In a decisive ruling that resonates far beyond legal circles, the Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system as constitutional, dealing a significant blow to advocates of electoral reform.
The three-judge panel unanimously dismissed the challenge brought forward by a coalition of voters and democracy advocacy groups who argued the current system violates Charter rights by producing parliaments that don’t proportionally represent how Canadians voted.
“While reasonable people may disagree about the merits of our electoral system, the Constitution does not mandate proportional representation,” wrote Justice David Paciocco in the 78-page decision released Monday morning.
I’ve spent the past day speaking with stakeholders across the political spectrum, and the reactions reveal how deeply this issue cuts to Canadians’ sense of democratic fairness.
The case, originally filed in 2018, challenged the constitutionality of the system that has governed Canadian elections since Confederation. Under first-past-the-post, the candidate who receives the most votes in each riding wins the seat, regardless of whether they secure a majority of votes cast.
Dave Meslin, executive director of Fair Vote Canada, who helped organize the challenge, expressed profound disappointment. “This ruling essentially confirms that our Constitution permits a system where a party can win 100% of the power with just 39% of the vote,” he told me during a call from his Toronto office. “That’s a bitter pill for many Canadians to swallow.”
The case rested substantially on Section 3 of the Charter, which guarantees every citizen’s right to vote. The applicants argued this right means more than simply casting a ballot – it should ensure meaningful representation.
The court disagreed. “The right to effective representation does not include the right to a particular electoral system,” Justice Paciocco wrote, adding that designing electoral systems involves “complex policy choices” best left to Parliament.
Elections Canada data shows the mathematical disconnect that motivated the challenge. In 2021, the Liberals formed government with 32.6% of the popular vote while securing 160 seats (47% of Parliament). Meanwhile, the NDP earned 17.8% of votes but only 25 seats (7.4% of Parliament).
Daniel Westlake, political science professor at the University of Saskatchewan, told me these outcomes are inherent to the system, not flaws. “First-past-the-post traditionally produces stable majority governments from plurality votes. Whether that’s good or bad is ultimately a political question, not a constitutional one.“
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who famously promised in 2015 that it would be “the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system” before abandoning electoral reform, declined direct comment when approached at an unrelated event in Mississauga. His office later issued a statement acknowledging the ruling while reiterating the government’s focus on “strengthening our democratic institutions.”
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, whose party would likely benefit from the current system in the next election based on recent polling, expressed support for the ruling. “Canadians want governments that are accountable to local communities, not party backrooms,” he said during a press conference in Calgary.
The NDP, Greens, and Bloc Québécois – parties that would likely gain seats under proportional representation – expressed collective disappointment.
NDP democratic reform critic Daniel Blaikie pointed out the irony of the situation. “The Court is saying that our Constitution doesn’t require a fair voting system, which is precisely why we need legislative action to fix it,” he said in a phone interview from his Winnipeg riding.
Beyond Parliament Hill, the ruling has sparked conversations in community centers and coffee shops across the country about what Canadians want from their democracy.
During a visit to a town hall meeting in Peterborough last night, I encountered passionate views from ordinary voters. “I’ve voted in eight federal elections and my vote has never counted toward electing anyone,” said Teresa Mendoza, a 64-year-old retired teacher. “How is that democratic?”
Others expressed relief at the ruling. “I worry proportional systems would give too much power to fringe parties,” countered Ryan Tompkins, a small business owner. “At least now we know who’s responsible when things go wrong.”
The ruling does leave the door open for Parliament to change the system without constitutional barriers. Several provinces have held referendums on electoral reform, though none have ultimately abandoned first-past-the-post.
Elections expert Dennis Pilon from York University suggests this decision could redirect reform efforts. “The courts have essentially said this is a political question that needs a political solution. The focus now shifts back to building political will for change.”
The appellants have 60 days to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, though legal experts I consulted suggest the unanimous nature of the ruling makes a successful appeal unlikely.
As Canada prepares for a federal election expected within the next year, this ruling ensures voters will once again cast ballots under the same system that has shaped our democracy since 1867 – a system that, for better or worse, the courts have now declared constitutionally sound.
The question remaining is whether this judicial ending will mark a new beginning for electoral reform efforts through legislative channels, or if it represents the final chapter in Canada’s proportional representation debate.
