Friesen v. Hammell

Friesen v. Hammell

Petition dismissed: petitioners failed to prove that representations about Budget 95 or Budget 96 amounted to 'fraudulent means' under s.256; Finance Minister Cull honestly and reasonably believed the budget forecasts and Premier Clark relied on her statements; no evidence of conspiracy or conscious falsity and statements about future budgets were statements of belief/intent not fraud.

Citation
2000 BCSC 1185
Parties
Petitioner: Leonard Friesen; Petitioner: Holly Kuzenko; Petitioner: Mildred Umbarger; Respondent (mla): Sue Hammell; Respondent (mla): Graeme Bowbrick; Respondent (mla): Ed Conroy
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Controverted Election Petition (election Act S.150/151/256) / Full Trial and Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed; no breach of s.256 proven
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Means, Election Validity, Standard of Proof, Budget Representations
Source Language
English
Election Law Administrative Law Public Law Fraudulent Means Election Validity Standard of Proof Budget Representations

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Friesen

Petitioner

Holly Kuzenko

Petitioner

Mildred Umbarger

Petitioner

Sue Hammell

Respondent (mla)

Graeme Bowbrick

Respondent (mla)

Ed Conroy

Respondent (mla)

Procedural Posture

Controverted Election Petition (election Act S.150/151/256) / Full Trial and Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether representations that budgets were balanced constituted 'fraudulent means' under s.256 Election Act
  2. 2 Whether the Premier or Finance Minister knowingly or recklessly made false representations to induce votes
  3. 3 Whether any contravention materially affected the election result

Ratio Decidendi

Petition dismissed: petitioners failed to prove that representations about Budget 95 or Budget 96 amounted to 'fraudulent means' under s.256; Finance Minister Cull honestly and reasonably believed the budget forecasts and Premier Clark relied on her statements; no evidence of conspiracy or conscious falsity and statements about future budgets were statements of belief/intent not fraud.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed; no breach of s.256 proven

Orders

  • Petition dismissed
  • If parties require it, costs to be arranged through the Registry