising serious issues about integrity of democratic process—Neither test to strike application under Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.4 nor test to strike action under Federal Courts Rules, r. 221 applying to motions brought under Canada Elections Act—However, these tests do inform analysis as to when, on what basis to extinguish proceeding at early stage—R. 221(c) particularly helpful—Court having to determine on face of applications whether respondents can understand allegations being made, whether there is any complaint or allegation that if proven, could lead to remedy sought, or whether application clearly vexatious or frivolous, or not brought in good faith—Such test consistent with approach taken in other cases where statutes providing for early dismissal of applications on grounds that applications “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious”—Issue of whether applications commenced out of time, barred from proceeding cannot be determined on present summary motion to dismiss—Whether materials filed by applicants sufficient not issue on motion herein—Not for Court to assess or determine admissibility or sufficiency of evidence on motion to strike—In absence of clear authority on issue of correct test or approach to adopt in cases alleging voter suppression, cannot be concluded that applications “utterly devoid of merit” so as to warrant summary dismissal—Not certain that applications flawed in manner argued by respondents—Motions dismissed.
Bielli v. Canada (Attorney General) (T-616-12, T-619-12, T-620-12, T-621-12, T-633-12, T-634-12, T-635-12, 2012 FC 916, Milczynski P., order dated July 19, 2012, 22 pp.)