Absolutely. That was indeed the concern raised by Justice Pedlar, I believe, in the Ontario courts.
The idea that one can be prosecuted for what one says.... The legal onus stays with the government, but the onus would be on the individual to prove the truth of what they were saying. If it were false and they “knew” it were false, they could be prosecuted. Without going into the issue of whether or not they were successful in defending themselves, the cost of defence, in and of itself, would be so high that individuals would simply comply with the bureaucrat or the Chief Electoral Officer without taking on a battle, when the only thing they wanted to do was participate in the democratic process.
The democratic process we're talking about here heightens the review a court would give to this legislation. I highlighted the words of Justice Côté of the Supreme Court of Canada. She said that, when we're talking about the democratic process and participation in the democratic process, that kind of expression is entitled to greater protection. When it comes down to a balance between, let's say, protecting the reputation of an individual or institution of government, the courts should come down on the side of freedom of expression, not on protecting the reputation or, if you will, the name of the institution or credibility of the process.
There's no doubt that the institution of elections is a very important thing, but the courts have come down on the side of freedom of expression in Canada. I think the courts in other free and democratic societies like Belgium and the United Kingdom have also said that there's no need to go into the protection of the Crown.