From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: On May 10 2016, I was in Federal Court trying to strike   
   the $250 cap on paying my auditor's fee for a "nil" return.   
   Two days later, he made this decision:   
      
      
   FEDERAL COURT   
   Date: 20160512   
   Docket: T-561-15   
   Citation: 2016 FC 532   
      
   Ottawa, Ontario, May 12, 2016   
      
   PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan   
      
                           JOHN TURMEL   
                                                      Plaintiff   
      
                               and   
      
             HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA   
                                                     Respondent   
      
      
                        ORDER AND REASONS   
      
   I. Introduction   
      
   [1] This is a summary judgment motion in respect to an   
   action challenging the constitutional validity of a   
   provision of the Canada Elections Act. That provision sets a   
   cap on the reimbursement of auditor fees in accordance with   
   s.477.75 of the Act. The parties have agreed to this   
   proceeding by summary judgment.   
      
   [2] The Plaintiff contends that the cap, $250, is an   
   impediment to his s.3 rights under the Canadian Charter of   
   Rights and Freedoms, Part I of t he Constitution Act, 1982   
   being Schedule B to the Canada Act.   
       3. 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.   
      
   [3] In essence, the Plaintiff says that since he files "nil"   
   election expenses return - because he chooses not to raise   
   money for his campaigns - the $250 reimbursement is   
   inadequate to pay auditor's fees. The auditor's fees are   
   incurred in preparing and filing with the Chief Electoral   
   Officer a "nil election expenses return. The fact that he   
   has to pay out of his own pocket for most of the audit fee   
   is argued to be an impediment to his S.3 Charter Rights.   
      
   II. Background   
      
   [4] Mr. Turmel is unique in that he has run in 87 elections   
   at the federal, provincial and municipal level. He has yet   
   to be successful. His situation is not representative of the   
   issues faced by others   
      
   JCT: It is for those who file "nil" returns. Guess he   
   didn't stay focused on the right sub-class.   
      
   and therefore must be regarded on his own specific facts.   
   His situation is not a "reasonable hypothetical" sometimes   
   referred to by the Supreme Court of Canada as a basis for   
   Charter analysis.   
      
   JCT: My situation is a "reasonable hypothetical" for   
   candidates filing "nil" returns. And I wonder how many other   
   candidates filing "nil" returns it would take to be the   
   basis of a Charter analysis.   
      
   [5] The relevant legislation provisions are attached as   
   Schedule A. the most pertinent is s.477.75 of the Act:   
       477.75 On receipt of the documents referred to in S.   
       477.59(1), including the auditor's report, the Chief   
       Election Officer shall provide the Receiver General with   
       a certificate that sets out the greater of   
       (a) the amount of the expenses incurred for the audit,   
       up to a maximum of the lesser of 3% of the candidate's   
       election expenses and $1,500, and   
       (b) $250.   
      
   [6] The Act requires all candidates to have an auditor and   
   provides for a form of subsidy to offset audit expenses.   
   Currently, the subsidy ranges between $250 and $1,500   
   depending on the candidates' election expenses and   
   fundraising.   
      
   [7] Mr. Turmel ran in the Toronto-Centre federal byelection   
   on November 25 2013. In respect of his previous federal   
   campaigns, his then auditor charged only $250 for his audit.   
   That auditor, having retired, was replaced by a firm that   
   charged $678. Mr. Turmel, being eligible for the $250   
   subsidy, complains about the $428 shortfall.   
      
   [8] Mr. Turmel does not complain that he has no money to pay   
   this audit expense.   
      
   JCT: I don't have any spare money to pay this audit expense   
   but I'm not pleading my paupership, I'm pleading injustice.   
      
   He has not provided any evidence of inability to pay the   
   audit fees of which he complains.   
      
   JCT: He knew it said I'd have to beg, borrow, or win it but   
   that's not evidence I can't pay, it's actually evidence I   
   could if I begged, borrowed, or won.   
      
   [9] He has made a choice not to raise campaign funds to   
   support his   
      
   JCT: auditor..   
      
   various runs for political office. It is clear that this   
   choice was not imposed upon him.   
      
   JCT: I wasn't forced to not raise funds. Har har har. When   
   I'm actually forced to raise funds if they won't cover their   
   imposed needless expense. Remember, they want me to pay for   
   an auditor to vouch that my addition of zeroes is correct.   
      
   III. Analysis   
      
   [10] It is settled law   
      
      
   JCT: Time to unsettle bad law.   
      
   that a claimant asserting a breach of the Charter - in   
   this case an impediment to S.3 electoral rights - must   
   establish the alleged breach (Phillips v. Nova Scotia 1995).   
      
   JCT: No kidding. Did anyone think a claimant asserting a   
   breach didn't have to establish the alleged breach. It's the   
   $428 breach in my wallet being established.   
      
   [11] The rights that underlie s.3 of the Charter are   
   participatory in nature.   
      
   JCT: And imposing a needless financial cost doesn't impede   
   participation rights?   
      
   These rights include the right to effective representation   
   and meaningful participation. (Figueroa v. Canada 2003)   
      
   JCT: Note the word "meaningful" participation which is not   
   quite "full" participating: "You participated somewhat,   
   that's meaningful."   
      
   [12] For there to be a finding of a breach of S.3, there   
   must be an appreciable interference with the capacity of the   
   citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process.   
      
   JCT: So a little interference with the capacity of the   
   citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process   
   is okay as long as it's not "appreciable interference." And   
   you can bet a judge taking home a couple of grand a week who   
   suggests I put aside $10 a month from my pension doesn't see   
   the same "appreciable interference" that a pauper does. I   
   couldn't transcribe the hearing, no time, you'll have to   
   order it from the court for $15, but Phelan did say I should   
   save up for my auditor's expense.   
      
   It is not a right a publicly-funded or unlimited role. In   
   that regard I adopt the reasoning of the Ontario Superior   
   Court in De Jong v. Ontario 2007.   
      
   JCT: So De Jong ruled there is no right to a publicly-funded   
   or unlimited role. Lucky for me, I'm not claiming a right to   
   public funding for an unlimited role, I'm claiming a right   
   to public funding for a government-imposed financial   
   impediment which happens to be unnecessary with previous   
   discussions on how to fix it.   
      
   [13] In my view, Mr. Turmel has not shown that the subsidy   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)