Judge rules on evidence; Inuit election case can now proceed

QIA and NTI beneficiaries waiting for election results this past Dec. 8. The legality of the Iqaluit community director election is still in dispute, following an application that candidate Madeleine Redfern filed Jan. 7 at the Nunavut Court of Justice. Following a ruling by Justice Beverly Browne that orders QIA to produce a long list of documents, that course may now proceed, although Redfern said she is still open to an out-of-court settlement if QIA is willing to negotiate. (FILE PHOTO)

Justice Beverly Browne has decided that the Qikiqtani Inuit Association has to produce a whole bunch of documents so that a judicial review of the Dec. 8, 2014, election can proceed in Nunavut court.

But Madeleine Redfern, who launched the judicial review after losing the election last year for the Iqaluit community director position on QIA’s board, didn’t get everything she wanted.

In a decision handed down June 10, Browne said five of eight batches or categories of documents must now form part of the court record when the case goes forward.

But, the judge added, it’s not even clear whether this case should be heard at all.

“It is an interesting issue as to whether or not an election of individuals pursuant to the by-laws of an Inuit land claims organization is subject to judicial review,” she wrote in her judgment. “That issue will be dealt with in the course of time.”

The QIA held an election for president and Iqaluit community director in early December last year and set up polling stations in all Baffin communities as well as in two locations in Ottawa to allow Baffin Inuit in Ottawa to vote.

But Ottawamiut could only vote for the president’s position. If they wanted to vote for the Iqaluit community director post, they had to do so by proxy — designating someone else to vote for them.

An election notice published by the QIA in November 2015 did not stipulate that rule and Redfern, who lost the election by one vote, says the election is tainted because eligible voters were not properly informed and therefore denied their right to vote.

She wants the court to order a new vote.

But the case has been bogged down in a spat over evidence ever since Jan. 7 when Redfern launched the action.

Redfern said in an email to Nunatsiaq News that she felt QIA was fighting disclosure in an application that seemed “designed to run up my costs.”

That evidence includes materials related to communications regarding the voting process, training for election staff and even ballot boxes containing votes.

In her written decision, Browne set up a chart describing the documents in question and her ruling for each specific request.

Of the eight batches of documents that Redfern request, Browne allowed five.

The most significant was a box containing ballots cast for president and the Iqaluit community director position in Iqaluit. Browne said no to that. “The issue before the court revolves around votes cast in Ottawa,” she wrote.

Browne had to consider the importance of protecting voter confidentiality as well.

But Browne ordered all communication documents related to election procedures, processes and rules ought to form part of evidence and she ordered the QIA to produce those.

Included in that disclosure should be copies of any questions or complaints that relate to the Iqaluit community director election, Ottawa polling place or the proxy balloting system, Browne wrote.

Redfern seemed pleased that the court ruled in her favour on most of the documents and added in her email, “I look forward to having my day in court, however, my offer to mediate this matter with the QIA still stands.”

The QIA rejected her offer of mediation in March.

Browne has ordered that Redfern pay the cost for these preliminary proceedings.