Inuit org election dispute starts with a spat over evidence

Madeleine Redfern, a candidate for Iqaluit community director in the Qikiqtani Inuit Association’s elections this past Dec. 8, in an undated file photo. In an application for judicial review of that election before the Nunavut Court of Justice, Redfern’s lawyer, Teresa Haykowsky, is seeking about seven bankers’ boxes of evidence. But QIA’s lawyer, Sylvie Molgat, asserts that all of that evidence could be costly to produce in court and may not be relevant to the case. (FILE PHOTO)

Out of seven banker’s boxes of documents relating to the Qikiqtani Inuit Association’s elections last December, the QIA’s lawyer has offered to hand over only a portion as potential evidence to Madeleine Redfern, who is asking the Nunavut Court of Justice to quash the results of an election she lost by one vote.

In other words, the judge in the case may be forced to rule on who needs to hand over what before the civil case can even proceed.

Redfern filed an application for a judicial review at the Iqaluit courthouse Jan. 7 after losing the Dec. 8 election for QIA’s Iqaluit community director to incumbent Simon Nattaq.

The QIA failed in its duty to ensure procedural fairness in the election and in the legitimate expectations of candidates and voters, Redfern alleges in her application.

After Redfern filed her application, the Baffin Inuit organization sent their Ottawa-based lawyer Sylvie Molgat seven boxes of documents, including ballots, related to elections for the president as well as community director positions in eight Qikiqtani communities.

But when Redfern’s lawyer requested access to those documents, the QIA’s legal counsel objected.

“Our first objection to the complete production, as being requested, is that compliance… will be both time-consuming and very costly [to send back to Iqaluit],” Molgat told Justice Beverly Browne via teleconference in an Iqaluit courtroom March 9.

“More importantly, we submit that the records are of questionable relevance and materiality to the application.”

Redfern is contesting the Iqaluit community director election, Molgat added, so boxes containing documents relating to elections for other positions, and to polling stations outside of Iqaluit, are not relevant.

But Teresa Haykowsky, Redfern’s Edmonton-based lawyer, argued that her client’s allegations relate to QIA’s organization and communication — internally and to voters and candidates — leading up to the vote.

Her client is therefore entitled not only to documents related to the outcome of the Iqaluit community director election, Haykowsky said, but also to corresponding documents relating to the preparation of the vote in general.

The two lawyers sparred over whether documents relating to ballots cast in Ottawa for QIA’s presidential election were relevant.

“Box one, two and three are boxes and boxes of ballots in the presidential vote,” Molgat said. “I don’t see anything in there that could be of possible relevance to a decision that the court is being asked to make in this case.”

But Haykowsky said the QIA’s communication about, and approach to, the presidential election is relevant in comparison to the community director’s election — especially relating to proxy voting.

Proxy voting allows an eligible voter to delegate his or her vote to another eligible voter.

Eligible Qikiqtani voters in Ottawa were able to vote in-person for the QIA’s presidential election, but were only able to vote by proxy for the community director elections.

An election notice issued by the QIA prior to the December election did not stipulate this.

“One of the reasons that we’re looking at Ottawa is because it’s not clear when an individual was voting… whether they were afforded the opportunity to properly cast their ballots, whether there was an appropriate structure in place,” Haykowsky said.

“There was no facility to vote for community directors in Ottawa,” Molgat replied, “so nothing from Ottawa… would be relevant to a challenge to the election of the community director in Iqaluit.”

Boxes four, five and six contain ballots and documents relating to community director elections in all communities, Molgat said, but only portions of boxes five and six touch on Iqaluit’s election for that position.

“We’re proposing to produce… a portion of box five, a portion of box six and nothing of box seven,” Molgat said. She did not disclose during court proceedings what the seventh box contained.

The usual practice at this point of civil litigation, Haykowsky said, is for the lawyers to negotiate an agreement about the release of documents.

“I’m concerned as to the attempt now for documents not to be disclosed when there should be disclosure touching on the matter,” Haykowsky said.

Molgat, in turn, characterized Haykowsky’s request for documents as a “fishing expedition.”.

Browne played mediator.

“I’m here to solve problems that counsel cannot solve,” Browne said. “I would prefer counsel tried to sort it out.”

Browne scheduled another teleconference call with the two lawyers for March 13 at 11 a.m., but said she hoped the lawyers could come to an agreement before then.

“I will have a tentative booking for Friday morning and hope that you folks can settle it in the meantime,” she said.

The results of the QIA’s presidential vote is also in dispute. Mikidjuk Akavak, who lost the election in a recount to Pauloosie “PJ” Akeeagok, filed his own judicial review with the Nunavut court on Jan. 14.

Akavak, who is so far unrepresented in his court proceeding, alleges procedural problems with the recount and is also challenging the eligibility of two other candidates.

Akavak is scheduled to appear in court March 13.