The Supreme Court of Canada has found an Ontario law that limits spending on third -party electoral advertising violates constitutional right to vote.
The highest court in the country dismissed the appeal of the Ontario government with a divided decision of 5-4 and annulled that part of the law.
Before 2021, third parties in Ontario could spend up to $ 600,000 in advertising in the six months prior to a provincial election call of a fixed date.
That year, the government of Prime Minister Doug Ford extended the period of expense restricted to one year while maintaining the limit of expenses equal. The law did not contemplate Snap elections, such as the one that Prime Minister Doug Ford recently called and won.
The law let the holidays drowning with other voices, says Ruling
The ruling of the Superior Court, published on Friday, said that the expenditure limit law is so disproportionate that the political parties “drown” the voices of third parties.
“The legal provisions create absolute disproportionality in the broader political discourse that deprives voters of a wide range of opinions and perspectives on issues during a critical period in the democratic cycle,” said Friday’s decision, written by Judge Andromache Karakatsanis.
“This undermines the right of the voter to an informed vote and a significant participation in the electoral process.”
The court determined that the section of the law “cannot be justified in a free and democratic society” and confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal to demolish the law.
Until Friday, the provisions are not “without strength and effect,” said the court.
The province said it will review the decision and “determine the next steps in due time.”
“Having finished the elections, in which people gave Premier Ford and our government a strong mandate, this decision does not have an immediate impact,” said Grace Lee, Ford spokesman.
4 Judges Disidencia
Doug Ford’s progressive conservative government previously argued that the extended restriction was necessary to protect the elections from external influence, but critics said it was equivalent to trying to silence criticism before the provincial elections of 2022.
The Government argued that the Court of Appeal had applied the incorrect legal evidence and did not postpone to the conclusions of the Acts of the request judge.
The majority of the Supreme Court ultimately agreed, but four judges disagreed.
“In a nutshell, respondents have not established that the limit will have the effect of depriving each citizen of a reasonable opportunity to introduce their own ideas and opinions in political discourse or be informed of facts, ideas and perspectives of others,” wrote two dissidents, including the president of the Justice Court, Richard Wagner.
When the law had been put for the first time, it was challenged by several third -party groups, including the coalition of working families and teachers unions. A lower court attacked him for reasons for freedom of expression.
The province responded by presenting a new version of the bill that used the clause despite, a provision under the letter of rights and freedoms that allows a government to temporarily cancel some rights.
But third parties appealed the new law under a different section of the Constitution, the right to vote.
The Ontario Court of Appeals said that the use of the clause despite what was legitimate, but still considered that the law was unconstitutional because violating the rights of free expression of third -party advertisers finally led to the violation of the right to a significant participation in the electoral process.
That right was not subject to the clause despite what the government writes.
The court gave the government a year to create a new legislation that meets the statutes.
But the Attorney General of the Ontario requested an appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada, which was granted at the end of 2023.
1st limits promulgated by the liberal government in 2017
Before a 2017 law promulgated by the liberal government at that time, there were no limits in the electoral advertising of third parties in Ontario.
In the 2014 elections, third had spent $ 8.64 million, which amounted to 17 percent of all electoral expenses.
The unions were some of third -party advertisers. The coalition of working families, known for their Anti-Tory ads, spent $ 2.5 million during the campaign, with contributions from some of the largest unions in the province.
The coalition and unions of several teachers were part of the case before the Supreme Court, while there were more than a dozen interveners, including the general prosecutors of Canada, Alberta and Quebec together with the Canadian association of civil liberties and the electoral director of Ontario.
A lawyer who represents the coalition was jubilant on Friday.
“It is really a magnificent testimony of the role that non -political parties as third parties must play in the political system,” said Paul Cavalluzzo in an interview.
“The legislation as it is framed gave the political parties, and the government, the opportunity, as the court said, to overwhelm and drown third parties,” he said.
“And the impact of that was that citizens did not have access to the types of information that third parties could provide and would be helpful to inform their votes.”
