Australia 1:0 Canada

Canadians have much to learn from the Australian High Court’s take on election spending limits for “third parties”

The High Court of Australia has just delivered Unions NSW v New South Wales [2019] HCA 1, a decision that should be of interest to readers who are concerned with freedom of expression in the electoral context ― a topical issue in Canada, given the recent imposition of further restrictions in this area by the recently enacted Bill C-76. The decision resulted from a challenge by a number of labour unions to New South Wales legislation that reduced the maximum amount a “third party” ― that is anyone not a candidate at an election or a political party ― is allowed to spend on campaigning in a nearly-six-month period preceding an election, from 1,050,000AUD (jut under a million Canadian) to 500,000AUD. The High Court unanimously held that the legislation was contrary to the implied freedom of political communication, which it had previously read into the Australian constitution‘s provisions requiring “representative” government.

The plurality judgment, by Chief Justice Kiefel and Justices Bell and Keane, finds that the third party spending limits are unconstitutional. That they restrict the ability to communicate is not in dispute. And while the plurality is prepared to assume that these limits are imposed for the legitimate purposes of levelling the campaigning playing field and preventing the wealthy from “drowning out” the voices of the less fortunate, they are not justified. Experts consulted prior to the enactment of the legislation provided no particular justification for recommending that the then-existing spending limits be reduced. A Parliamentary committee, however, recommend that the legislature look into the actual spending needs of third parties, and this was not done either. As a result, there is no reason for saying that the reduced limits are “reasonably necessary”.

Justice Gageler agrees with the plurality’s disposition of the case. He is persuaded of the legitimacy of the state’s pursuit “of substantive fairness in a manner compatible with maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government”. [91] This might, in principle, justify much lower spending limits for third parties, which campaign on single issues, than for parties that must address a broad range of issues in their quest to form a government. However, “[i]t is not self-evident, and it has not been shown, that the cap set in the amount of $500,000 leaves a third-party campaigner with a reasonable opportunity to present its case”. [101] Absent such a showing, the restriction on the freedom of communication is not justified.

Justice Nettle’s conclusion is similar. He accepts the legitimacy of the objective of creating a level electoral playing field ― one on which political parties will be primary players ― and agrees that a legislatures may from time to time review the measures it takes to ensure fairness, including by lowering spending caps previously enacted. However, there must be a justification for whatever measures it takes from time to time. Such a justification is missing in this case. Although it was recommended that more evidence on the needs of third parties be collected, “for reasons which do not appear, that recommendation went unheeded. It is as if Parliament simply went ahead … without pausing to consider whether a cut of as much as 50 per cent was required”. [117]

Justice Gordon, like the plurality, assumes that restrictions on third party spending pursue a legitimate purpose, which she characterizes as the privileging of political parties and candidates. However, in the absence of evidence about the actual need for restrictions set at their current level, “the Court … cannot be satisfied that the level of the expenditure cap is reasonably appropriate and adapted to achieve the asserted constitutionally permissible end”. [150] It was for the State to show that the restriction it seeks to impose was justified, and it has not done so.

For his part, Justice Edelman considers that the reduction in the spending limits imposed on third parties, even as the limits imposed on political parties rose, cannot be explained by the purposes of maintaining a fair and corruption-free electoral system. Rather, it must have had an “additional purpose”, which “was to ensure that the voice of third-party campaigners was quieter than that of political parties and candidates”. [159] In other words, the reduction’s aim was “to burden the freedom of political communication of third-party campaigners”. [160] Justice Edelman considers that, although laws that rely on the relative silencing of some views in order to ensure that all can be heard are legitimate, to aim only at silencing some voices “is incompatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government”, and legislation so motivated is “invalid”. [160]


Needless to say, I am not qualified to comment on whether the High Court is correct as a matter of Australian law. What I can do is compare its decision with that of the Supreme Court of Canada in Harper v Canada (Attorney-General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 SCR 827, which addressed much the same issues. (Readers will recall that I am not a fan of Harper, to put it mildly, and included it in my list of the Supreme Court’s five worst decisions of the last half-century in this blog’s recent Twelve Days of Christmas symposium.)

This is most obviously so on the issue of deference to the legislature on the issue of the appropriateness of a limitation of the freedom of (political) expression, and the evidence required for the government to make this case. The Harper majority insisted that courts should approach legislative choices with deference. In its view, “[t]he legislature is not required to provide scientific proof based on concrete evidence of the problem it seeks to address in every case”, and that “a reasoned apprehension of … harm” [Harper, 77] is sufficient to restrict fundamental freedoms protected by the Canadian constitution.

This approach is explicitly rejected in Unions NSW. While the Australian judges avoid directly criticizing the Harper majority, both the plurality opinion and Justice Nettle explicitly side with the “strong dissent” of Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Major (joined by Justice Binnie). The plurality takes a dim view of the submission “that Parliament does not need to provide evidence for the legislation it enacts [and] is entitled to make the choice as to what level of restriction is necessary to meet future problems”. [44] When legislative choice are made in a way that burden the freedom of political communication, they must be justified. Similarly, Justice Gageler speaks of the need for a “compelling justification”, and insists that “[i]f a court cannot be satisfied of a fact the existence of which is necessary in law to provide a constitutional basis for impugned legislation, … the court has no option but to pronounce the legislation invalid.” [95] Justice Gordon insists that “the Court must … be astute not to accept at face value the assertion that freedom of communication will, unless curtailed by a reduction in the cap to $500,000, bring about corruption and distortion of the political process”. [148]

Another point of contrast between Harper and Unions NSW is the treatment of the so-called “egalitarian model of elections” designed in part to favour the interests of political parties and candidates over those of the civil society groups, disparagingly consigned to the status of “third parties”. According to Harper, election campaigns must focus attention on parties and candidates, including by ensuring that any other participants in the public debate, except the media, will behave unobtrusively. By contrast, the plurality opinion in Unions NSW explicitly rejects the submission that candidates and parties deserve preferential treatment, advanced in part on the basis that elections are “not a choice between ideas, policies, views or beliefs except insofar as such choice may be reflected in the electoral choice between candidates”. [39] Rather, the plurality says, “ss 7 and 24 of the Constitution guarantee the political sovereignty of the people of the Commonwealth by ensuring that their choice of elected representatives is a real choice, that is, a choice that is free and well-informed” [40] ― including by third parties. Justice Gageler, of course, takes the contrary view on this point. Justice Edelman’s position is more complex. He explicitly endorses “a Rawlsian, egalitarian model” [178] in which spending limits prevent some speakers from “drowning out” others. However, he also considers that it is not legitimate to target particular speakers for silencing apart from such an anti-drowning out purpose.

A last difference between Harper and Unions NSW worth highlighting is recognition by Justice Gageler of “the propensity of an elected majority to undervalue, and, at worst, to seek to protect itself against adverse electoral consequences resulting from, political communication by a dissenting minority”. [66] Justice Gageler refers to prior cases where the risk of a government legislating to limit political competition the better to maintain itself in office was explicitly adverted to. Such legislation, he notes, is incompatible with presuppositions of the Australian constitutional order. Although he finds that, in this case, “[t]here is no suggestion of abuse of incumbency” [85] by one party against others, this clear-eyed position is in contrast to that of the Harper majorityr, which ignored the possibility that incumbent governments favour legislation that excludes “third parties” from electoral campaigns in order to avoid unpleasant criticism and so reduce the odds of losing power.


There are more interesting things in the Unions NSW decision than I have room to discuss in this post. For example, Justice Gageler’s comments about the role courts in finding facts that are relevant to deciding whether a statute is constitutional are in contrast to the position of the Supreme Court of Canada in cases such as Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 SCR 1101, and should be very nutritious food for thought for those who are skeptical of the Bedford requirement of deference to trial judges. Justice Eledman’s comments on identifying statutory purpose (and in particular the role of general statements of purpose in the legislation) are also very interesting.

Overall, based on this one decision, I think that Canadians have a great deal to learn from Australians. Admittedly, the length of the High Court’s decisions is a deterrent ― Unions NSW is about 85 pages long, and I take it that it’s pretty short by Australian standards. That’s the cost of so many judges delivering full individual reasons. But the upside is that interesting ideas don’t get swept under the carpet in the process of getting to a set of reasons many judges can sign onto. I’m not saying the Supreme Court of Canada should go back to having each judge deliver his or her own reasons (though I wonder sometimes) but, at any rate, reading the Australian decisions may well be worth our while. In particular, the willingness of the Australian judges to keep a legislature accountable for imposing limits on the freedom of political expression without justification is a welcome reminder that their Canadian counterparts can do much more to protect individual rights in the electoral realm, and elsewhere.

Affidavi

Why I oppose the Law Society of Ontario’s “statement of principles”

I have repeatedly argued, here and elsewhere, that the Law Society of Ontario’s requirement that its members “acknowledge[] [an] obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in your behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public” by means of a “statement of principles” is wrong in principle, illegal, and unconstitutional. Fortunately, Ryan Alford and Murray Klippenstein are challenging the validity of the Law Society’s demands, backed by the Canadian Constitution Foundation. For my part, I have provided an affidavit for their application (which has been served on the Law Society, but not filed with the court just yet), primarily to illustrate that the “statement of principles” policy applies far more widely than do non-discrimination obligations under the Ontario or federal human rights legislation, to which the Law Society has been endeavouring to misleadingly equate it.

But of course the affidavit is also an opportunity to explain why I oppose the Law Society’s demands, and will not comply with them, so I thought it worthwhile to reproduce an adapted version of it here. (I have removed some of the affidavit-y bells and whistles, so that it reads more like a normal post, and have added some links.) Of course, since an affidavit is meant to be a personal statement, not legal argument, it is a more personal and less argumentative text than my normal posts. Here goes.


I am a Senior Lecturer (a position equivalent to that of an Assistant or Associate Professor) at the Auckland University of Technology Law School. I hold degrees in civil law and common law (BCL/LLB (Hons)) from the McGill University Faculty of Law, as well as a Master’s degree (LLM (Legal Theory) and a doctorate (JSD) from the New York University School of Law.

I was called to the Bar in June 2010 and have been a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, now the Law Society of Ontario, (the “Law Society”) in good standing ever since. However, I am not and have never been a practicing lawyer. From September 2010 to August 2016, I was a full-time student; since August 2016, I have been a full-time academic. I have no clients and no employees. To my knowledge, no one among my co-workers is a fellow licensee of the Law Society. I have resided in New Zealand since August 2016, and have not resided in Ontario since August 2010.

My Interest in Freedom of Conscience and the Rights of Others

My research interests range broadly across constitutional and administrative law, with a focus on Canada. Among the areas on which I have published is the freedom of conscience and religion. My LLM thesis, subsequently published as a peer-reviewed article, was concerned with religious exemptions and the Rule of Law, exploring the importance of individual conscience in reconciling the claims of religious believers and the demands of legal conformity. Another of my peer-reviewed articles argued that the reference to the Queen in the Canadian citizenship oath infringes the freedom of conscience of those republicans who are required to take it.

In addition to scholarship, I have written about freedom of conscience and religion in multiple posts on the award-winning blog Double Aspect, which I created in 2012, of which I first was the sole author (until July 2018) and now am a co-author. In particular, I have been critical of various attempts in Québec to deprive state employees of their right to wear so-called “ostentatious religious symbols”. I have also published an op-ed on this issue. I also published multiple posts on freedom of conscience of republicans objecting to the citizenship oath.

In this work, as well as in writing on a number of other issues (notably relating to freedom of expression in the electoral context), I have consistently championed the rights of individuals and groups with whom I profoundly disagree, including many whose views I reject. I have defended religious exemptions and other forms of accommodation for religious believers, but I am agnostic. I have defended the freedom of conscience of republicans, but I am a monarchist. I have defended the freedom of expression of student movements and trade unions, but I strongly disagree with the aims of both.

The Statement of Principles Requirement

At the December 2, 2016 meeting of Convocation, the Law Society adopted the requirement that each licensee “create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges [his or her] obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in [his or her] behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public”.

I learned of the adoption of the Statement of Principles requirement after the fact, via an e-mail sent by the Law Society on September 13, 2017, entitled “New Obligations for 2017 — Actions you need to take”. That e-mail said that: “You will need to create an abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges your obligation to promote equality, diversity generally, and in your behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients, and the public.” Until then, I had not received any correspondence from the Law Society on that topic or which alluded to it, and was not aware that Convocation had adopted the Statement of Principles requirement.

This requirement is applicable to me as a licensee of the Law Society, even though I am not, and never have been, practicing law in Ontario, and, to my knowledge, have no colleagues, students or subordinates who, are licensed to practice law in Ontario. As the Law Society explains on a “Frequently Asked Questions” page on its website, “[i]f you are licensed by the Law Society, you must meet this requirement regardless of whether you are currently practising law or providing legal services”.

I have not complied with the Statement of Principles requirement. I have provided the following explanation for my refusal to do so in my 2017 Lawyer Annual Report:

No existing legislation, primary or delegated, imposes on me or on any lawyer in Ontario an obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion. In particular, human rights legislation and the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit engaging in discrimination, but say nothing of promoting any particular values or ideals. The Law Society has no right to be demanding that its members acknowledge an obligation that does not exist, and one that could not be constitutionally imposed, since in a free society, the state or its instrumentalities, such as the Law Society, have no business imposing values on individuals, much less demanding that individuals promote values. The Law Society’s policy in this matter is no less totalitarian than the arbitrator’s letter denounced by a majority of the Supreme Court in National Bank of Canada v Retail Clerks Int’l Union, [1984] 1 SCR 269.

I have elaborated these views in a series of blog posts, listed below, which I invite the Law Society to read:

https://doubleaspect.blog/2017/10/12/lawless-society-of-upper-canada/
https://doubleaspect.blog/2017/10/19/ones-own-self-like-water/
https://doubleaspect.blog/2017/10/29/profession-of-power/
http://nationalmagazine.ca/Articles/November-2017/The-Law-Society-of-Upper-Canada-should-stick-to-it.aspx
https://doubleaspect.blog/2018/01/21/the-detestable-attestation/

Reasons for My Objection to the Statement of Principles Requirement

I consider myself a conscientious objector to the Statement of Principles requirement, and will not comply with it in the future. As noted above, I have a longstanding interest in freedom of conscience, and have displayed a consistent and public commitment to the rights and freedoms, especially those having to do with belief and expression of belief, of individuals and groups whose religious, moral, or political opinions I do not share. I claim the same freedom for myself.

I regard the Statement of Principles requirement as a violation of my freedom of conscience, freedom of opinion, and freedom of expression. The requirement states that I must promote specific values: equality, diversity, and inclusion. I believe that promoting values requires me to hold them. Otherwise, this promotion would be insincere; indeed, it would be a lie. And it is my sincerely held belief that, as a free individual, I must only hold those values that I freely choose for myself, and must not embrace those values imposed by an authority exercising coercive powers conferred by the state — i.e. the Law Society.

My fundamental belief that a free individual must choose his or her own values, think for him- or herself, and reject the authorities’ views of what he or she must believe in, which animates my scholarship and blogging on freedom of conscience and compels my refusal to comply with the Statement of Principles requirement is a product, in part, of family upbringing, and in part of my broader philosophical views.

As to the former, I was born in what was still the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and my parents took pride in ensuring that my brother and I grew up speaking Russian at home and aware of Russian history after our move to Canada. Part of my parents’ endeavours — indeed a very substantial part — involved exposing us to the stories of Soviet dissidents, people who, in various ways, stood up to a brutally repressive regime for their right to believe and to say their own, rather than the regime’s truth. The circumstances of a free and democratic society such as Canada are hardly comparable to those of the Soviet Union, but the moral imperative to live the truth as one sees it is no less pressing in this more benign setting.

As to the latter, I have been heavily influenced by Lord Acton’s liberalism, and, in particular, his admiration for “[t]he true apostles of toleration” — “not those who sought protection for their own beliefs, or who had none to protect; but men to whom, irrespective of their cause, it was a political, a moral, and a theological dogma, a question of conscience involving both religion and policy”. Hence my advocacy for the freedom of conscience and expression of those with whom I disagree; but one can still, I trust, be a defender of toleration while claiming its benefits for oneself. Lord Acton summarized the role of freedom of conscience in modern history thus:

With the decline of coercion the claim of Conscience rose, and the ground abandoned by the inquisitor was gained by the individual. There was less reason then for men to be cast of the same type; there was a more vigorous growth of independent character, and a conscious control over its formation. The knowledge of good and evil was not an exclusive and sublime prerogative assigned to states, or nations, or majorities.

It is my most deeply and conscientiously held belief that I must defend “the ground gained by the individual”, and the individual’s prerogative to maintain his or her independent character. I must resist if I can, and certainly lend no support to the attempts of “states, or nations, or majorities” — including a majority of the Benchers of the Law Society — to claim for themselves the “sublime prerogative” of knowing good and evil, and cast those subject to their jurisdiction all of the same type.

In addition to this overall outlook, I believe that my professional position as a scholar means that I must resist any attempt to make me adhere to or promote specific values chosen by an external authority. Academic freedom — which I regard not only as an entitlement but also as a responsibility — is a right, and arguably a duty, to pursue truth, however uncomfortable or unpleasant it might be to authorities and others. This pursuit, in my opinion, is incompatible with an undertaking to promote specific values. If my research leads me to conclusions that I or others regard as incompatible with or even opposed to a given value, so much the worse for the value in question.

I would add that, at a high level of generality, I find the values to which the Statement of Principles requirement refers attractive. However, my understanding of these general values is quite different from that which animates the Statement of Principles requirement. I believe in equality before the law, and reject the value of an equality of outcomes. I believe that diversity is primarily desirable if it embraces a plurality of views and perspectives on human flourishing, and not only of demographic backgrounds. Similarly, I believe that inclusion must extend to those who think, and not only those who look, unlike the majority. As a result, expressing support for these values, at the command of the Law Society, would risk communicating adherence to beliefs that I do not hold, and would thus force me to express statements I would not otherwise express.

Concluding observations

As explained above, I refuse to comply with the Statement of Principles requirement. I regard it as incompatible with my rights and duties as a free person, my professional responsibilities as a scholar, and, above all, my conscience.

If the requirement that I hold and promote values chosen by the Law Society is not repealed or invalidated, I will cease being a member of the legal profession in Ontario. This is not an outcome I desire — I would not have paid substantial fees for years for the privilege of this membership which is not necessary for my academic position and from which I derive no financial gain if I did not value the connection with the profession. However, I simply cannot remain a member of the legal profession in Ontario if to do so would violate some of my most deeply held conscientious beliefs.


We’ll see what happens with this. In any case, I am very grateful to Professor Alford and Mr. Klippenstein, as well as Asher Honickman who is litigating the case, and the CCF for fighting the good fight. And don’t forget that, in parallel, there is another front on which this fight can be fought ― the upcoming election for benchers of the Law Society. Vote, and throw the bums who imposed the “statement of principles” requirement out!

Look, Look, over There!

What role should comparative law play in constitutional adjudication in Canada?

This is, I think, the last post I write on Frank v Canada (Attorney-General), 2019 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court held that denying the franchise to Canadians who have been resident abroad for more than five years is unconstitutional. I summarized the decision here, commented on it here, and added further comments on the issue of expatriates’ supposed lack of connections to individual ridings here. In this post, I address a further issue that I left out so far, because it is only tangentially related to the question of the constitutionality of disenfranchising expatriates: that of the significance of foreign jurisdictions’ approaches to this issue.

In their dissenting opinion, Justices Côté and Brown invoke the “limits adopted by other Westminster democracies in which election regimes are, as here, structured around geographically defined electoral districts” [164] as support for the proposition that disenfranchising Canadians after five years abroad is reasonable. They mention, specifically, three other “Westminster democracies” ― the United Kingdom itself, as well as Australia and New Zealand. They note, by way of a rejoinder to the majority’s dismissal of this argument (on which more presently), that “[a]t different times in its history, Canada would well have taken some lessons from other countries” ― or at least from New Zealand, which enfranchised its aboriginal citizens (albeit in a way that radically under-represented them) and women well before Canada did. For Justices Côté and Brown, the fact that peer democracies “have adopted comparable time limits on voting for long-term non-residents … provide[s] compelling evidence” [167] for the proposition that the Canadian law they are examining is rational, and therefore constitutional.

Chief Justice Wagner, for the majority, is not impressed with this. For one thing, he insists that that the dissent’s comparisons do not really work in its favour. The United Kingdom only disenfranchises its expatriates after fifteen years, not five; meanwhile, “in Australia, the voter’s right can be extended indefinitely upon application, while New Zealand’s three-year limit is reset each time the non-resident returns to the country”. [74; hyperlinks added ― oddly, I think, the Chief Justice provides no citations.] Thus, disenfranchising expatriates after five years of non-residence (even if they visit Canada during this period) is a harsher approach than that taken by the countries on which the dissenters want to rely. (The dissenters, for their part, dismiss this as “minutiae of policy preferences of Canadian legislators (and, for that matter, legislators in Australia and New Zealand) on matters about which this Court as an institution has little comparative expertise”. [166])

More fundamentally though, the Chief Justice is skeptical about whether there is anything at all to be learned from the experience and choices of other jurisdictions: “I place little stock”, he writes, “in comparisons with other countries for the purpose of determining whether this legislation is constitutional.” [74] Whatever may be done elsewhere, it need not be a rational response to the particular problems that Parliament purports to be solving by limiting the right of Canadians abroad to vote, or that it is the least restrictive option available. Besides, “Canada is an international leader” [62] when it comes to enfranchising citizens to whom other countries deny the vote (such as prisoners), and part decisions of the Supreme Court paid little heed to what other countries do. For the dissent, these are “highly political, rhetorical arguments … that … stand in tension with the majority’s own invocation of internationalism and of a ‘globalized’ world of connectivity and communication”, [167] and which smack of “exceptionalism”. [166]

There are some important questions here. Should we, contrary to the Chief Justice, “place stock in comparisons with other countries” when assessing the constitutionality of legislation? Are there particular areas where we might want to make exceptions to whatever general principle we adopt ― for example, on account of Canada’s being “an international leader”? And if we ought to be looking at comparative materials, how should we go about it?

On the general issue of the relevance of comparative law, my answer is “it’s complicated”. Where the interpretation of constitutional text is concerned, being a public meaning originalist, I think that foreign or international materials can assist a Canadian only insofar as there is evidence that they would have been understood to bear on text’s meaning at the time of its enactment. That might sometimes be the case, especially with the Charter, but the evidence has to be provided whenever an argument about the relevance of such materials to the question at hand is made. Moreover, the simple existence, somewhere in the world, of a particular view about the meaning of a right that might have been “within the contemplation of the framers of the Charter“, as the Supreme Court put it in Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn v British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27, [2007] 2 SCR 391, is not enough. What needs to be shown is that this particular interpretation was actually understood as the one the Charter itself would bear.

When it comes to the application of section 1 of the Charter, which allows legislatures to limit rights, provided that the limitation is a “reasonable” one and “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”, the issue is no longer one of interpretation (except insofar as the terms of section 1 itself have to interpreted). Here, I think that international and comparative materials may cast some light on what may be acceptable “in a free and democratic society”. However, the views of other free and democratic societies are not dispositive on the question of what is actually reasonable and demonstrably justified in the specific context in which rights are being limited in Canada. The Chief Justice is quite right to insist that the analysis has to proceed with reference to the Canadian circumstances, including (but not limited to) the objective for the sake of which a Canadian legislature is seeking to limit rights. Sometimes, the circumstances of other jurisdictions will be similar enough to make their experiences and choices interesting; sometimes they will not be.

Smug dismissals on the basis that Canada is a “world leader” are unwise, if for no other reason that one can only be such a leader if the direction in which the world is supposed to move is clear, and this will rarely be obvious in rights cases. But, at the same time, claims the effect that, since some respectable jurisdictions restrict rights in a particular way, it is rational and therefore permissible, for Canada to do likewise are similarly unhelpful. Such claims ignore local circumstances and, crucially, the textual requirement of section 1 that limitations on rights be demonstrably justified. “Other people do it” is not a demonstration; it is, at most, a relevant consideration for such a demonstration. To insist that, ultimately, a Canadian government defending a Canadian statute limiting the rights protected by the Canadian constitution demonstrably justify this limitation is not a rhetorical, let alone a political move. It is nothing less than what the constitution itself, in no uncertain terms, requires.

Still, foreign laws might be of some, albeit limited, interest to Canadian courts in Charter cases. This brings me to the question of how Canadian judges should consider them. Here, I’m afraid the Frank dissent offers a good lesson in how not to do it. First, one should not cherry-pick a few examples that seem to support one’s preferred position. Why focus on the UK, Australia, and New Zealand? They are, we are told, “Westminster democracies in which election regimes are, as here, structured around geographically defined electoral districts”, but why are “Westminster democracies” the only relevant ones here? The electoral systems of the United States and France, for example, are also “structured around geographically defined districts. Why should we ignore them?

Second, one should not cherry-pick aspects of those foreign laws to which one refers either. If one wants to invoke a foreign law as a model, one doesn’t get to dismiss aspects of that law that don’t support one’s conclusions as “minutiae of policy preferences”. The fact that Australian citizens can actually vote from abroad, so long as they keep making the relevant annual applications, and that New Zealand citizens and permanent residents can reset their respective disenfranchisement clocks by simply visiting the country considerably undermines the point that the Frank dissent attempts to make by appealing to them.

Third, one really shouldn’t misunderstand the foreign law on which one relies, or present it in a way that is misleading. I’m not sure which of these to things Justices Côté and Brown do in Frank, but in any case, New Zealand, unlike the UK and Australia (and the US and France) uses a proportional electoral system. It does have “geographically defined electoral districts” that ensure local representation, but it’s the party vote that determines the composition of the House of Representatives, so I think that it’s just wrong to equate this system to Australia’s or the United Kingdom’s ― or Canada’s. (Conversely, if New Zealand is an apt comparison, why not Germany, on whose system New Zealand’s is closely modelled?)

In short, when judges choose to embark on a consideration of comparative law, they must do their best to ensure that this endeavour is not be partial ― either in the sense of having a pre-determined result in mind, or in the sense of being incomplete. Of course, there are limits to what judges can do in looking at other jurisdictions. Some help is sometimes available to them ― for example, in the shape of reports of the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission ― but this will not always be enough. I think it is also fair to ask whether some countries’ experiences ought to carry more weight than those of others in the minds of Canadian judges. I’m not sure how to answer that question though, other than to point out the obvious fact that similarities, or lack thereof, between Canada’s constitutional texts and those of another jurisdiction’s constitution ought to matter in assessing the interest that jurisdiction’s law can have for Canadian judges. But choosing, or appearing to choose, only a few jurisdictions favourable to one’s inclinations, or giving a partial picutre of their law so as to bolster one’s conclusions, or both, is not good enough.

Comparative law has a place in constitutional adjudication in Canada. However, this place should be limited, and carefully circumscribed. The fact that some other countries limit the rights of their citizens in a particular way does not, by itself, mean that it is appropriate for a Canadian government to limit the rights of Canadians likewise. Moreover, we must be sure of understanding foreign law before invoking it in support of the limitation of our constitutional rights. The Frank dissent, ought to serve as a warning in this regard.

One last point. The strong disagreement about the role of comparative law between the majority and the dissent in Frank helps us think through important questions that are relevant in a variety of constitutional cases. It is a reminder, in the face of some recent grumblings, that allowing debates among judges to be publicly aired enriches our law and improves it.

Civics, Feelings, and Politics

Expatriates’ alleged lack of connection to particular ridings is not a good reason to disenfranchise them

When it held, in Frank v Canada (Attorney-General), 2019 SCC 1 (summarized here), that denying the franchise to Canadians who have been resident abroad for more than five years is unconstitutional, did the Supreme Court go with “feelings over civics”? Did it decide the case in a way that ignores the fact that Canadians vote not for national parties but for candidates in local constituencies, to which expatriates are not meaningfully connected, even if they maintain, as the Court’s majority said, a “profound attachment” to Canada? Over at Routine Proceedings, Dale Smith argues that that’s precisely what the Court did. I disagree.

As Mr. Smith sees it, “five of seven justices of the Supreme Court failed to properly understand the importance of constituency-based democracy”. He also faults the government’s lawyers “for not making the case adequately either”, “and virtually all of the commentary” on Frank, including presumably my comment, for ignoring the issue. Yet in his view, it ought to have been a decisive consideration:

[W]e vote for local representatives. We don’t vote for parties, or party leaders, no matter what we may have in mind when we go into the ballot box – we mark the X for the local candidate, end of story. For an expat, it’s not the connection to Canada that should be at issue – it’s the connection to the riding, because that’s how we allocate our votes.

One might, of course, reproach the government lawyers for failing to emphasize this particular rationale for disenfranchising Canadians abroad. The Frank majority, even on this view, is blameless, because it wasn’t at liberty to sustain the disenfranchisement on the basis of a justification that the government did not even put forward. Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that limits on Charter rights, including the right to vote, must be “demonstrably justified” ― and as the Supreme Court has long held, it is the government that must carry out the demonstration. But there are other reasons, based in both what we might (loosely) call civics and feelings, as well as some realism about politics, that mean that, had the government chosen to make connection to the riding as the hill its case would die on, this case would be every bit as dead as it now is.


Start with the civics. Mr. Smith is quite right that, in point of law, we vote for local representatives, not for national parties or their leaders. Whether this ought to matter as much as he suggests, I will discuss below, when I turn to politics. But it’s important to consider a couple of other legal issues.

First, though there seems to be a good deal of confusion or even obfuscation on this point, the Canada Elections Act already takes care of the need for a connection between a Canadian voting from abroad (who may be a short-term expatriate, a long-term one previously allowed to vote, such as a diplomat’s family member, or a newly-enfranchised long-term expatriate). Paragraph 223(1)(e) provides that, when applying to be registered as an elector resident outside Canada and requesting to vote by special ballot, a would-be voter must provide the Canadian address to which his or her vote will be tied. Once the choice has been made, section 224 prevents the voter from changing it. This prevents forum shopping, as it were, and seems a sensible regulation.

Now, there is a range of options for the prospective voter from abroad to choose from:

the address of the elector’s last place of ordinary residence in Canada before he or she left Canada or the address of the place of ordinary residence in Canada of the spouse, the common-law partner or a relative of the elector, a relative of the elector’s spouse or common-law partner, a person in relation to whom the elector is a dependant or a person with whom the elector would live but for his or her residing temporarily outside Canada.

It has been put to me that the breadth of this range is excessive and gives the elector too much choice. If Parliament agrees, it can eliminate some superfluous options by legislation; this should not be constitutionally problematic. But I don’t think that Parliament should do this. On the contrary, giving the voter the ability to tie his or her vote to a former residence or a family member’s one makes it more likely that the elector will choose to vote at the particular place in Canada to which he or she is feels the strongest connection, which will not be the same for all expatriates, and which each voter is much better positioned to figure out when registering than Parliament when legislating.

Second, one must keep in mind that when it comes to voters in Canada, the law does not require any sort of evidence of a connection between the voter and his or her riding other than the fact that the voter resides there. Perhaps that’s because residence is simply deemed to be determinative of the community to which the voter belongs. But this seems a very rough assumption, especially in today’s urbanized world, in which many ridings are quite compact and the boundaries between them, fluid. A voter might be live in a bedroom community or a residential neighbourhood, but work in a downtown in a different riding, and perhaps have other attachments in yet a third one. It is, to say the least, not obvious which of these the voter is genuinely connected to. Residence, arguably, is only the most easily administrable way of sorting voters into ridings (both at the point of counting them through the census and at the point of registering them), simply because it tends to be more stable than other connections. As Chief Justice Wagner, writing for the Frank majority, put it, “residence can best be understood as an organizing mechanism for purposes of the right to vote”. [28] It is nothing more than that.


This brings me to what Mr. Smith might calls “feelings”. He and others who defend the disenfranchisement of Canadians abroad are very quick to demand that expatriates meet conditions that are not imposed on other Canadians to qualify for the franchise. Whether it be some subjective connection to a riding or to Canada as a whole, or knowledge about the local state of affairs, or tax liability, or subjection some undefined but substantial number laws, not all residents will meet these conditions that are said to justify denying the franchise to expatriates. But no one thinks to inquire into whether they really do, and no one, I’m pretty sure, would accept (re-)introducing tests of this nature into our election laws. Expatriates are the only people whom people judge on such criteria.

Indeed, it is not so much a judgment as prejudice. Expatriates are simply assumed to fail such tests ― and arguments to the contrary are dismissed as “feelings”. Mr. Smith guesses that Canadians who live abroad cut themselves off from communities where they used to live, or have family, or intend to return (or all of these things). Why? My personal experience, for what that’s worth, is that I keep up with the news from Québec and Montreal (and occasionally write on Québec-specific issues), more than from other provinces. Do I specifically track the news for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Westmount, where my parents live and I will vote in October, if I can be bothered? Not particularly, but then again, I wouldn’t even if I actually lived there. To say that I’m not a suitable voter for this reason would be applying a groundless double standard.

And speaking of double standards (and, I suppose, of civics), it’s worth noting that pursuant to section 222 of the Canada Elections Act some long-term expatriates are already allowed to vote: namely, members and employees of the Canadian forces, federal provincial public servants, employees of “international organization[s] of which Canada is a member and to which Canada contributes, as well as anyone who “lives with” such voters. The rationale for this is, presumably, that all such persons ― not just public servants, mind you, but their family members too ― are deemed to maintain a connection with Canada that other expatriates lack. Yet even assuming that this is so, is it remotely plausible that such persons (who, if anything, probably tend to be more mobile than the average voter even when they live in Canada) maintain their special connections to their home ridings? I really don’t think this is plausible, and so, the invocation of the riding connection as a justification for disenfranchising some, but not all, expatriates is another sort of unwarranted double standard.


Let me finally turn to politics ― and, specifically, to the need to be realistic about it. If we want to understand the rules of elections and government formation in Canada, we must keep in mind that each voter only casts a ballot for a local representative, not (directly) for a party or Prime Minister. But if we want to figure out whether Parliament is justified in preventing a person or a class of persons from voting, I don’t think it makes sense to pretend, as Mr. Smith asks us to, that this is all that matters. The reality, as he more or less acknowledges, is that what we “have in mind when we go into the ballot box” ― or at least the voting booth, for the less acrobatic among us ― very much has to do with parties and, especially, their leaders, for most voters.

Political parties themselves know this. The big ones tried to prevent to keep the small ones from getting their names on ballot papers, until the Supreme Court wisely put an end to that in Figueroa v Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 37, [2003] 1 SCR 912, because candidates not identified with parties get fewer votes. They give pride of place to party names, logos, slogans, and leaders in their advertisements. They make sure their MPs have lookalike websites in party colours. Local candidates are often little more than props for a leader’s tour. I’m too lazy to look for the relevant research (if it exists) right now, but as a not-so-wild guess, I’m inclined to think that many voters don’t even remember the name of their local candidate when they go vote. This may be regrettable, but the parties themselves have ensured that it doesn’t matter; what does matter is the party identification on the ballot paper.

One key reason for this is that election campaigns are largely national events, not local ones. (By way of thought experiment, imagine we didn’t hold simultaneous general elections, but renewed the House of Commons with staggered elections, one riding at a time. Our politics may well be quite different ― and more local. But of course we don’t do that.) The centrality of leaders’ personalities to election campaigns makes this unavoidable, and an even starker phenomenon than in the past. But even to the (limited) extent that voters are preoccupied with actual issues rather than personalities, the issues are largely national in scope. This is perhaps especially the case in federal elections, since Parliament’s powers are, by design, largely those that concern the country as a whole. Admittedly Parliament doesn’t always keep to its jurisdiction. Even when it does, Justice Rowe points out in his concurring reasons that “federal policy can impact different geographically defined communities in different ways”. [89] Still, federal elections aren’t about the quality of your local school or the regularity of garbage removal from your street. Most voters, especially in federal elections, just aren’t especially concerned with riding-level matters. To say that expatriates, and only expatriates, ought to be disenfranchised because they aren’t is, once again, to apply an unwarranted double standard.


The existing law already ensures that Canadians voting from abroad cast their ballots in the ridings to which they have the strongest connections. At the same time, it does not require the existence of a very meaningful connection between any voters, including those resident in Canada, and their ridings. The idea that expatriates should be prevented from voting because they lack such a connection is thus a double standard. Moreover, Canadian elections, especially federal ones, aren’t local affairs anyway. For all these reasons, had the government argued that Parliament was entitled to deny expatriates the franchise because of their supposed detachment from the ridings in which their votes would be counted, it would have fared no better than it actually did in Frank.

Maryniuk on Doré

The Supreme Court’s decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 SCR 395 continues to be one of its most consistently criticized. It was, for instance, one of the most frequently mentioned as being among the Court’s worst by the participants in our recent 12 Days of Christmas symposium. Even more recently, Doré and the concept of “Charter values” as the touchstone of judicial review of administrative decisions implicating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the subject of a fascinating discussion between Justices Lauwers and Sossin, expertly moderated by co-blogger Mark Mancini, at this weekend’s Runnymede Conference.

So it is a real pleasure for me to announce that we are shortly going to publish a guest post on Doré by Jonathan Maryniuk, a lawyer with Kuhn LLP who, among other things, represented Trinity Western University in its challenge the denial of accreditation to their proposed law school before the courts in British Columbia and the Supreme Court. This has, of course, given Mr. Maryniuk an opportunity to reflect a great deal on the Doré approach, which was crucial in that litigation, and I am very much looking forward to his sharing his insights with us.

Doing Right on Rights

Why the Supreme Court was right to find the disenfranchisement of Canadians abroad unconstitutional

In my last post, I summarized the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions delivered in Frank v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1, which held that the denial of the franchise to Canadians who have resided outside the country for more than five years is unconstitutional. As noted there, I believe that the majority, whose opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Wagner was correct so to hold. In this post, I explain why, and also make some observations about the strongly-worded dissent by Justices Côté and Brown. To make my biases clear once again, I remind readers that I am a Canadian abroad myself, and have been for six of the past eight years. While I vote rarely and reluctantly, I am emotionally invested in the issue of whether my right to do so can be taken away. Feel free to discount the following accordingly.


While I am the subject of emotions, let me say this. Justices Côté and Brown assert that the denial of the right to vote to Canadians abroad “is not a distinction based on moral worth”. [168] By my lights, that’s precisely what it is. On their own view, it is the product of “normative conceptions of what the Canadian political community is, and how it can best be protected and made to flourish”. [139] The conception embraced by Parliament in enacting the provisions invalidated in Frank sees the Canadian political community as excluding Canadians abroad, who are consequently less worthy of the franchise. Indeed, they are, according to the dissent, a threat from which the community must be protected, since it is “unfair to Canadian residents for their lawmakers to be elected by long-term non-residents who have no connection of any currency to their electoral district”. [153]

This is utterly wrong. As the Chief Justice rightly observes, many Canadians who live abroad maintain strong ties with Canada (and, I would add, often with the local community where they used to live and, in many cases, intend to return). As the Chief Justice also says, “[c]onversely, there may be citizens who have never left Canada but whose subjective commitment to the country is much weaker and who are less well versed in local issues”. [68] Indeed, though it would be impolitic for a judge to say so, “may be” in this sentence should read “obviously are”. As, for example, Ilya Somin and Bryan Caplan respectively have shown, voters are both ignorant and irrational ― rationally so, but ignorant and irrational all the same. Yet we would not generally accept disenfranchising voters on that basis; we do not inquire into the degree of connection a voter has with his or her local community, or the country, before issuing him or her a ballot paper. It is only, it seems, in the case of expatriates that these things actually matter. To me, this is strong evidence that what is at work here is not really a concern with the fairness or integrity of Canada’s electoral system, but a judgment, or rather prejudice, about the moral worth of those Canadians who are taken to have left the community, and must “rejoin[]” [153] before being allowed to take part in the community’s affairs.

Now, it is true that most Canadians abroad do not, in fact, go to the hassle and the expense of requesting a special ballot and returning it to Elections Canada. This means, of course, that the idea of non-resident voters swamping elections and deciding them at the expense of residents is far-fetched if not entirely implausible. But more importantly, as the Chief Justice points out, this means that those who do take the trouble value their involvement in Canada’s political life ― probably more so than a great many of their resident fellow-citizens. In the Chief Justice’s words, they “demonstrate[] a profound attachment to Canada”, [75] and it seems absurd to pretend otherwise on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.


This brings me to another issue: that of the correct approach to deciding whether legislation is unconstitutional because it unjustifiably contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justices Côté and Brown issue what they regard as a profound challenge to the way we not only discuss but also think about the relationship between Charter rights and policies that interfere with them. They note that it is commonplace to speak of such policies as “infringing” or even “violating” rights, only for these “infringements” or “violations” to be upheld, or “saved” by applying section 1 of the Charter. Yet, as they further point out, section 1 provides that the Charter “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” ― limits, not infringements or violations. So we should stop talking about justified infringements, and talk about limits instead. The majority is not interested, observing that the words “limits” and “infringements” have long been used interchangeably. (The Chief Justice is probably too polite to note this, but I am not: Justices Côté and Brown themselves spoke in terms of “infringement” as recently as seven months ago, in their excellent dissent in Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32.)

I take the dissent’s textual point. The word section 1 uses is “limits”, and it arguably makes more sense to say that the state can justifiably limit rights, not that it can violate them. But I fail to see what great change to the way we actually think about rights and scrutinize the state’s possible interference with them follows from this. Contrary to some, indeed quite a few, of the participants in this blog’s recent 12 Days of Christmas symposium, Justices Côté and Brown show no interest in reconsidering the test for verifying the permissibility of limitations on rights that was first set out in R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103. They apply the same proportionality analysis, warts, subjectivity, and all, under the label of assessing the “limit” on the right to vote as the majority does when considering “infringement” of this right. They have much to say about the fact that the right to vote is a “positive” one, requiring legislation to “breathe[] life into” it, [142] but that it is true of many of the rights the Charter protects (notably, but by no means only, the various rights of criminal suspects and accused) and, more importantly, it simply does not follow that the legislation that “breathes life into the right” may not fail to do so to a constitutionally required standard. (Similarly, Justices Côté and Brown point out that the legislation imposing a five-year expiry period on expatriates’ franchise replaced that which gave no expatriates the vote. So what? The test of constitutionality is not whether Parliament comes closer to respecting the Charter than it once did, but whether it respects the Charter now.)

The real methodological disagreement between the dissent and the majority (as well as Justice Rowe’s concurrence) has to do with the level of deference each accords Parliament. The majority insists, at the outset, that “[a]ny limit on the right to vote must be carefully scrutinized and cannot be tolerated without a compelling justification”. [1] Although, as noted in yesterday’s post, it later wavers a little on this point, its approach is, indeed, one that refuses to take the government’s claims about the need for or usefulness of the legislation it examines on faith. By contrast, the dissent waxes deferential, “eschews rigid and technical application” [124] ― it’s not quite clear of what, but presumably of the justification requirements ―, and plays up “Parliament’s policy-making expertise”. [126]

Yet here the dissenters’ professed textualism fails them. To repeat, section 1 of the Charter says that “only such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (emphasis mine) can be countenanced. The constitutional text, therefore, requires a demonstration ― not judicial acquiescence on the basis that Parliament knows best. And this requirement, in turn, suggests that contrary to what Justices Côté and Brown say Charter rights can only be limited in order to deal with an identifiable problem, to address some specified mischief, and not merely because a legislature thinks that in an ideal political community these rights would be limited in this way. The enactment of the Charter, as a law superior to ordinary legislation, has taken that moral judgment out of the Canadian legislatures’ hands. (To be clear, this is a separate question from that of the permissibility of what used to be called “morals legislation”, which proscribes what the legislature sees as immoral behaviour, such as taking drugs. There is no argument that expatriates act immorally by voting.)

In short, by all means, let’s be careful with our language, and speak of reasonable limits on rights instead justified violations. But let’s also insist that limitations on rights, to qualify as reasonable, must be ones whose justification is capable of being demonstrated, rather than merely asserted, and is in fact demonstrated, rather than taken for granted. Indeed, I think that this substantive concern is rather more important than the semantic one. In Frank, it is the majority, not the dissent, that follows an approach that is closer to that required by the constitution.


In my view, the majority decided Frank more or less as it should have. It correctly insisted that any exclusion from the franchise except the one based on citizenship must be justified. Contrary to the dissent’s strident warnings, it does not follow that no exclusions could ever treated as reasonable limits ― only that the justification process for upholding these limits cannot be elided by saying that some limits on the right to vote must obviously be admissible. This goes even for the denial of the right to vote minors (which, as Ilya Somin, for example, has argued, is not as self-evidently reasonable as the dissenters would like us to think). I think that it would be quite easy to sustain the disenfranchisement of three-year-olds, the dissent’s scaremongering example, should anyone challenge it; but as for the denial of the vote to teenagers, I for one wouldn’t mind seeing the governments put through their justificatory paces.

The majority is also right to be skeptical of the government’s arguments based on an ill-defined “social contract” of which expatriates are allegedly no part. I’m not too impressed with the Chief Justice’s definition of Parliament’s objective in terms of “fairness” ― fairness is too capacious a word for my liking, and the dissent’s suggestion that Parliament was pursuing a currency of relationship between the voter and his or her community seems closer to the mark. But one should also acknowledge that objectives that are largely symbolic (or, as Justices Côté and Brown see it, moral) do not lend themselves to easy definition, and so inevitably compromise the quality of the Charter analysis. The majority’s skepticism about the existence of a rational connection between the objective of fairness and disenfranchisement of Canadians abroad is also warranted. Indeed, I would have liked the Chief Justice to have been bold enough to say that, given both the possibility that expatriates maintain current links with Canada and their Canadian communities, and the lack of any assessment of whether any other voters do so, disenfranchising expatriates alone based on their deemed lack of connection to Canada is actually irrational. But the Chief Justice is not the first judge not to want to go there.

I’ll live with that, because the Chief Justice ends up making the right arguments at the “minimal impairment” stage of the analysis. Like I had in criticizing the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in this case, he points out that Canadians abroad can and do maintain close links with Canada; that they are affected by Canadian laws and government policies; that, moreover, “Parliament can change laws on its own initiative and thus alter the extent to which Canadian legislation applies to non-resident citizens”, [72] so that one cannot invoke the limited scope of current extra-territorial legislation to deny expatriates the vote ― I had called this “let[ting] the statutory tail wag the constitutional dog”; and that in any event “attempting to tailor Charter rights to the extent to which citizens are burdened, or not burdened, by Canadian laws would be an impossible exercise”. [71] If all this is not enough to qualify the disenfranchisement of expatriates as irrational, than it certainly suffices, as the Chief Justice says, to show that it is grossly overbroad, and not “minimally impairing” of the right to vote.

The Chief Justice’s reasons are not perfect. He does, as the dissent points out, get somewhat carried away in patriotic praise for the Canadian democracy, and there are shades of what I’ve been calling “constitutionalism from the cave” in his claim that “a broad interpretation of” the Charter‘s guarantee of the right to vote “enhances the quality of our democracy and strengthens the values on which our free and democratic state is premised”. [27] Constitutional interpretation must aim at ascertaining the text’s meaning, not at strengthening values or anything of the sort. Still, what the Chief Justice’s opinion for the majority does is substantially in line with the constitutional text, despite its rhetorical imperfections. (And still on the subject of rhetoric, or style: can someone please ask the Chief Justice and his colleagues to stop using the initialism “AGC”? It is a recent innovation ― the Court hadn’t done it at all before 2010 ― and not a good one. It is ugly and has a jargon-y feel that is quite at odds with the Chief Justice’s stated desire to make the Court’s work more accessible, including to laypersons.) But as majority opinions of Supreme Court have gone in the last few years, the one in Frank is up there with the best.


The Supreme Court has held that Canadians who live abroad cannot be disenfranchised based on, in effect, stereotypes about their lack of relationship with their home country. This is a relief. In doing so, it has insisted on carefully and critically examining the government’s claimed reasons for limiting Charter rights, and this is a good thing too, one that doesn’t happen often enough. There is something to learn from the dissenting opinion, too, about our constitutional vocabulary, and I hope that this lesson is not lost just because the substance of that opinion is bitterly disappointing. But the constitution was upheld in Frank, and so right was done. May 2019 bring more of that.

“A Profound Attachment”

The Supreme Court holds that disenfranchising Canadians abroad is unconstitutional

Yesterday, the Supreme Court at last delivered its judgment on the constitutionality of disenfranchising Canadians abroad, Frank v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1. By five votes to two, the Court holds that disenfranchisement is indeed unconstitutional. This is, as I have long argued (especially in criticizing the decision to the contrary by the Court of Appeal for Ontario), the right result. Full disclosure, in case this is necessary: I am myself a Canadian abroad, and while I would not have been disenfranchised at the coming election under the rules the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional, and am only an occasional and reluctant voter anyway, I am emotionally invested in this issue.

Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.” The Canada Elections Act sets out the details of how this right can be exercised ― and denies it to some groups of citizens. One of these disenfranchised groups consists of Canadians who have not resided in Canada for more than five years, although those who are representatives of a Canadian government or members of the Canadian forces, as well as members of such persons’ families, are not subject to disenfranchisement.

The government conceded that denying their right to vote breached section 3 of the Charter, but contended that the breach was justified as a reasonable limit authorized by the Charter‘s section 1. The majority ― Chief Justice Wagner (who wrote the majority opinion) and Justices Moldaver, Karakatsanis, and Gascon ―, as well as Justice Rowe, who concurs, reject this view. In dissent, Justices Côté and Brown say that the denial of the franchise to Canadians abroad is justified.


Relying on the Court’s decision in Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), 2002 SCC 68, [2002] 3 SCR 519, which invalidated the disenfranchisement of long-term prisoners, the Chief Justice writes that the right to vote must be given a “broad and purposive interpretation”, and “any intrusions on [it] are to be reviewed on the basis of a stringent justification standard”. [25] The Chief Justice rejects deference to Parliament, insisting that “reviewing courts must examine the government’s proffered justification carefully and rigorously”. [43] Unlike in cases that involve “complex” or “nuanced” choices among competing priorities, deference “is not the appropriate posture for a court reviewing an absolute prohibition of a core democratic right”. [44] Later, however, when considering whether the prohibition is “minimally impairing” of the right, the Chief Justice grants that “some deference must be accorded to the legislature by giving it a certain latitude”. [66]

As for residency requirements for voting, they are “an organizing mechanism”, “an important device” [28] that helps structure our electoral system, but have no constitutional value in themselves: “In clear language, the Charter tethers voting rights to citizenship, and citizenship alone.” [29] In any case, there already are Canadian citizens who are allowed to vote from abroad, suggesting that residence within cannot be an implicit pre-condition for having the right to vote.

Applying the test for the justification of Charter infringements set out in R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103, the Chief Justice begins by rejecting the idea, accepted by the Ontario Court of Appeal, that “preserving the social contract” whereby citizens’ obedience to laws is exchanged for a say in making them as a pressing and substantial objective capable of justifying the infringement of rights. While Sauvé had invoked the language of social contract theory, correctly understood, it stands for the proposition “that deeming that a citizen has ‘withdrawn’ from the social contract is not a legitimate basis for denying him or her the right to vote”. [52] However, the Chief Justice accepts that “maintaining the fairness of the electoral system to resident Canadians”, [55] which he seems to interpret by focusing on the existence of a connection between voters and the Canadian polity, is an important governmental objective.

At the second stage of the Oakes test, Justice Wagner finds that the government “has not definitively shown that a limit of any duration” on the ability of Canadians to vote from abroad “would be rationally connected to the electoral fairness objective advanced in this case”, [60; emphasis in the original] but declines to reach a firm conclusion. He argues, however, that neither the existence of residence requirements for voting in provincial elections nor the prevalence of such requirements abroad make their imposition by Parliament rational, and observers that “there is no evidence of the harm that these voting restrictions are meant to address”, [63] or even any complaints about those non-resident citizens who already are able to vote.

As often, it is the next stage, originally described as that of “minimal impairment” although the word “minimal” has not been taken literally, that is crucial. The Chief Justice finds that disenfranchising Canadians after five years abroad, “[f]ar from being a measure that is carefully tailored so as to impair voting rights no more than is reasonably necessary, … seems to have been simply a ‘middle-of-the-road’ compromise”. [67] There is no “correlation between, on the one hand, how long a Canadian citizen has lived abroad and when he or she intends to return and, on the other hand, the extent of his or her subjective commitment to Canada”. [68] Indeed, whether the issue is knowledge of and commitment to Canada, the impact of Canadian laws on a given voter, many Canadians abroad will be better qualified as voters than those residing in the country. Chief Justice Wagner concludes by noting that “[a] non-resident citizen who takes the trouble to vote by way of special ballot … has demonstrated a profound attachment to Canada. We have nothing to gain from disenfranchising such citizens.” [75] In the same vein, he notes that any positive effects of this disenfranchisement are speculative, while the negative impact on those disenfranchised is real and present.


Justice Rowe agrees that disenfranchising Canadians who live abroad is unjustified, but writes separately to emphasize the “significance and centrality of residence to our system of representative democracy”. [84] He details the history of residency requirements in Canadian election legislation (including the slow expansion of voting rights for Canadians abroad), and pointedly rebukes the majority by claiming that “residence has been historically and remains today more than just an ‘organizing mechanism’. It is foundational to our system”. [90] As a result, Justice Rowe says, while “[s]ection 3 [of the Charter] protects the right to vote … it does not follow as a corollary that there is a right to vote in the constituency or province of one’s choosing”. [91] Provincial and territorial residency requirements, in particular, would be subject to different considerations than federal ones (including because provincial laws are more local in nature and applicability than federal ones).

Whatever might be justifiable in other cases, however, Justice Rowe concludes that the disenfranchisement of long-term expatriates is not. He accepts that it pursues the objective of electoral fairness, although he notes that fairness for resident citizens is being pursued at the expense of non-residents. Justice Rowe also accepts that fairness can reasonably be pursued by preventing “those who are largely unaffected (non-residents) [from] participating in decisions that would affect others (residents)”. [103] Passing over the question of whether the disenfranchisement of Canadians abroad is minimally impairing of their right to vote, he moves on to the balancing of its salutary and deleterious effects. The former, he finds, are “negligible”, [106] since very few expatriates actually vote. The latter are not. Expatriates who are disenfranchised “may not feel the local consequences of particular federal policies in the constituencies in which their votes would be counted, [but] they stand nonetheless to be affected by certain federal laws and policies, perhaps in life altering ways”. [107] As a result, the disenfranchisement of Canadians abroad is not justified.


Justices Côté and Brown dissent. They not only disagree with the outcome reached by the majority and Justice Rowe, but want to approach the issue quite differently. They stress that the right to vote “is a positive right which, unlike most Charter rights, requires legislative specification in order for the right to be operative”, [113; emphasis in the original] so that the denial of the franchise to expatriates is not the product of legislative action, but of a “failure to extend the right to vote” to them. [128] This right is also not absolute: “Nobody suggests that s[ection] 3 entitles three-year-old Canadian citizens to vote.” [114] Indeed, they deny that the legislative provisions at issue “disenfranchise” long-term expatriates, since they had not been allowed prior to these provisions’ enactment, or ever. They also accuse the majority (and, implicitly, any number of past judgments) of “distort[ing] the limitations analysis” [120] by speaking of a “breach” or “infringement” of the right to vote rather than of a “limitation” on this right, as the terms of section 1 of the Charter would suggest. (A breach, they insist, is caused by a limitation that is not justified.)

Thus the real question, Justice Côté and Brown argue, is whether the long-term expatriates’ right to vote has been reasonably limited. The way to answer this question is to apply the Oakes test. However, while they make a point of agreeing with the majority that the burden of justification under this test rests on the government, Justices Côté and Brown insist, citing the dissenting opinion in Sauvé (without acknowledging that they are relying on the dissent) on “a ‘flexible contextual approach’ … one that eschews rigid and technical application”. [124, citing Sauvé at [84]] They also argue that it is wrong to look for “a concrete problem or mischief” that rights-limiting legislation is meant to address, because it is “undeniable … that Parliament can constitutionally legislate in pursuit of, or in response to, considerations of political morality or philosophy”. [126] There is “moral nuance inherent in defining and defending the boundaries of rights — that is, in justifying rights limitations” — and, like “Parliament’s policy-making expertise”, it must be “afford[ed] due respect”. [126]

Justices Côté and Brown define Parliament’s objective as “privileg[ing] a relationship of some currency between electors and the communities in which they are eligible to vote”. [132] (In doing so, they spend four extensive paragraphs cautioning against reliance on statements by individual legislators during the course of parliamentary debate… and conclude by pointing to statements that support their understanding of the objective.) This objective “is clearly inspired by a particular moral philosophical understanding of the relationship between citizen and state in a democracy”. [140] Indeed, electoral “legislation is never designed to solve a problem or address a particular mischief. Rather, it breathes life into the right [to vote] so that it may be recognized and exercised.” [142] While limitations on the right to vote require justification, Justices Côté and Brown attack the majority for considering that, other than citizenship, “all other specifications [of this right] are necessarily unconstitutional”. [142] Justices Côté and Brown note that other groups are excluded from the franchise ― they mention citizens who have never resided in Canada and minors ― and argue that these exclusions too must be regarded as examples of Parliament’s permissible pursuit of philosophical objectives. Indeed, they say, majorities in Sauvé and here have acted in furtherance of philosophical views of their own.

Ultimately, ensuring a current relationship between voters and their communities is a pressing and substantial objective because it “ensures reciprocity between exercising the right to vote and bearing the burden of Canadian laws” [152] and “protects the integrity of the Canadian electoral system, which is founded on geographical representation”. [153] This integrity would be undermined by allowing people to vote in constituencies with which they lack a community of interest.

Justices Côté and Brown also consider that the limitation of the right to vote from abroad to those citizens who have not been outside Canada for more than five years is reasonable and therefore proportionate to Parliament’s objective. They insist that, under the majority’s reasoning, no time limit on voting rights could be upheld, including for provincial elections. They add that the majority is wrong to ignore the treatment of expatriates’ voting rights by New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom: “the majority’s patriotism risks descending into exceptionalism”, and blinding it to “some lessons” that “Canada would well have taken … from other countries” [166] (or at any rate from New Zealand, which enfranchised its aboriginal people and women well before Canada did). Indeed, the majority’s position is “highly political, rhetorical”, and “in tension with the majority’s own invocation of internationalism and of a ‘globalized’ world of connectivity and communication”. [167] As for the effects of the legislation, the deleterious ones are minimized since the denial of expatriates’ voting rights “is not … based on moral worth”, [168] while the salutary ones ― which consist in the attainment of Parliament’s objectives ― are considerable.


As I noted at the outset, I believe that the majority is correct (though Justice Rowe makes some valuable points about provinces and territories). The dissent, I confess, perplexes me. But this post is much too long as it is. I shall publish my comment separately ― and quickly, I hope.