MLA was subject to complaints about election signs and inappropriate use of voter list
An Alberta lawsuit alleging election interference will be allowed to proceed to trial following a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The court had been tasked with rendering a judgment on appeal in the case of Resler v. Anglin, 2026 SCC 23 and returned its verdict today. All nine justices agreed that the appeal should be dismissed and that Anglin can proceed with his suit against Resler, although there were dissents in part as to certain aspects of Anglin’s claims.
Anglin had been an MLA from 2012 to 2015 and was running for re-election. During the 2015 campaign, Anglin was subject to complaints about his election signs, specifically the inclusion of the term “MLA” in their wording. In his role as chief election officer, Resler investigated the situation and issued a $250 penalty to Anglin and ordered the removal of 25 signs.
Resler looked into Anglin’s campaign actions a second time after questions arose about the inappropriate use of a voter list. Resler, once again, imposed a monetary penalty on Anglin, this time for $500.
Anglin sought judicial review for both situations. The Court of Appeal found that Resler acted within his jurisdiction in the sign matter. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found that Resler failed to treat Anglin fairly by failing to provide him a copy of the investigator’s report and rescinded the penalty. But it also found no capriciousness or malfeasance on Resler’s part in conducting the investigation.
Anglin continued to advance his case against Reslin, claiming that his actions, and the actions of others, were undertaken to give Anglin’s election opponents an unfair advantage and deny him the opportunity to re-election. As such, he was seeking $400,000 for the loss of a chance of being re-elected due to the wrongful interference with the election, $400,000 for loss of future employment, and $400,000 for harm to his reputation, his self-esteem, his emotional well-being and his future employment opportunities, as well as punitive damages.
Reslin motioned to strike Anglin’s claim because it was frivolous, irrelevant or improper. He also argued that the allegations would cast doubt on the election's validity and that he, as the chief electoral officer, was immune from liability.
More to come
