Ontario Court of Appeal Rules Federal Stem system is constitutional

A panel of three judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed the constitutionalness of the Canada’s first election system in a ruling released on Monday.

The system, laid down in the Canada Elections Act, sees the candidate who receives the most votes in a certain driving or election district becomes the parliamentary member.

Voting honestly BC and the Springtide Collective for Democratic Society have argued in court that the first-Past-Post-post system violates the charter of rights and freedoms’ guarantee for effective representation.

The groups also said that the system leads to the under -representation of women and other groups in parliament, which violates the determination of the equality rights of the charter.

In a proportional representation system, the number of representatives that a political party chooses the percentage of the total vote that the party receives.

In November 2023, Ontario’s Supreme Court rejected the challenge of fair voices BC and Springtide. It said that although a proportional representation system would be an honest alternative to the current system, this is not required by the Constitution.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal of the province also rejected the most important arguments of the groups.

“The electoral system is not contrary to the voting right or the right to equality. It does not violate the charter,” said Justice Grant Huscroft in written reasons that were delivered on behalf of another judge in the panel.

“The arguments of the appellants that the electoral system violates the charter are essentially a re -packaging of failed political arguments such as violations of constitutional rights.”

Six graphs that reveal the story of the 2025 elections

Pen or pencil? Elections Canada says it doesn’t matter when throwing a ballot paper

The expert evidence “in support of those arguments, Huscroft wrote, wrote” “full of very disputable policy arguments about which reasonable disagreement is abundant, not only in the academic community, but among the general public.”

“This evidence shows the shortcomings of constitutional lawsuits when tackling disagreements about public policy,” he added.

The short answer to the argument that the election system violates the charter is that Canadian citizens are free to vote for everyone they choose, and for whatever reason, Huscroft added.

“There is no constitutional requirement that their individual choices gather in a way that reaches an ideal of representative diversity,” he wrote. “Neither the political party relationship nor the personal characteristics of the candidates who win elections are relevant for the constitutionalness of the electoral system.”

During the 2015 election campaign, the then leader Justin Trudeau promised that it would be the last federal elections that is being held under the first-Past-Post system.

Once in function, the Government of Trudeau left its promise to replace the system, however.

Honest voting BC and Springide argued that under the current system small political parties do not enjoy the success they deserve, creating a disadvantage for people who vote for them.

“I have no doubt that small political parties are doing badly in Canada,” Huscroft wrote. “They receive relatively few votes and invariably win few or no seats.”

The failure of a political party cannot open the door for a claim for constitutional story, he said.

“In short, the right to vote is the right to vote based on the election system in operation – whatever that system is, and regardless of the election results that can obtain,” he wrote.

Rekwirants also argued that the First-Past-the-Post system contributes to the under-representation of women and minorities in parliament.

Huscroft said it does not matter what kind of electoral system is, over or under-representation of certain demographic groups can occur from time to time to a greater or lesser extent.

He added that arguments based on representation lose sight of the fundamental fact: that people have the right to vote as they want.

“This is the essence of the freedom in the heart of voting rights,” he wrote.