Saving Gaspésie? “Not like this,” says the Supreme Court

To respond to demographic changes, Québec’s independent election commission proposed changes to the boundaries of certain electoral districts, which included combining two electoral districts from Gaspésie, a rural area where population is declining. Québec enacted legislation to bring this process to a halt. In Québec (Attorney General) v. Lalande¹, the Supreme Court struck down the legislation, holding that it unjustifiably infringed the right to vote in section 3 of the Charter. The decision provides insight into how courts review election laws under the Charter.

What you need to know

• Election legislation needs to be tailored. While courts do not want to meddle in the precise mechanics and details of drawing electoral maps, legislatures cannot adopt disproportionate measures. Here, the Supreme Court concluded that the Québec National Assembly could not interrupt re-drawing all Québec’s electoral divisions in order to preserve one electoral division.
• Unanimity is not immunity. While having election laws passed unanimously can help defend their legitimacy, unanimity does not immunize them from judicial scrutiny and a court’s mandate to protect the right to effective representation in section 3 of the Charter.
• Charter litigation often turns on how the purpose of the law is framed. In this case, a majority of the Supreme Court took a very narrow view of the legislation, concluding that it was designed just to save one electoral division. But the law froze the electoral map in its entirety. That made it appear disproportionate. In contrast, the dissenting judges defended the law as pursuing a broader objective: protecting representation for regions in Québec with declining populations and unique needs.  

Background

The Commission de la représentation électorale is an independent body tasked with reviewing and revising electoral boundaries in Québec. In 2023, in response to population shifts in the province, the Commission submitted a report that recommended redrawing the electoral map. The report included, among other things, a proposal to merge two rural electoral divisions, which would have resulted in the loss of the Gaspésie electoral division.

To prevent the loss of Gaspésie as an electoral division, Québec’s National Assembly enacted the Act to interrupt the electoral division delimitation process (the Act). The Act, which passed unanimously, temporarily prevented the Commission from revising electoral boundaries until the end of the upcoming provincial election, scheduled for the fall of 2026.

Several groups and individuals, including voters, challenged the law, alleging that it infringed section 3 of the Charter, which protects the right to vote and encompasses a right to “effective representation”. For them, the law had the effect of diluting voters’ electoral influence by preserving the Gaspésie electoral division, which was sparsely populated.

The Superior Court of Québec concluded that the law violated section 3 but that it was justified under section 1 of the Charter. At the Court of Appeal, the Attorney General of Québec conceded that the law would violate section 3—the issue was whether the violation was justified under section 1. The Québec Court of Appeal held that it was not, and therefore allowed the appeal. Québec was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court’s decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from the bench, with reasons to follow. This practice is common when appeals involve time sensitive matters—in this case, the soon-approaching fall election in Québec.  

On May 1, the Court released its reasons. Justice Kasirer penned the majority reasons for a seven-member majority. Justices Côté and Rowe dissented.

The majority

The majority opinion concluded that freezing the entire electoral map could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter because it did not satisfy the Oakes test, which requires a law to satisfy the following requirements in order for infringement of a Charter right to be justified: (1) a pressing and substantial objective; (2) a rational connection to its objective; (3) minimal impairment of the Charter right; and (4) proportional effects between the limitation of the right and the benefits of the law.

The government of Québec attempted to justify the Act on two bases: (1) preserving representation for regions in economic or population decline; and (2) giving the legislature time to reflect on the changes. Justice Kasirer agreed with the Québec Court of Appeal that these rationales were not sufficiently precise. In his view, the real objective was protecting the specific Gaspésie electoral division.

With the narrower purpose in mind, Justice Kasirer concluded that the Act did not minimally impair the challengers’ section 3 rights. There were other available alternatives, including enacting a law that temporarily protected the electoral division in Gaspésie while allowing the rest of the Commission’s work to proceed. Even on the broader objective put forward by Québec, the Act was not justified under section 1 because it did not satisfy the rational connection element of the Oakes test. It was not clear why “the complete interruption” of the Commission’s work across “all electoral divisions in Québec” would contribute to the general objective of protecting regions experiencing population decline. For example, the Commission had also recommended removing an urban electoral division in Montréal, and the Act would have had the effect of preserving this electoral division as well.

The dissent

The dissent disagreed with the narrow purpose articulated by the majority. According to Justices Côté and Rowe, the legislative objective was to “preserve the electoral representation of regions with a declining population while giving itself the time needed to develop, on a cross-partisan basis, a longer-term solution that would serve to ensure the effective representation of all electors”.

With that broader purpose in mind, Justice Côté found that temporarily maintaining the status quo was a rational choice that minimally impaired voters’ Charter rights. There was no time to create a revamped electoral map before the next election. The pause—which would only last one election cycle—would give the legislature an opportunity to consider a comprehensive response to this complex issue. Justice Côté noted that the Act was passed unanimously and emphasized that courts should be reluctant to interfere with a legislature’s complex weighing of interests that go into protecting the right to effective representation.  

In analyzing the salutary and deleterious effects of the Act, Justice Côté said that one cannot conduct a purely mathematical exercise. In her view, there was value in preserving representation for a geographically large and diverse population in Québec with their own unique needs. In addition, the Act was temporary: it merely preserved electoral divisions that had been used for 10 years for one more election cycle.

Finally, Justice Côté indicated that she was not convinced that there was a violation of section 3, but declined to address the point because the Attorney General conceded the violation.

Implications

From an election law perspective, there are two interesting takeaways from Lalande. First, it is one of two recent decisions in which the Court has taken a more active role in resolving election disputes. The other was the Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision annulling the federal election results in the Terrebonne electoral division. Second, it signals the Court’s willingness to protect rights to effective representation, even when a legislature unanimously passes a law. While some may see the Court’s role in election law as primarily to protect against partisan entrenchment and gerrymandering, Lalande indicates that the Court is willing to enter the fray even when there is unanimous support for the legislative measures.

This case also highlights one of the most pivotal parts of Charter litigation: identifying and framing the purpose of the law in question. The majority took a narrow interpretation of the purpose (the protection of a single electoral division) and so the measures taken (freezing the entire map) seemed disproportionate. In contrast, the dissent took a very broad view of the purpose (giving legislatures time to consider how to protect regional representation in Québec) and so the measures taken seemed more reasonable.