File Number: 34845 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE) B E T W E E N: BORYS WRZESNEWSKYJ Appellant (Applicant) - and - TED OPITZ Respondent (Respondent) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER), ALLAN SPERLING (RETURNING OFFICER, ETOBICOKE CENTRE) Respondents (Respondents) FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT, TED OPITZ (RESPONDING TO THE APPEAL OF BORYS WRZESNEWSKYJ) Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Davies Ward Phillips Vineberg LLP 333 Bay Street , Suite 2400 44th Floor, First Canadian Place Toronto, Ontario M5H 2T6 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1B1 W. Thomas Barlow Kent E. Thomson Nicholas Shkordoff Matthew I. Milne-Smith Tel.: (416) 366-8381 Tel: (416) 863-0900 Fax.: (416) 364-7813 Fax: (416) 863-0871 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, Ted Opitz Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 55 Metcalfe Street Suite 1300 Ottawa, ON K1P 6L5 Stephen Acker Ariel Thomas Tel: (613) 236-3882 Fax: (613) 230-6423 [email protected] [email protected] Ottawa Agent for the Appellant, Ted Opitz ORIGINAL TO: THE REGISTRAR The Registrar Supreme Court of Canada 301 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1 COPIES TO: Gardiner Roberts LLP Gowlings LLP 40 King Street West, Suite 3100 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y2 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C3 Gavin Tighe Guy Regimbald Stephen Thiele Tel.: 416-865-6600 Tel: 613-786-0197 Fax.: 416-865-6636 Fax: 613-583-9869 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Borys Agent for the Respondent, Borys Wrzesnewskyj Wrzesnewskyj Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street West World Exchange Plaza Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y4 100 Queen Street, Suite 1100 Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9 David Di Paolo Barb McIsaac, Q.C. Alessandra Nosko Tel.: 416-367-6000 Tel.: 613-237-5160 Fax.: 416-367-6749 Fax.: 613-230-8842 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Respondents Marc Agent for the Respondents Marc Mayrand Mayrand and Allan Sperling and Allan Sperling The Attorney General of Canada 234 Wellington Street East Tower Room Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8 Christopher Rupar Tel.: 613-941-2351 Fax.: 613-954-1920 Counsel for the Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada Koch Thornton LLP Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP 360 Bay Street, Suite 400 45 O'Connor St., 20th Floor Toronto, ON M5H 2V6 Ottawa, ON KIP lA4 Allison A. Thornton Nancy-X. Brooks Shashu Clacken Reyes Tel.: 416-216-0225 Tel: (613) 788-2200 Fax.: 416-368-6302 Fax: (613) 788-2247 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Civil Agent for the Intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties Association Liberties Association Shores Jardine Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP 10104 - 103 Avenue, Suite 2250 99 Bank Street, Suite 1420 Edmonton, AB T5J OH8 Ottawa, ON KIP IH4 William W. Shores, Q. C. David R. Elliott Tel: (780) 448-9275 Tel: (613) 783-9638 Fax: (780) 423-0163 Fax: (613) 783-9690 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Intervener, I. Brian Fjeldheim Agent for Intervener, I. Brian Fjeldheim (CEO Alberta) (CEO Alberta) Waddell Raponi Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP 1002 Wharf St. 99 Bank Street, Suite 1420 Victoria, B.C. V8W 1T4 Ottawa, ON KIP IH4 John D. Waddell, Q.C. David R. Elliott Harold Turnham Tel.: 250-385-4311 x. 201 Tel: (613) 783-9638 Fax.: 250-385-2012 Fax: (613) 783-9690 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Keith Archer Agent for the Intervener, Keith Archer (CEO B.C.) (CEO B.C.) i INDEX Page PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 1 A. Overview…………………………………………………………………………... 1 B. Summary of the Facts…………………………………………………………….. 2 i. Federal Elections Cannot Meet a Standard of Perfection………………………... 2 ii. Elections Canada Training Was Adequate and the Same as Anywhere in Canada……………………………………………………………………………… 5 iii. Registration of Voters in Etobicoke Centre Was Not Unusual…………………. 7 iv. There Are Election Day Oaths In Addition To Vouching…………………..….. 8 v. No Direct Evidence From Wrzesnewskyj……………………………………….. 9 vi. Summary of Facts and Issues at the Polls That Are the Subject of Wrzesnewskyj’s Appeal……………………………………………………………. 9 a. Poll 16……………………………………………………………………. 9 b. Poll 21…………………………………………………………………… 11 c. Poll 31……………………………………………………………………. 12 d. Poll 89…………………………………………………………………… 15 e. Poll 400…………………………………………………………………... 16 f. Poll 426…………………………………………………………………... 17 PART II – ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 18 PART III – SUBMISSIONS 20 A. Law………………………………………………………………………………… 20 Statutory Requirements…………………………………………………………….. 20 Standard of Review…………………...……………………………………………. 20 The Purpose of the Canada Elections Act is Enfranchisement…………………….. 20 Elections Are Not To Be Lightly Overturned…………………...…………………. 20 The Presumption of Regularity…………………………………………………….. 21 The Burden of Proof………………………………………………………………... 22 The Balance of Probabilities and Rebutting the Presumption……………………… 22 The Meaning of “Irregularity”……………………………………………………... 23 B. The Application Judge Correctly Held that Wrzesnewskyj Failed to Establish His Alleged Irregularities………………………………………………………... 25 i. Overview…………………………………………………………………………. 25 ii. Wrzesnewskyj Failed To Establish That Any Elector Voted More Than Once… 25 iii. Wrzesnewskyj Failed To Establish That Two Electors Who Resided Outside of Etobicoke Centre Were Permitted To Vote …………………………………….... 26 iv. Wrzesnewskyj Failed To Establish That Electors at Polls 16, 21, 89 and 400 Were Permitted To Vote Without Being Vouched For…………….………….….. 27 C. The Application Judge Correctly Held That None of the Errors Established Are Irregularities Which Affected the Results………………………………... 30 i. Overview…………………………………………………………………………. 30 ii. Electors Voting in a Different Polling Division Do Not Affect the Results ……. 34 iii. Qualified Electors Voting Without Completing a Registration Certificate Do Not Affect the Results……………………………………………………………… 37 iv. Failure to Record Vouchers is Not an Irregularity That Affects the Results …... 38 D. Wrzesnewskyj Cannot Establish That the Results of the Election Were Affected…................................................................................................................. 39 PART IV – COSTS 40 PART V – ORDERS REQUESTED 40 PART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 41 PART VII – LEGISLATION 42 File Number: 34845 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE) B E T W E E N: BORYS WRZESNEWSKYJ Appellant (Applicant) - and - TED OPITZ Respondent (Respondent) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER), ALLAN SPERLING (RETURNING OFFICER, ETOBICOKE CENTRE) Respondents (Respondents) FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT, TED OPITZ (RESPONDING TO THE APPEAL OF BORYS WRZESNEWSKYJ) PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Overview 1. On May 2, 2011, the 41st General Election was held across Canada. In a span of less than 40 days, hundreds of thousands of temporary workers were hired and trained to staff more than 64,000 polling stations across the country serving more than 12 million voters. This extraordinary marshalling of efforts and resources was undertaken in order to enfranchise Canadian citizens and fairly reflect their democratic choice. 2. In Etobicoke Centre, more than 50,000 citizens voted and elected Ted Opitz (“Opitz”) as their representative by a margin of 26 votes. The results of the election in Etobicoke Centre (the “Election”) were challenged by the runner-up, Borys Wrzesnewskyj (“Wrzesnewskyj”), who brought a contested election application pursuant to Part 20 of the Canada Elections Act (the “Act”). Wrzesnewskyj’s application was granted by Justice Lederer of - 2 - the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Application Judge”) in a decision that is the subject of an appeal to this Court by Opitz. 3. Despite having the election declared null and void, Wrzesnewskyj has filed this appeal, challenging the findings of fact and decision of the Application Judge. Wrzesnewskyj now asks this Court to overturn the refusal of the Application Judge to cast aside more than 100 votes because of alleged mistakes and technical non-compliance with election day procedures by Elections Canada workers, who were among the hundreds of thousands of temporary staff employed by Elections Canada. Wrzesnewskyj also makes very serious allegations, such as double voting by senior citizens in one poll and dereliction of duty by election workers, even though such allegations are not supported by any direct evidence or the testimony of any witness. 4. The Application Judge rightly rejected all of the allegations made by Wrzesnewskyj in this appeal, concluding either that they were not established or that they were of a minor or inconsequential nature that did not result in anyone voting who was not qualified or entitled to do so. Opitz submits that the Application Judge made no palpable or overriding errors of fact, and no errors of law, in arriving at the decisions complained of by Wrzesnewskyj in this appeal. 5. If this appeal were to be granted, the threshold for contested election applications in Canada would be lowered substantially below that set by the Application Judge in the judgment which is the subject of Opitz’s appeal. The standard of perfection in the running of elections that is urged upon this Court by Wrzesnewskyj is not achievable or consistent with the purposes of the Act, and would undermine rather than