Split decision by the Supreme Court of Canada 4-3. The lower court decision has been overturned and there will be no by-election in Etobicoke Centre. Ted Opitz remains MP. Former Liberal challenger Borys Wrzesnewskyj loses his case.
From the decision:
“we reject the candidate’s [Borys Wrzesnewskyj’s] attempt to disenfranchise entitled voters and so undermine public confidence in the electoral process.”
“There is no allegation of any fraud, corruption or illegal practices. Nor is there any suggestion of wrongdoing by any candidate or political party.”
“[Borys Wrzesnewskyj] asks this Court to disqualify the votes of several Canadian citizens”
Reaction:
It is a privilege to call MP @tedopitz a colleague and a friend.He continues to serve his constituents and his country with honour.
— Mark Strahl (@markstrahl) October 25, 2012
Correct decision by SCOC. The alternative would have meant constitutionally-protected voting rights taking a back seat to admin errors.
— Pundits’ Guide (@punditsguide) October 25, 2012
Decisive SCC ruling either way on Etobicokewould have bolstered confidence in electoral system. Instead, the most split decision possible.
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) October 25, 2012
The ruling today sets the threshold quite high for overturning election results. Looks tough, absent evidence of wrongdoing.
— Stephen Maher (@stphnmaher) October 25, 2012
Thrilled to hear that Ted Opitz will continue his good work as MP for the people of Etobicoke-Centre #cdnpoli
— Andrew MacDougall (@PMO_MacDougall) October 25, 2012
Judges, judged – goo.gl/qngdA via @shareaholic
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) October 25, 2012
Stern dissent by Chief Justice says majority erred in allowing Opitz to keep his seat.
— Terry Milewski (@CBCTerry) October 25, 2012
You’ll get no bemoaning of a split SCC decision from this corner. Division reflects honest difference over hard questions.
— Paul Wells (@InklessPW) October 25, 2012
Disappointed Boris W speaks to reporters at SCC twitpic.com/b79r6q
— David Akin (@davidakin) October 25, 2012
Principal argument of Supreme Court minority was technical: not everyone qualified to vote is entitled to vote. Interesting. #cdnpoli
— Guy W. Giorno (@guygiorno) October 25, 2012