File Number: 34845 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE) IN THE MATTER OF A CONTESTED ELECTION APPLICATION PURSUANT TO PART 20 OF THE CANADA ELECTIONS ACT, S.C. 2000, C. 9, ARISING OUT OF THE 41ST GENERAL ELECTION IN THE ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF ETOBICOKE CENTRE HELD MAY 2, 2012 B E T W E E N: TED OPITZ Appellant -and- BORYS WRZESNEWSKYJ Respondent -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER), ALLAN SPERLING (RETURNING OFFICER, ETOBICOKE CENTRE), ANA MARIA RIVERO, SARAH THOMPSON and KATARINA ZORICIC Respondents ______________________________________________________________________________ FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT, BORYS WRZESNEWSKYJ __________________________________________________________________ Gardiner Roberts LLP Gowling LaFleur Henderson, LLP 40 King Street West, Suite 3100 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5H 3Y2 K1P 1C3 Gavin J. Tighe Guy Regimbald (P) 416-865-6664 (P) 613-786-0197 (F) 416-865-6636 (F) 613-563-9869 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] Stephen A. Thiele (P) 416-865-6651 (F) 416-865-6636 email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Agent for the Respondent, BORYS WRZESNEWSKYJ BORYS WRZESNEWSKYJ FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN LLP FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN LLP Lawyers Lawyers 333 Bay Street, Suite 2400 1300 – 55 Metcalfe Street Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5H 2T6 K1P 6L5 W. Thomas Barlow Stephen B. Acker (P) 416-868-3403 (P) 613-236-3882 (F) 416-364-7813 (F) 613-230-6423 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, Ted Opitz Ottawa Agent for the Appellant, Ted Opitz BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP 40 King Street West, Suite 4400 1100 – 100 Queen Street Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5H 3Y4 K1P 1J9 David DiPaolo Barbara A. McIsaac, Q.C. (P) 416-367-6108 (P) 613-237-5160 (F) 416-361-2454 (F) 613-230-8842 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondents, Ottawa Agents for the Respondents Marc Mayrand and Allan Sperling Marc Mayrand and Allan Sperling THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Department of Justice Department of Justice Ontario Region Bank of Canada Building – East Tower The Exchange Tower 1212 – 234 Wellington Street 130 King Street West Ottawa, Ontario Suite 3400, Box 36 K1A 0H8 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6 Peter Hajecek Christopher M. Rupar (P) 416-973-9035 (P) 613-941-2351 (F) 416-952-4518 (F) 613-954-1920 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Ottawa Agent for the Respondent The Attorney General of Canada The Attorney General of Canada WADDELL, RAPONI FRASER MILNER CASGRAIN LLP 1002 Wharf St. 99 Bank Street, Suite 1420 Victoria, British Columbia Ottawa, Ontario V8W 1T4 K1P 1H4 John D. Waddell, Q.C. David R. Elliott Harold Turnham (P) 613-783-9639 (P) 250-385-4311 Ext: 201 (F) 613-783-9690 (F) 250-385-2012 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener Keith Ottawa Agent for the Intervener Keith Archer (Chief Electoral Officer Archer (Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia) of British Columbia) SHORES JARDINE FRASER MILNER CASGRAIN LLP 10104 - 103 Avenue, Suite 2250 99 Bank Street, Suite 1420 Edmonton, Alberta Ottawa, Ontario T5J 0H8 K1P 1H4 William W. Shores, Q.C. David R. Elliott (P) 780-448-9275 (P) 613-783-9639 (F) 780-423-0163 (F) 613-783-9690 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener Ottawa Agent for the Intervener O. Brian Fjeldheim O. Brian Fjeldheim (Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta) (Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta) KOCH THORNTON LLP BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP 360 Bay Street, Suite 400 45 O’Connor, 20th Floor Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5H 2V6 K1P 1A4 Allison A. Thornton Nancy K. Brooks Shashu Clacken Reyes (P) 613-788-2200 (P) 416- 216-0225 (F) 613-788-2247 (F) 416-368-6302 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener Canadian Ottawa Agent for the Intervener Civil Liberties Association Canadian civil liberties Association I N D E X Page PART I - OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………… 1 - Justice Lederer’s decision should be upheld.……………………………... 1 - Position of Opitz is untenable.................................…………………….... 2 - Relevant Facts................................................................................……..... 5 - Justice Lederer set aside 79 ballots ............................................................ 5 - 41 ballots set aside for failures in registration ............................................ 6 - 26 votes properly rejected at Poll 426 ......................................................... 7 - Justice Lederer was justified in rejecting at least 15 votes in Poll 31.......... 8 - Elector’s failure to sign an RC is fatal to the Elector’s vote..……………... 9 - 27 votes were rejected due to improper vouching...……………………….. 10 - Vouching is a pre-condition to voting...…………………………………..... 11 - Justice Lederer was justified in rejecting at least 8 votes in PD 21.……….. 12 - Justice Lederer was justified in rejecting 4 ballots at Poll 30...……………. 13 - Justice Lederer was justified in rejecting 7 votes at Poll 502 ...………….... 13 - Justice Lederer was justified in rejecting 8 votes at Poll 174 …………....... 14 PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE ......................................................................……... 14 PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT…………………………………....……... 15 -Standard of Review ....................................................................................... 15 - Purpose of the Act is to maintain confidence in the Federal electoral process .16 - Presumption of regularity was properly applied by Justice Lederer .....…... 19 - The word “irregularity” was properly interpreted broadly by Justice Lederer ..23 - Justice Lederer did not reverse onus of proof when reviewing RCs......….. 27 - Justice Lederer made findings of fact at Poll 426 .......................………..... 27 - Justice Lederer made findings of fact at Poll 31........................................... 29 - Justice Lederer was justified in rejecting votes where certificates were unsigned by the elector.................................................................................................... 31 - Vouching is a pre-condition of identification ............................................... 32 - Vouching was improper at Poll 30 ............................................................... 32 - Vouching was improper at Poll 21 ............................................................... 33 - Vouching was improper at Poll 502 ............................................................. 33 - Vouching was improper at Poll 174 ............................................................. 34 - “Magic number” test should not be displaced .............................................. 35 - Admissions made by Elections Canada ........................................................ 37 PART IV - COSTS………………………………..……………...................................… 38 PART V - ORDER REQUESTED …………………………………………………....... 38 PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………...……………… 39 PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS Justice Lederer’s decision should be upheld 1. The Respondent, Borys Wrzesnewskyj (“Borys”), supports the decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lederer to declare the 41st General Election in the electoral district of Etobicoke Centre null and void on the grounds that irregularities exceeding the 26 vote margin of victory of the Appellant, Ted Opitz (“Opitz”) affected the results of the election. In rendering his decision, Justice Lederer properly balanced the right to vote possessed by Canadians against the complete regulatory code carefully enacted by Parliament under the Canada Elections Act (the “Act”), which is purposefully designed to transform the intangible right to vote into the tangible ballot when an elector meets the mandatory pre-conditions established thereunder to exercise his or her franchise and to ensure integrity in our Federal electoral process. 2. As stated in Borys’ “Appellant’s” factum, the purpose of the Act is to ensure that only qualified and entitled voters cast ballots in a Federal election and to maintain confidence in the integrity of the Federal election process. Without confidence in the integrity of the election process the very foundation of Canadian democracy would crumble. This is underscored in the following statement made by the Supreme Court of Canada in Harper v. Canada: Maintaining confidence in the electoral process is essential to preserve the integrity of the electoral system which is the cornerstone of Canadian democracy. In R. v. Oakes…Dickson C.J. concluded the faith in social and political institutions, which enhance participation of individuals and groups in society, is of central importance in a free and democratic society. If Canadians lack confidence in the electoral system, they will lack faith in their electoral representatives. Confidence in the electoral process is, therefore, a pressing and substantial objective. Reference: Wrzesnewskyj’s Book of Authorities, Harper v. Canada (AG), 2004 CarswellAlta 646 (S.C.C.), Tab 1, at para. 103 3. Maintaining the integrity of the electoral system is of paramount importance to the Court and to the electorate. Notwithstanding that there might be adverse effects on an individual voter, the Courts