On April 2, 2026, the Supreme Court announced that it had declined to hear our appeal in the Charter Challenge for Fair Voting (they considered 19 requests and granted one). While this news is both frustrating and deeply disappointing, it is not the end of our fight for a democracy that truly represents all Canadians.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court does not provide reasons to explain why they decide to hear appeals or not, so we don’t know why they deemed this case, in which we called on the court to carefully evaluate whether our national First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral system complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not to meet the bar of “being of national or public importance”.

As puzzling as we find this decision, it unfortunately closes off, at least for now, the possibility that courts will recognize our right to be represented by an MP for whom we have voted. Instead, the courts have accepted the narrow view that our right to vote is satisfied as long as we have the opportunity to cast a vote and have it counted, regardless of whether that vote is reflected in the composition of Parliament.

What We Accomplished Together

Before we consider what comes next, let’s reflect on what we accomplished together. This challenge was historic. We asked Canadian courts to seriously consider whether FPTP deprives millions of voters of effective representation, reduces the ability of these voters to meaningfully participate in elections, and reduces the opportunities for women and minorities to run for and be elected to Parliament, violating their Charter rights. We expressly contrasted FPTP with various examples of proportional representation systems found in most other democratic countries. We assembled a large and comprehensive record of expert evidence and a set of affidavits from representatives of communities whose votes are systematically and routinely devalued. We put together rigorous legal arguments making the case that half the voters under FPTP – voters of all political stripes – are not effectively represented and experience less meaningful participation in elections than their fellow citizens, for no good reason that bears scrutiny.

The Court Accepted Many of Our Claims

Ultimately, the court found that we had done an "admirable job" demonstrating that proportional representation systems is a fair and effective electoral methodology that privileges the fair and even representation and democratic satisfaction of voters. The court further confirmed some of the significant unfairness created by FPTP, in particular accepting that FPTP:

• reduces the voice in government of voters who have no voting link to their MP, resulting in their uneven and unfair representation;

• rewards voters for the largest parties in each region at the expense of voters for smaller parties;

• results in the frequent exercise of majority ruling power by parties with minority support, which can reduce Parliament’s democratic legitimacy;

• reduces turnout and voter satisfaction, particularly amongst the voters whose voices it suppresses; and

• reduces the incentives of parties to nominate women as candidates for elections. 

These clear findings, and the extensive body of evidence that underpins them, are now permanently part of the legal and public record. Furthermore, many of the myths that reform opponents use in public debate were shown to be wrong, on the record, and were directly dismissed by the court. That matters – and it will continue to matter. 

What the Courts Left Unresolved

Despite the courts' recognition that FPTP has many problems, their decisions that these problems do not amount to an infringement on our right to effective representation, meaningful participation and equal treatment were unsatisfying. In our view, the courts declined to engage fully with the deeper constitutional questions at the heart of our case – most particularly:

• whether voters who are not politically aligned with their MP are less effectively represented in Parliament and government than those who have an MP for whom they voted;
• why FPTP's structurally harmful effects on voter participation and candidate diversity should be tolerated in a country that is officially committed to broad equality; and
• why the right to equal treatment should not apply equally to groups defined by their political identity as to those defined by religion or age, a glaring gap in our Charter that is explicitly included in most international human rights instruments. 

The Path Forward

We will continue to seek to contribute to, and potentially initiate, future cases aimed at obtaining satisfactory answers to all these questions and push the court towards a more purposive view of our democratic rights. For example, if Alberta tries to force through gerrymandered districts this year, this could represent another opportunity to engage. And former Vancouver mayor Kennedy Stewart has announced his plans to lead a challenge of Vancouver’s at-large block voting system – we will certainly consider partnering on that.

But the courtroom is not the only path forward. Electoral reform remains a live political question in Canada. Provinces have the power to change their own electoral systems, and the movement for proportional representation continues to build momentum across the country. Although BC Premier David Eby has thrown cold water on hopes for change there, a large network of civil society organizations is coming together to push for further changes to our electoral regime. And the new NDP leader, Avi Lewis, as well as all other NDP leadership contenders, were adamant that federal voting reform would be a key condition of any future governing accord.

Every election that produces a distorted result adds new urgency, new voices, and more pressure to our goal of full democratic equality for all citizens, and the legal arguments we have developed, refined, and placed on the public record will be a lasting resource for future advocates, legislators, and perhaps future courts.

Our Deepest Gratitude

None of this would have been possible without you. Your donations, your encouragement, and your commitment to making our democracy better for everyone sustained us through years of demanding work. We are profoundly grateful.

This chapter ends. Our movement and our efforts do not. Stay tuned for next steps.

Grace Reid, Springtide

Antony Hodgson, Fair Voting BC