Frank Vs Canada Case Analysis

One of the hallmarks of Stephen Harper’s tenure as Prime Minister was the adversarial relationship between Parliament and the courts. His government was “openly hostile towards the judicial branch” and often failed to take its Charter duties seriously. Harper’s lack of deference for the right and freedoms entrenched in the Charter led to several of his government’s laws being struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. Conversely, the appeal of Frank v. Canada was a victory for the Conservative government – although the impugned legislation had been enacted over a decade before Harper became Prime Minister. It is still possible for the challenged sections of the Canada Elections Act to be declared unconstitutional, however, as the case is being appealed in the SCC. How the current government of Canada, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, will respond to the decision of the SCC remains to be seen. It would appear, though, …show more content…
Canada was met with both praise and criticism. The editorial board of the Globe and Mail agreed with the decision, reasoning that long term expatriates are not directly governed by Canadian law and therefore should not be entitled to vote. They also drew attention to the fact that other countries, including Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K., have similar residency requirements. Several individuals and organizations, however, vehemently opposed the court’s ruling. The BC Civil Liberties Association, which intervened in the case, decried the verdict stating that it relied on the “vague and symbolic justification” of a “social contract” between residents and lawmakers. This, in their view, seemed to suggest that voting is a privilege, not a right. Mark Kersten, a researcher at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, disagreed with the Chief Justice’s argument that being non resident precludes citizens from being affected by government policies, particularly if they have relatives in