## Facts

- Stephen Joseph Harper brought a constitutional challenge to provisions of the Canada Elections Act limiting third-party election advertising spending, alleging an unjustified infringement of freedom of expression.
- The case had been tried in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, but no judgment on the merits had yet been released.
- After an election writ issued for a federal election with polling day set for November 27, 2000, Harper sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent enforcement of the third-party spending limits during the campaign.
- The trial judge granted the interlocutory injunction, temporarily preventing enforcement of the limits for that election period.
- The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the injunction.
- The Attorney General of Canada sought leave to appeal and requested a stay of the injunction so the spending limits would remain enforceable pending appeal and final determination of the constitutional claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the interlocutory injunction restraining enforcement of third-party election advertising spending limits should be stayed pending appeal and final determination of the constitutional challenge.
2. How the tripartite test for interlocutory relief (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) applies when the order effectively suspends duly enacted election legislation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada (8–1) granted the stay of the interlocutory injunction.
- The stay restored the operation of the third-party spending limits during the election campaign, pending further proceedings.
- The Court accepted that the underlying constitutional challenge raised a serious issue to be tried.
- The decisive factor was the balance of convenience, assessed primarily through the public interest in maintaining the operation of enacted election law and protecting electoral fairness.
- In dissent, Major J. would have refused the stay, emphasizing the immediate and largely irreparable effect of restricting political expression during an imminent election.

## Legal Principles

- Interlocutory relief is governed by a tripartite test: (1) serious issue to be tried; (2) irreparable harm; and (3) balance of convenience.
- When an interlocutory order would suspend the operation of legislation, courts must give substantial weight to the public interest in keeping duly enacted laws in force pending full constitutional review.
- In election-law disputes, the public interest in electoral fairness and the integrity of the electoral process may outweigh temporary limits on political expression at the interlocutory stage.
- Public interest considerations are central to the balance-of-convenience analysis, especially where leaving an injunction in place would create election-specific effects that cannot be fully reversed.

## Conclusion

The Court stayed an injunction that would have prevented enforcement of third-party election advertising spending limits during a federal campaign, holding that the public interest in maintaining Parliament’s electoral regulatory framework pending a final constitutional ruling outweighed the temporary expressive harm alleged at the interlocutory stage.


Harper v. Canada (Att’y Gen.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 764 (Can. 2000)