Article content continued

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein

Justice Avril Inglis heard the case in June and a judgment went online Wednesday. She disagreed with two of Szuchewycz’s claims — that requirements for signatures and witnesses were unconstitutional — but upheld his complaints over the financial deposit.

As of Wednesday, Inglis declared the section setting out a $1,000 deposit requirement “is of no force and effect.”

Up until now, if a candidate wanted to stand election they would need to meet a variety of requirements when filing applications to local returning officers. Among those is the deposit, which is refunded if a candidate meets reporting requirements in the Canada Elections Act and returns unused or cancelled tax receipts and copies of used ones.

According to Szuchewycz’s argument, this constitutes a wealth test. “He submits there are many individuals, particularly the poor and marginalized, for whom the requirements represent a significant burden, effectively deterring them from standing for election,” the judgment said.

In his own case, Szuchewycz said in an affidavit he is married and has a child, his family lived on about $2,000 per month and while he could have made a $1,000 deposit, “it was a significant challenge for him and his family.” A candidate who wasn’t financially well-off might need that kind of money to support their campaign, he argued, especially for independent campaigns.

The government argued that starting in 1874, a deposit requirement was part of the act so that frivolous candidates would be deterred from running. Deposits were half refundable until 2000, when they were made fully refundable.