Supreme Court

Decision Information

Camsell v Rabesca

Court Supreme Court
Date 1987-04-02
Other citations [1987] NWTR 186
File numbers SC 00172
Judge(s) Marshall
Location Yellowknife
Cases and statutes considered Cases considered:
Anderson, Re (1982), 43 B.C.L.R. 257, 21 M.P.L.R. 310 (S.C.)
Begg and Dunwich (Township.), Re (1910), 21 O.L.R. 94 (H.C.)
Brandon Election, Re; Wallace v. Fleming (1911), 20 Man. R. 705, 17 W.L.R. 207 (Co. Ct.)
Crilly v. Isley, [1987] A.W.L.D. 511 (Q.B.)
Duncan and Midland (Town), Re (1908), 16 O.L.R. 132 (C.A.)
Ellis and Renfrew (Town), Re (1911), 23 O.L.R. 427 (C.A.)
Gunn v. Sharpe, [1974] Q.B. 808, [1974] 3 W.L.R. 7, [1974] 2 All E.R. 1058 (Div. Ct.)
Hatch v. Oakland (Rural Mun.) (1910), 19 Man. R. 692, 14 W.L.R. 309 (K.B.)
Hawkins v. Smith (1884), 8 S.C.R. 677 [Ont.]
Hickey and Orillia (Town), Re (1908), 17 O.L.R. 317 (Div. Ct.)
Lamb v. McLeod, [1932] 3 W.W.R. 596 (Sask. C.A.)
Milner and Thorold (Township), Re (1911), 25 O.L.R. 420, 1 D.L.R. 540 (C.A.)
Morgan v. Simpson, [1975] Q.B. 151, [1974] 3 W.L.R. 517, [1974] 3 A11 E.R. 722 (C.A.)
Moss v. Blackburn (1986), 53 O.R. (2d) 429, 26 D.L.R. (4th) 312, 12 O.A.C. 387 (Div. Ct.)
Mullins and Windsor (City) (1975), 9 O.R. (2d) 729, 61 D.L.R. (3d) 601 (Div. Ct.)
Perry v. Morley (1911), 16 B.C.R. 91, 16 W.L.R. 691 (S.C.)
Pickett and Wainfleet (Township), Re (1897), 28 O.R. 464 (C.A.)
Pollard v. Patterson, [1975] 2 W.W.R. 211, affirmed [1976] 3 W.W.R. 270, [leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused 53 D.L.R. (3d) 215n]
R. v. Calgary (City) (1959), 29 W.W.R. 145 (Alta. Dist. Ct.)
R. v. Campbell (1909), 18 O.L.R. 269 (H.C.)
R. v. Ell (1953), 9 W.W.R. (N.S.) 161 (Alta Dist. Ct.)
R. v. Gee (1965), 51 W.W.R. 705 (Alta. Dist. Ct.)
R. v. Mantz, [1948] 2 W.W.R. 143 (Alta. Dist. Ct.)
R. v. Mitchell (1924), 55 O.L.R. 286 (H.C.)
R. v. Reid, 22 Sask. L.R. 595, [1928] 2 W.W.R. 436, [1928] 3 D.L.R. 747 (C.A.)
R. v. Tanner, [1950] 2 W.W.R. 581 (Alta. Dist. Ct.)
R. v. Wade, [1939] O.R. 537, [1939] 3 D.L.R. 424 (H.C.)
R. v. Wheatley, [1937] 1 W.W.R. 756 (Alta. Dist. Ct.)
R. and Skaret, Re (1981), 119 D.L.R. (3d) 497 (Alta. Q.B.)
Rickey and Marlborough (Twp.), Re (1907), 14 O.L.R. 587 (Div. Ct.)
St. Boniface Election, Re; Nuytten v. Strutynski, 47 Man. R. 239, (C.A.)
Salter and Beckwith (Township.) (1902), 4 O.L.R. 51 (H.C.)
Sharp and Holland Landing (Village), Re (1915), 34 O.L.R. 186, 24 D.L.R. 160 (C.A.)
Smith v. Baskerville (1914), 24 Man. R. 349, 6 W.W.R. 1074, 28 W.L.R. 484 (C.A.)
Stoddart v. Owen Sound (Town) (1912), 27 O.L.R. 221, 8 D.L.R. 932 (H.C.) [leave to appeal to Ont. C.A. refused 23 O.W.R. 165]
Storey v. Zazelenchuk (1984), 12 C.R.R. 261, 36 Sask. R. 103 (C.A.)
Vines v. Djordjevitch (1955), 91 C.L.R. 512 (Aus. H.C.)
Woodward v. Sarsons (1875), L.R. 10 C.P. 733
Woolmington v. D.P.P., [1935] A.C. 462, 25 Cr. App. R. 72, [1935] All E.R. Rep. 1 (H.L.)
Wright v. Koziak, [1981] 1 W.W.R. 449, 114 D.L.R. (3d) 549, 24 A.R. 255 (C.A.)

Statutes considered:
Liquor Act, S.N.W.T., 1983, C. 26, AS AMENDED, S. 40 (1)(A), 46 (1), 71
Interpretation Ordinance, R.O.N.W.T., 1974, C. I-3, SS. 16, 17;
Municipal Act, S. 13 (1)(C);
Ballot Act, S. 13;
The Consolidated Municipal Act (1903) 3 EDW. VII, CH. 19, S. 204
Decision information:

Abstract: Application for a declaration that the Liquor Plebiscite declaring Rae Edzo is void and calling a new election to be held - Petitioners cited irregularities in election procedure in the following areas as grounds for the application - 1) Late opening of a polling station - 2) Compilation of election lists - 3) Lack of interpretation services - 4) Confusion over residency requirements - 5) Advance poll not held - 6) Discrepancies in lists and in numbers of ballots cast - 7) Notice period too short, notice itself insufficient - 8) Oaths not administered - 9) Initialling of ballots.
Decision: Application dismissed - Irregularities are to be expected to some degree in any election - General adherence to statutes and regulations will suffice - Onus on the Petitioners to show that, on a balance of probabilities, irregularities affected the result - Court found no evidence that the outcome was affected by the irregularities that occurred - Irregularities were the result of necessity, custom and not an attempt to corrupt the process.
Subjects: Elections - Validity
Liquor control - Plebiscites

Decision Content

There is no document available for this decision.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.