Banning the right to vote for five years for violators of the Elections Act is unconstitutional, ruled the Superior Court in a substantial judgment published Monday.
This conclusion stems from an action brought by a retired entrepreneur, Yvon Maheux, who was fined in 2017 for an electoral contribution of $100 above the maximum limit of $100 allowed by the Election Act.
The latter challenged a slew of sections of the Act, claiming that they were unconstitutional since they contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
If Maheux was dismissed on almost the entire line as to the other consequences for the offenders he was contesting, including the fine of $ 5,000 to which he was subject, Judge Éric Hardy of the Superior Court however ruled in his favor on Monday at knowing that it was unconstitutional to deny her the right to vote for five years.
“The right to vote is the most accessible means of political expression for the entire population. When it comes to the cornerstone of our democracy, the standard of justification, when it is undermined, must be severe,” notes the magistrate.
A citizen of the city
Justice Hardy then cites the Supreme Court ruling Saved c. Canada to recall that “the exclusion of a citizen from the city weakens democracy”.
Given the effects caused by his decision, however, the judge agreed to suspend the effects for the next 180 days. It is only once this period has passed that the judgment rendered on Monday will take effect.
Asked whether he could appeal the case, the Ministry of Justice, which reports to the Attorney General of Quebec, replied Monday that he was still analyzing the decision.
“Out of respect for the legal process, we will not comment,” added a spokeswoman for the ministry, Isabelle Boily.
Yvon Maheux’s lawyer, Mr.e Antoine Sarrazin-Bourgoin, who works at the GBV lawyers firm, also indicated that he was still at the judgment analysis stage.
“We note that many provisions of the Election Act, the backbone of our democratic framework, contravene, according to the court, fundamental rights, even if these infringements appear to it to be justified. As these are important issues for democracy, the possibility of an appeal cannot be ruled out,” he added, however.
Péladeau intervened
Note that the president and chief executive officer of Quebecor, Pierre Karl Péladeau, as well as the company Quebecor Media inc. intervened in the dispute on a “friendly” basis in order to “bring their assistance to [Yvon] Maheux”.
It should be noted that Mr. Péladeau launched proceedings in 2020 to have the relevant articles of the Election Act and the Act respecting contracts by public bodies declared unconstitutional.
The move followed the withdrawal of his guilty plea in a 2018 case where he was charged with “election fraud” in 2018 after he himself repaid a campaign debt of $137,000 incurred while trying to take the head of the Parti Québécois (PQ), three years earlier.
The Chief Electoral Officer (DGE) had interpreted this payment as a donation, well above the permitted limit of $500.
However, if he had initially pleaded guilty to the offence, had then realized “that any company in which [il a] an interest would therefore be entered in the Register of companies ineligible to contract with a public body”, according to what he recounted in his legal proceedings.
Last Thursday, a new chapter was written in this file when the Supreme Court rejected the DGE’s request to annul the suspension by the Court of Quebec of the file of Pierre Karl Péladeau for “fraudulent electoral maneuver”.
This criminal case has indeed been postponed until the Superior Court decides on the constitutionality of the articles of the Elections Act and the Act respecting contracts by public bodies that the businessman is contesting.