Quebec West Election Case (Price v. Power)

Quebec West Election Case (Price v. Power)

The Court held that (1) an objection alleging treating on polling day does not render the petitioner unqualified to vote unless there is a conviction or judicial finding and therefore the objection based on treating was properly dismissed; (2) an objection that the petitioner was not a person entitled to vote (distinct from disqualification by conviction) should have been decided on the merits and the quashing of that objection was erroneous; and (3) a cross-petition alleging undue influence in conclusionary terms was properly left to be met by particulars rather than struck out on preliminary objection.

Citation
(1909) 42 SCR 140
Parties
Respondent/appellant: William Price; Petitioner/respondent: Edward Neville, Junior; Respondent/appellant: William Power; Cross Petitioner/respondent: William Price
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 May 1909
Procedural Posture
Controverted Election (election Petition) / Appeal From Controverted Elections Court on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Appeal in Price v. Neville allowed in part without costs. Appeal in Power v. Price dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objections, Corrupt Practices, Treating, Undue Influence, Cross Petition, Particulars
Source Language
English
Election Law Preliminary Objections Corrupt Practices Treating Undue Influence Cross Petition Particulars

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Price

Respondent/appellant

Edward Neville, Junior

Petitioner/respondent

William Power

Respondent/appellant

William Price

Cross Petitioner/respondent

Procedural Posture

Controverted Election (election Petition) / Appeal From Controverted Elections Court on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner was a person entitled to vote at the election
  2. 2 Whether treating on polling day disqualifies a voter ipso facto or only upon conviction or judicial finding
  3. 3 Whether a cross-petition alleging undue influence was sufficiently particularized to be struck out on preliminary objection

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that (1) an objection alleging treating on polling day does not render the petitioner unqualified to vote unless there is a conviction or judicial finding and therefore the objection based on treating was properly dismissed; (2) an objection that the petitioner was not a person entitled to vote (distinct from disqualification by conviction) should have been decided on the merits and the quashing of that objection was erroneous; and (3) a cross-petition alleging undue influence in conclusionary terms was properly left to be met by particulars rather than struck out on preliminary objection.

Court Disposition

Appeal in Price v. Neville allowed in part without costs. Appeal in Power v. Price dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Judgment sustaining dismissal of objection 5 (treating) and vacating judgment as to objection 4 (status/qualification) with direction that objection 4 be disposed of on the merits
  • Cross-petition objection to paragraph alleging undue influence overruled; appeal by Power dismissed with costs