Skip to main content
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
per week for 24 weeks
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Defeated Liberal candidate Borys Wrzesnewskyj talks to reporters outside court in Toronto Apr. 23, 2012. Wrzesnewskyj is requesting the court to throw out the result of the May election in Etobicoke Centre due to serious voting irregularities.

Moe Doiron/The Globe and Mail

A series of essentially clerical errors was enough to warrant overturning election results in a federal riding, an Ontario court was told Monday, much to the skepticism of the judge.

In an unprecedented attempt to upend last May's vote in Etobicoke Centre, lawyers for the losing candidate argued the integrity of the electoral system depends on strict adherence to procedural rules.

"These are issues that affect everyone in this country," lawyer Gavin Tighe said. "It is a true national issue."

Story continues below advertisement

Tighe represents former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj, who lost by 26 votes to Conservative Ted Opitz in last year's election that swept Prime Minister Stephen Harper to a majority government.

Among other things, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj maintains that sloppy application of voting rules by Elections Canada officials may have allowed some ineligible voters to cast ballots, and some may have actually voted twice.

"This isn't a Liberal or Conservative issue; this is a Canadian issue," Mr. Tighe told Ontario Superior Court Justice Thomas Lederer.

"If people have no confidence in the process, it is pretty doubtful they will participate in it."

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's challenge – unrelated to the robocall and voter-suppression scandal – is the first time a court is being asked to rule on a contested election under Part 20 of the Canada Elections Act.

The section allows a voter or candidate to seek to invalidate a riding vote if there were "irregularities, fraud, corrupt or illegal practices that affected the results."

Mr. Tighe made it clear he was not alleging fraud or corruption, but said the rules are there for a reason and must be enforced strictly.

Story continues below advertisement

"When you're not governed by the rule of law, you're governed by the rule of force."

Judge Lederer, who has set aside five days for the hearing, noted the public's interest in the proceedings but appeared skeptical of the claims, suggesting Mr. Wrzesnewskyj had put forward a somewhat extreme view.

Thousands of people are involved in running elections, the justice noted.

"It would appear inevitable that some sort of mistakes are going to be made," Judge Lederer said.

Allowing blind application of procedural rules to get in the way of legitimate voting could itself "create distrust," the justice said.

Many of Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's complaints revolve around forms incorrectly filled out by polling clerks, and improper vouching records for those who weren't registered or went to the wrong polling station.

Story continues below advertisement

Judge Lederer, who interjected frequently, noted the importance of ensuring eligible voters can cast ballots.

At one point, he appeared to lose patience with Mr. Tighe's arguments, saying they could mean byelections would be needed in most every close finish given the inevitability of procedural mistakes.

"I can't believe that proposition will instil trust in the citizenry of this country," Judge Lederer said.

"That can't be what's intended here. It makes this act self-defeating."

Mr. Opitz raises similar views in his factum.

"It would be absurd to think that Parliament intended to disenfranchise an elector who complied with all the requirements of the act to register to vote but for the election official (who) forgot to tick a box on a registration certificate."

Story continues below advertisement

He also argues that many votes Mr. Wrzesnewskyj raises as suspect were in fact legitimate.

In his factum, chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand argues procedural errors simply don't warrant setting aside the election result.

The Section 20 provisions should only be used in serious cases of impropriety, Mr. Mayrand argues.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to
Comments are closed

We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons or for abuse. For more information on our commenting policies and how our community-based moderation works, please read our Community Guidelines and our Terms and Conditions.

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies