Case information

Legislation — Guidelines — Whether guideline that is not regulation can have effect in law — Whether guideline not filed with the Registrar of Regulations can be of greater effect than unfiled regulation — Whether status of guideline changes if legislative provisions require official to create guideline or require candidates to comply with guideline — If guideline has legal effect, whether secondary legislation has amended primary legislation — Whether Legislature effected incorporation through legislative provision requiring citizens to comply with Act in accordance with guidelines — Whether Legislature can authorize incorporation of a future document if document expands legislative scope — Election Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. 1, ss. 134, 153.1.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Mr. Anglin was a registered candidate in the electoral division of Rimbey-Rocky Mountain House Sundre for the 2015 Provincial General Election. His campaign sponsored lawn signs that were erected during the election period. Those signs were “advertisements” under the Election Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. 1, s. 134, but they did not comply with the Chief Electoral Officer Guidelines for Election Advertising issued under s. 134(3) of the Election Act. Attempts to bring the signs into compliance with the Guidelines had only brought the smaller signs into compliance.

Mr. Anglin’s counsel argued that the Guideline is not a provision of an Act of the Legislature, and breaching it is not breaching a “section” of the Election Act or any other Act. As such, he said that the Chief Electoral Officer cannot use s. 153.1 to remedy a breach of the Guidelines.

The Chief Electoral Officer found that the Guidelines had the force of law and were mandatory. He further found that Mr. Anglin had breached s. 134(1) and imposed a fine of $500. He later reduced the fine to $250. Mr. Anglin challenged the decision and the process used to arrive at it. The parties agreed that the matter could be resolved by the determination of one complaints: whether the Chief Electoral Officer exceeded his jurisdiction and erred in making a finding against Mr. Anglin and imposed a penalty against him based on Guidelines.

The Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed Mr. Anglin’s appeal from the Chief Electoral Officer’s finding, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his further appeal.