The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has upheld residency requirements for certain election officer positions under the federal Elections Act.
The requirements from Elections Canada were challenged under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by a candidate who had applied for a position as a Returning Officer, a job he had held in the past.
He and his wife had considered moving to a new home and weighed the advantages and disadvantages of such a move. Ultimately, they decided to move to a different electoral district, resulting in the applicant losing his position as Returning Officer.
The focus of the application was on two sections of the Elections Act: ss. 22(4) and 24(4), which outlined the qualifications of election officers and the conditions under which the office of Returning Officer becomes vacant.
The court’s decision hinged on whether the residency requirements in the Act violated an individual’s liberty interests as protected by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter guarantees that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
The applicant argued that the right to choose where to live is fundamental to personal autonomy and that the residency requirements deprived election officers of their liberty in a manner not in accordance with fundamental justice.
The respondent — His Majesty the King as represented by the Attorney General of Canada — contended that the choice of residence is not a matter of profound personal decision deserving protection under s. 7.
The court ultimately ruled that an individual’s liberty interests were not implicated by the residency requirements in the Act. It found that the choice of residence did not reach the level of fundamental personal decisions recognized by previous Supreme Court of Canada decisions as deserving of constitutional protection under s. 7.
Thus, the court dismissed the applicant’s challenge.
This case illustrates the court’s interpretation of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its application to residency requirements for election officers under the federal Elections Act. The court determined that while personal autonomy and the right to make inherently personal choices are protected under s. 7, the choice of residence, in this case, did not fall within the narrow class of decisions deserving constitutional protection.
Neither party sought costs, so no costs were awarded.
For more information, see Drover v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 ONSC 5529 (CanLII)
