Wilson v. Ross

Wilson v. Ross

The Appeal Committee erred in law by requiring direct testimony from electors that their votes were purchased; corrupt practice may be inferred from conduct viewed cumulatively and with regard to intent to improperly influence the election; the correct standard of review for the legal question was correctness; the Appeal Committee's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination consistent with directions to consider cumulative conduct, intent, and the existing evidentiary record.

Citation
2008 FC 1173
Parties
Applicant: Alphius J. Wilson; Applicant: Gilbert Hart; Applicant: Andrew Moore; Applicant: William A. Simpson; Respondent Norway House Cree Nation Election Appeal Committee: Eric Ross; Respondent Norway House Cree Nation Election Appeal Committee: Betsy Deaffie; Respondent Norway House Cree Nation Election Appeal Committee: Eleanor Monias; Respondent Norway House Cree Nation Election Appeal Committee: Gertrude Meikle; Respondent Successful Councillor: Eliza Clarke; Respondent Successful Councillor: Mike Muswagon; Respondent Successful Councillor: Langford Saunders; Respondent Band: Norway House Cree Nation
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Election Appeal Decision / Decision and Remittal to Appeal Committee for Redetermination
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed; decision of the Appeal Committee dated May 10, 2007 set aside; matter remitted to the Appeal Committee for redetermination
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practice, Standard of Review, Remittal, Procedural Fairness, Housing Allocations, Special Needs Funding
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Indigenous Law Election Law Judicial Review Corrupt Practice Standard of Review Remittal Procedural Fairness +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alphius J. Wilson

Applicant

Gilbert Hart

Applicant

Andrew Moore

Applicant

William A. Simpson

Applicant

Eric Ross

Respondent Norway House Cree Nation Election Appeal Committee

Betsy Deaffie

Respondent Norway House Cree Nation Election Appeal Committee

Eleanor Monias

Respondent Norway House Cree Nation Election Appeal Committee

Gertrude Meikle

Respondent Norway House Cree Nation Election Appeal Committee

Eliza Clarke

Respondent Successful Councillor

Mike Muswagon

Respondent Successful Councillor

Langford Saunders

Respondent Successful Councillor

Norway House Cree Nation

Respondent Band

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Election Appeal Decision / Decision and Remittal to Appeal Committee for Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appeal Committee erred in law in its interpretation of what constitutes corrupt practice
  2. 2 Whether direct evidence of an elector being promised or receiving a benefit in exchange for a vote is required to prove corrupt practice
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of review for the Appeal Committee's legal interpretation

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Committee erred in law by requiring direct testimony from electors that their votes were purchased; corrupt practice may be inferred from conduct viewed cumulatively and with regard to intent to improperly influence the election; the correct standard of review for the legal question was correctness; the Appeal Committee's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination consistent with directions to consider cumulative conduct, intent, and the existing evidentiary record.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed; decision of the Appeal Committee dated May 10, 2007 set aside; matter remitted to the Appeal Committee for redetermination

Orders

  • Decision of the Appeal Committee dated May 10, 2007 is set aside and the matter remitted to the Appeal Committee for redetermination in accordance with the reasons and directions of this Court
  • Appeal Committee shall consider the allegation of corrupt practice on the basis of the existing evidentiary record and may receive additional evidence only if necessary