Ok, this may warrant a separate thread, but I will admit to being somewhat riveted by that. Not the least of which because I'm a little amused that a dead guy is still the respondent. (Yeah, yeah. I know why.)
As a layperson, I am really struggling to figure out how an argument that Prentice called an election early violates the applicant's Charter right to.... participate in a democratic election. While I understand that the argument is basically a proxy for "you made this four year election law, now honour it you gits", the Charter argument seems absurd on its face. In particular, I really don't buy Rigney's argument of "I was totally going to run as a candidate, your honour, but since I got caught with my pants down, my rights were breached". Basically, I agree with the court's statements at paragraphs 104-106.
I agree that the fixed term election law is little more than a dog and pony show, but I suspect that the only outcome of a successful appeal is that the government amends the Election Act to remove fixed term rules and put is back to the pre-2011 amendment. And while that may perhaps be the ultimate goal, it seems a bit of a waste to spend all this time and money to end up in the very same outcome even if you do win.
|