IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

The limits are not unconstitutional because they are unreasonably low, as the ONCA found, but instead because they are identical for very different types of third parties (from one voter to a citizen group with thousands of members) which violates the principles of equality of opportunity for equal participation and the principle of ensuring integrity to ensure public confidence principle of the S. [...] 3 is to grant voters “a voice in the deliberations of government as well as the idea of the right to bring one's grievances and concerns to -3- the attention of one's government representative”.1 The exercise of these rights is premised on informational and participatory rights that cover not only the act of casting a ballot, but also the period during which ideas are expressed and political force. [...] The analysis of the ONCA was focused only on whether the spending limit was too low, given that the Impugned Provisions extended the period during which they applied from six months before the issuance of a writ of election to 12 months before the writ. [...] The ONCA offered only a cursory treatment of the fact that the $600,000 limit, and $24,000 limit are the same for every third party, whether the third party is one individual voter, an organization comprised of a handful of voters, or an organization made up of thousands of voters. [...] As the majority of the ONCA points out, the Application Judge “referred to no evidence” and the Attorney General “refers to no evidence” and neither of the Attorney General’s experts, Professor Jansen and Mr.