- Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)
SCCInfoBox
case-name=Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)
full-case-name=Richard Sauvé v. The Attorney General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and the Solicitor General of Canada; Sheldon McCorrister, Chairman, Lloyd Knezacek, Vice Chairman, on their own behalf and on behalf of the Stony Mountain Institution Inmate Welfare Committee, and Clair Woodhouse, Chairman, Aaron Spence, Vice Chairman, on their own behalf and on behalf of the Native Brotherhood Organization of Stony Mountain Institution, and Serge Bélanger, Emile A. Bear and Randy Opoonechaw v. The Attorney General of Canada
heard-date=December 10, 2001
decided-date=October 31, 2002
citations= [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519; 2002 SCC 68
history=Appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal
ruling=
ratio=
SCC=2000-2002
Majority=McLachlin C.J. (paras. 1-64)
JoinMajority=Iacobucci, Binnie, Arbour, and LeBel
Concurrence=
Dissent=Gonthier (paras. 65-208)
JoinDissent=L’Heureux‑Dubé, Major and Bastarache
NotParticipating="Sauvé v. Canada (Attorney General)", [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519 is a leading
Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held thatprison ers have a right to vote under section 3 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ". The Court overturned the prior decision of theFederal Court of Appeal and held that s. 51(e) of the old "Canada Elections Act ", which prohibited prisoners from voting, was unconstitutional. Section 51(e) had been repealed before the date of the Court's judgment, but the decision applied equally to substantially the same provision found in s. 4(c) of the new Act. The Court decided that the provision violated section 3 of the "Charter" and could not be saved under section 1.As a result of the decision, all adult citizens in Canada are now able to vote, save the top two officials of
Elections Canada . [CBC.ca, " [http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/voterstoolkit/faqs.html#q3 Voter Toolkit] ," "Canada Votes 2006". URL accessed 23 January 2006.] As Parliament has not amended the "Canada Elections Act" to reflect the Court's decision, the provision is still part of the Act, [Canada Elections Act, 2000, c. 9, Section 4 (c), [http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/E-2.01/237121.html#Section-4] . Accessed20 February ,2007 .] , even though it is of no force or effect.ee also
*
List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
* "Richardson v. Ramirez ", 418 U.S. 24 (1974) - similar US case
*British Columbia Civil Liberties Association References
External links
*
* [http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/1997/pub/v3/1997fc20582.html Federal Court decision]
* [http://www.bccla.org/othercontent/01sauvefactum.html BCCLA intervener factum]
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.