Sauve v Canada

Facts: A federal penitentiary inmate, Richard Sauve appealed to have his right to vote while serving a sentence of more than 2 years in length. He brought forward an application to the Supreme Court on based on the fact that S. 51(e) of the Canada Elections Act (CEA) infringed on S. 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada (CRFC), which entitled every Canadian to the right to vote and was justified under S. 1 of the CRFC. S. 51(e) of the CEA that put a ban on federal inmates’ right to vote in a federal or provincial election.

Issues: 1. Does S. 51(e) of the Canada Elections Act infringe the guarantee of the rights of all citizens to vote under S. 3 of the Charter and if so, is the infringement justified under S. 1 of the Charter?

2. Does S. 51 (e) of the Canada Elections Act infringe the equality guarantee of S. 15(1) of the Charter and if so, is the infringement justified under S. 1 of the Charter?

Held: (5-4): The respondents agree that the voting restriction of S. 51(e) of the CEA constituted a violation S. 3 of the CRFC. Therefore this restriction was not valid unless it was justified under S. 1 of the Charter and thus its validity must be analysed thorough

Discussion: While it seems fair as a general measure in a free, democratic and upwardly mobile society to allow everyone to vote, it must also be taken into account that every citizen in Canada walks a different path of life both personally and on a whole. While most citizens in our population are considered “normal” and law-abiding, our society has its share of lawbreakers and anomalous individuals to whom rights indeed apply equally but if such persons commit crimes against the collective consciousness of society, these same rights discontinue applying to them as they have attempted to break the democratic code and correction is required with such matters that can include reasonably denying certain rights and liberties of an individual. It is my argument that rights should be restricted to the “educated” majority of citizens (the collective society) because rights are merely privileges that are guaranteed but are subject to conditions and regulations and those who have not infringed on other people’s rights (prisoners) should not be guaranteed those rights and such will be shown through Mill’s Harm Principle theory.

Reason(s): per McLachlin, C.J., plus 4: The disenfranchisement of prisoners committed to federal institutions (those with sentences of 2 years and over) cannot be reasonably justified under S. 1 of the CRFC. It is however also stated that such rights, as prisoners running for office is not seen practical and have to be limited as the practice of democratic rights dictate. It is clear that democratic participation of individuals, whether inmates or not are not simply theoretical but also materials of custom. The purpose of the legislature is to retain and exercise legal power to limit the specifics of these practices where of-course they can be justified. However, in a free and democratic

Some topics in this essay:
Harm Principle, Bastarache JJ, McLachlin CJ, Justice McLachlin, Elections Act, Charter Held, Canada CRFC, Sauve Canada, Richard Sauve, justified 1, 1 crfc, federal provincial, justified 1 crfc, Supreme Court, 51e cea, justified 1 charter, canada elections, elections act, society rights, corrective process, free democratic, 3 crfc, canada elections act, free democratic society, federal provincial municipal,