She was charged with an offence under the provision at play here, and the judge found that this was not sufficient to justify or to warrant a conviction under the provision. The judge said that the provision should be used where the candidate is alleged to be, and I'm quoting from the judge's reasons, “a thief, a criminal, a felon, or that some type of moral turpitude was involved.”
Also, I think there are some cases.... By the way, I think that six or seven provinces have essentially the same provision as we have here and the wording is almost exactly the same, about the personal conduct or character of the individual.
In another case, which comes out of Manitoba, the person said the candidate who was running against her was “a liar, a thief, a drug peddler.” The judge in that case found that this was sufficient to...and, in fact, she pleaded guilty and she received a fairly significant fine.
The point I would make on this is that I think there is a need, because many people in Canada think, when they look at this provision, that any time a false statement is made about a candidate, let's say, that is enough to trigger this, and the courts are not there at all. They understand that freedom of expression in the political realm is pretty broad, and, as I said in my remarks, political spin, insinuation, and exaggeration are part of the way, for better or for worse, that electoral campaigns are run in this country and in many other countries. Courts recognize that and will be careful before they intervene.
That said, when somebody crosses the line and impugns somebody by way of, as I said, criminal conduct or fraud or anything like that, then the courts would be more open to perhaps considering issuing a verdict of guilt.