Nov 5 Update email from the Charter Challenge for Fair Voting
Quote:
"Today was our big day - we presented our appeal in the Court of Appeal for Ontario in front of a panel of three judges - Justices Grant Huscroft, Jonathan Dawe, and Gary Trotter. If you'd like see a play-by-play commentary of what went down, check out our tweets here.
Our "Hot Take" on What Happened
Our lawyer, Nicolas Rouleau, opened the day by laying out our argument for appeal. His main point was that the modern conception of democracy requires that voters have an elected representative aligned with their political views advocating for those views in Parliament, and our current system denies that to half the voters.
He also argued that many voters' right to meaningful participation is infringed by our current voting system because it discourages them from voting at all, or forces them to cast a strategic vote rather than one that honestly reflects their true preference.
He questioned whether the trial judge inappropriately considered possible "balancing" concerns (various supposed "strengths" of FPTP) before deciding whether FPTP infringes on our section 3 right to vote - these considerations are supposed to come in later, in what's known as a "section 1" analysis.
Nicolas then went on to outline reasons why the judge's reasoning about the impact on women's representation was incorrect - mainly that the judge found that the voting system is not the primary factor behind their under-representation in Canada, but Nicolas pointed out that the standard is simply that it has to be a contributing factor, and the evidence strongly supports that.
Nicolas advanced many other arguments, and one of the interveners supported our claim that political opinion should be considered a basis for protection from discrimination under section 15, in accordance with international law. Other interveners also spoke in support of many of Nicolas' arguments.
The government of course argued against all these points, and another intervener argued that FPTP is "constitutionalized" and therefore beyond the reach of the courts. Naturally we disagree.
The judge who chaired today (Huscroft) asked the majority of the questions (many about how the concerns we raised were linked to constitutional law rather than being questions of public policy), and Justice Dawe also asked a number of them (he seemed to be very interested in the question of whether any system could conceivably satisfy our definition of effective representation - ie, requiring electing an MP aligned with our political views).
Nicolas made a final rebuttal to the government's presentation, and then the appeal wrapped. Now we wait for the court to issue its ruling (likely about 2-4 months from now).
Update on "Leave to Appeal" Fund:
While we very much hope that the court agrees with us and declares our current voting system unconstitutional, we're also actively preparing for what comes afterwards. Regardless of the decision, we expect that whoever loses the appeal will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We're currently fundraising to be ready to do that as soon as the decision comes down early next year.
So far, our supporters and partners have donated almost $17k of the $30k we'll need for that, so we're well on our way. Ideally, we'd like to have most of the balance in hand by shortly after the appeal so that there are no delays once the appeal decision comes down.
To show your support and contribute to this next stage, simply click the button below:
Thanks again for your ongoing support - as always, we absolutely couldn't do this without you!
Grace Chitate, Springtide
Antony Hodgson, Fair Voting BC
PS: A reminder that any donations over $25 in a year will be eligible for a charitable donation receipt. These receipts produce tax rebates ranging (depending on where you live) from 19-75% of your donation for the first $200 and 40-58% on the portion of total charitable donations above $200."
End Quote