In what circumstances will the courts interpret legislation on public access to the records of recounts and scrutinies?

In Harris v. Ryan (1997), 44 M.P.L.R. (2d) 194 (Nfld.S.C.), Barry J. recognized the public interest in interpreting legislation dealing with elections in a purposive fashion to encourage public access and stated as follows at p. 201: 18 When interpreting legislation relating to elections, one may reasonably conclude the primary policy is to ensure that we have free, open and properly conducted democratic elections. If there have been irregularities, these should be exposed to the view of the general public through the returning officer and through the candidates and their agents involved in the recounts. In promoting this policy the courts must not ignore the desirability of avoiding undue delay in seeing the completion of recounts or scrutinies and avoiding unnecessary expense for the taxpayer. Where, as here, there is nothing to indicate that greater access to election documents is going to unduly delay or increase the cost of a recount or scrutiny, the courts should give an interpretation to the ambiguous language which favours encouraging openness regarding information on how the election has been conducted.

The language of the Elections Act is somewhat ambiguous in that it does not specifically deal with the inspection of the required documents beyond the first day after the election. In interpreting this legislation the court must review its language and context, including the object of the legislation. There is nothing in the legislation which would indicate that the elections are to be conducted in anything other than the free, open manner. The principles set forth in the Harris v. Ryan decision are equally applicable here and I find that the legislation allows the required documents to be available for inspection by interested parties without the necessity of a court order.