Federal Court ruling on robocalls and electoral fraud | Kady O'Malley

| May 24, 2013


The judge’s ruling on the robo calls should allow the Council of Canadians and allies to announce victory. This is especially the case when looking at the awards of costs for the case where the judge goes as far as they can to award costs to the Council’s side. Also, the comments on trench warfare ascribed to the Conservatives is not exactly a positive remark from a judge.


Kady O’Malley has reported the following on the robo calls case:

“Although Mosley ultimately decided not to overturn the election results in the six ridings targeted by the applicants, he concluded that there was, in fact, evidence of fraud – and had little praise for either the arguments, or the tactics employed by the Conservative Party in its defence, which he summed up in his concluding findings on costs:”

These proceedings have had partisan overtones from the outset. That > was particularly evident in the submissions of the respondent MPs. > In reviewing the procedural history and the evidence and considering > the arguments advanced by the parties at the hearing, it has seemed to > me that the applicants 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. > > // > > 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 pollingstation 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. > > The preliminary stages were marked by numerous objections to the > evidence adduced by the applicants. The respondent MPs sought to > strike the applications on the ground that they were frivolous and > vexatious, to have them dismissed as champertous and to require > excessive security for costs, in transparent attempts to derail this > case.

The LatestT