Post Tagged with: "elections act"

Canadian federal election, 2015 by Open Grid Scheduler, Public Domain, https://flic.kr/p/z4ecuZ

The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 68: Mike Pal on What the Canadian Experience Teaches About the Intersection Between Election Law and the Internet

The world will be focused on the United States this week as the U.S. Presidential election is slated to take place on Tuesday, November 3rd. The role of social media has been in the spotlight in the US for months with calls for regulation, a range of responses from the major companies, and ongoing concerns about the immediate aftermath of the election and fears that their platforms could be weaponized if the winner is in dispute.

Canada had its own national election one year ago and enacted a range of reforms designed to address some of these issues. Mike Pal is a colleague at the University of Ottawa where he specializes in election law. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss the Canadian experience including what changes were made, whether they were effective, what more can be done, and what Canada might teach others about confronting the challenges that lie at the intersection between elections and the Internet.

Read more ›

November 2, 2020 — 2 comments — Podcasts

Supreme Court Upholds Election Publication Ban

A sharply divided Supreme Court of Canada this morning upheld an Elections Act provision that bans publication of election results before the close of all polling stations in that district.  The case stems from the posting of election results on a website during the 2000 election.  The majority of the court (written by Bastarache with concurring reasons from Fish) ruled that the infringement of freedom of expression is justified given the desire for informational equality among all voters.  The majority was unpersuaded by the ineffectiveness and inconvenience (to broadcasters) of the law, noting that "it cannot be allowed to override as important a goal as the protection of Canada’s electoral democracy."

As was the case in the Robertson v. Thomson copyright case, the dissent was written by Abella (there is nearly the same split in the court).  Justice Abella was entirely unpersuaded by the evidence marshalled to justify the limit on freedom of expression.  She states that

"Any evidence of harm to the public’s perception or conduct in knowing the election results from Atlantic Canada before they vote is speculative, inconclusive and largely unsubstantiated. The harm of suppressing core political speech, on the other hand, is profound. The benefits of the ban are, accordingly, far outweighed by its deleterious effects."

The dissent is also far more concerned with the interplay between the ban and new technologies.  

Read more ›

March 15, 2007 — 4 comments — News