Conservative Members of Parliament have filed a costs submission seeking $355,907.56 from the individual applicants who challenged election results in seven ridings. The submission refers to this as a “modest” amount that is a “small fraction of the actual costs” the MPs spent fighting the applications.
“This is an outrageous amount to request, given that the judge found that voter suppression did occur and that the Conservative Party database was the likely source of the call lists,” says Garry Neil, Executive Director of the Council of Canadians, which is supporting the applicants. “Each of the applications included a $1,000 security against costs, clearly a modest amount. Seeking over $350,000 is shameful, given the applicants were serving the public interest in this case.”
Not only is the Conservative Party seeking an unjustifiably exorbitant amount, it is seeking compensation for legal tactics the court referred to as “trench warfare in an effort to prevent this case from coming to a hearing on the merits.”
The Council of Canadians stepped forward to help these electors defend the most fundamental democratic right – the right to vote. While many Canadians have contributed, the Council has yet to raise sufficient funds to pay the already discounted legal fees the applicants incurred.
The MPs’ bills are being paid by the Conservative Party, while the Council of Canadians is fundraising to cover the applicants’ costs. But unlike the Council of Canadians, the Conservative Party operates with very generous subsidies from Canadian taxpayers in the form of the political contribution tax credit.
The Canada Elections Act allows individual electors to challenge elections results if their Charter-protected right to vote has been interfered with. Given the costs involved, however, it is impossible for any individual to actually challenge a result unless they are rich or assisted by a public interest organization. An award of costs of this size would further discourage individuals from protecting their rights.
The applicants have fifteen days to respond to the Conservative MPs’ costs submission. The judge will then make his final decision.
-30-
EXCERPTS FROM JUSTICE MOSLEY DECISION
Widespread Voter Suppression Took Place During the 2011 Election
“The ITO evidence confirms that there was a deliberate attempt at voter suppression during the 2011 election.” [177]
“I am satisfied that is has been established that misleading calls about the locations of polling stations were made to electors in ridings across the country, including the subject ridings, and that the purpose of those calls was to suppress the votes of electors who had indicated their voting preference in response to earlier voter identification calls.” [244]
I find that the threshold to establish that fraud occurred has been met by the applicants. [246]
…. ... I don’t doubt that the confidence rightfully held by Canadians has been shaken by the disclosures of widespread fraudulent activities that have resulted from the Commissioner’s investigations and the complaints to Elections Canada. [253]
[the voter suppression} calls appear to have been targetted towards voters who had previously expressed a preference for an opposition party (or anyone other than the government party),
Who Was Responsible
….[citing Penner’s evidence]… “ Access to a party’s central database is carefully controlled. The calls at issue in these proceedings are most likely to have been organized by a person or persons with: i) access to the central information system of a political party that included contact information about non-supporters; ii) the financial resources to contract voice and automated service providers to make such calls; and iii) the authority to make such decisions.” [183]
“I found the evidence of Mr. Penner helpful in that it was consistent with the picture that has emerged from the evidence as a whole; that there was an orchestrated effort to suppress votes during the 2011 election campaign by a person or persons with access to the CIMS database.”[184]
“I am satisfied … that the most likely source of the information used to make the misleading calls was the CIMS database maintained and controlled by the CPC, accessed for that purpose by a person or persons currently unknown to this Court. … the evidence points to elaborate efforts to conceal the identity of those accessing the database and arranging for the calls to be made ….. “ [245]
[It is important to appreciate that the Judge did not exonerate the Conservative Party, he merely stated that he made no finding as to its involvement. He acknowledged that it would be impossible for the Applicants to find the culprits.]
The Conservatives Did Everything They Could to Derail The Applications
“….. I would dismiss the motion to strike the applications on the ground of champerty. The motion was, in my view, an attempt to derail these applications before they could be heard and determined on the merits and was brought without justification.” [115]
“… it has seemed to me that the applicants [supported by the Council of Canadians] sought to achieve and hold the high ground of promoting the integrity of the electoral process while the respondent MPs engaged in trench warfare in an effort to prevent this case from coming to a hearing on the merits.” [261]
“Despite the obvious public interest in getting to the bottom of the allegations, the CPC made little effort to assist with the investigation at the outset despite early requests. I note that counsel for the CPC was informed while the election was taking place that the calls about polling station changes were improper. While it was begrudgingly conceded during oral argument that what occurred was “absolutely outrageous”, the record indicates that the stance taken by the respondent MPs from the outset was to block these proceedings by any means.” [262]
