Federal Court


Eligibility of candidates
Action challenging acceptance requirements in Canada Elections Act was struck out

Plaintiffs were three individuals residing in British Columbia. Plaintiffs intended to stand as candidates for election in federal election held in 2015. Plaintiff S presented himself for that purpose to returning officer for federal electoral district of Victoria. S’s nominating papers were refused because he did not have auditor as required to be appointed, nor did he have names, addresses and signatures of at least 100 persons entitled to vote in riding, nor did he pay or offer to pay deposit of $1,000 or any other amount, all as required by Canada Elections Act (CEA). There was no submission in amended statement of claim that other two plaintiffs presented themselves to be accepted as candidates. Plaintiffs commenced action challenging CEA governing 2015 election and, in particular, requirements for acceptance as candidates. Defendants brought motions to dismiss plaintiffs action. Motions granted. Claims against Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Canada could not stand as CEO could not make changes to CEA or stay results of election. Any claim requiring CEO to take such action should proceed by way of application under Federal Court Act (Can.) for mandamus. Plaintiffs had not specifically invoked Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in their amended statement of claim although they referred to certain rights. Plaintiffs had not pleaded that limitations respecting auditor, or payment of money or 100 signatures presented unreasonable limitations nor was it self-evident that they did so. It had not been shown in claim that either returning officer or CEO engaged in any conduct that would constitute basis for claim of misfeasance of public office. Action was struck out in its entirety.

Shebib v. Canada (May. 12, 2016, F.C., Roger T. Hughes J., T-1748-15) 266 A.C.W.S. (3d) 376.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?