Twinn v. Sawridge First Nation

Twinn v. Sawridge First Nation

Given the Elections Act's mandatory provisions, particularly s.69(1)(b), the CEO reasonably and correctly rejected the spoiled mail-in ballots lacking the Electoral Officer's distinctive mark; the CEO was not obliged or empowered to reconstitute the membership/electors list beyond the statutory correction and appeal mechanisms and did not breach procedural fairness in the written, time-limited appeal process; accordingly the judicial review is dismissed.

Citation
2017 FC 407
Parties
Applicants: Sam Twinn and Isaac Twinn; Respondents: Sawridge First Nation, Roland Twinn and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S.18.1 of the Federal Courts Act / Judgment on Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Electoral List Disputes, Mail in Ballot Validity, Statutory Interpretation, Membership Entitlement
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Indigenous Law Election Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Electoral List Disputes Mail in Ballot Validity +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sam Twinn and Isaac Twinn

Applicants

Sawridge First Nation, Roland Twinn and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under S.18.1 of the Federal Courts Act / Judgment on Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CEO erred in rejecting a mail-in ballot (Walter)
  2. 2 Whether CEO failed to ensure a proper electors list or inquire into membership
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was breached in the CEO's appeal decision

Ratio Decidendi

Given the Elections Act's mandatory provisions, particularly s.69(1)(b), the CEO reasonably and correctly rejected the spoiled mail-in ballots lacking the Electoral Officer's distinctive mark; the CEO was not obliged or empowered to reconstitute the membership/electors list beyond the statutory correction and appeal mechanisms and did not breach procedural fairness in the written, time-limited appeal process; accordingly the judicial review is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Parties to bear their own costs