Federal Court Rejects Challenge to First Nations Election Without Online Voting

Date: 20260609 Docket: T-2083-26 Citation: 2026 FC 763 Ottawa, Ontario, June 9, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and [NAME] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] [NAME] is challenging the fact that the next election for the council of [NAME] [[NAME]] will take place without the possibility of online voting. He argues that this effectively deprives him of his right to vote. I must, however, dismiss his application, as he has not shown that the election will be held contrary to the existing law.

I. Background [ 2 ] [NAME] is a First Nation in northern Alberta. Its elections are governed by the [NAME] [the Regulations], adopted in 1996. The Regulations state that voting is to take place in person, either on election day or at an advance poll. [NAME]’s practice is that polls are held at Fort Chipewyan, Fort McMurray, High Level, Edmonton and Fort Smith. There are no provisions for voting by mail or online. [ 3 ] Section 17 of the Regulations sets out the process for their amendment. The process culminates with the vote of a majority of electors present at a special meeting convened for the purpose. Pursuant to the definition in section 2, such a meeting must be held in Fort Chipewyan. [ 4 ] Over the years, proposals have been made to amend the Regulations. In 2025, a comprehensive set of amendments was put to the electors. These amendments would have provided for the possibility of voting by electronic means prior to the election day. At a general meeting held on February 22, 2025, these amendments failed to secure the support of a majority of the electors present and voting. [ 5 ] [NAME]’s next election is scheduled for June 20, 2026. [ 6 ] [NAME] is a member of [NAME]. He lives in Coquitlam, British Columbia. On April 24, 2026, he filed a notice of application. The decision challenged is described as [NAME]’s decision, made on October 27, 2025, to conduct the June 20, 2026 election “without a polling station at Peace Point and without alternative voting methods.” [NAME] seeks an order staying or postponing the June 20, 2026 election or, in the alternative, an “order requiring reasonable alternative voting method.” [ 7 ] The case was put under special management. [ADDRESS] agreed to compress the usual timelines so that the matter could be heard before the election.

II. Analysis [ 8 ] I am dismissing the application. I will first explain why it is not the Court’s role to override the decision made by [NAME] members not to provide for online voting. I will then briefly analyze [NAME]’s written submissions regarding the failure to have a polling station at Peace Point. A. Online Voting [ 9 ] [NAME] challenges a decision purportedly made by [NAME] on October 27, 2025, to hold an election on June 20, 2026, without the possibility of voting remotely by electronic means. The certified tribunal record provided by [NAME] contains no trace of a decision made on that date. Rather, there is a resolution of the [NAME] dated May 8, 2026, setting the date of the election and advance polls, establishing the location of the polling stations and appointing the Chief Electoral Officer. The resolution states that the election will be held in accordance with the [NAME]’s “recognized customs.” As mentioned above, the Regulations do not provide for online voting. I will assume that this resolution is the decision under review. [ 10 ] [NAME]’s grounds for challenging this decision are aptly summarized in the following two paragraphs of his affidavit: I have concerns regarding whether off-reserve and geographically dispersed members of [[NAME]] are able to meaningfully participate in [[NAME]] elections under the current electoral structure. I have concerns that members living outside Fort Chipewyan face practical barriers to voting participation due to distance, travel realities, and the absence of alternative voting methods such as online voting. [ 11 ] [NAME], however, does not point to any legal rule that [NAME] would have breached by directing that the election be held without online voting. In fact, as the resolution makes clear, [NAME] is acting in conformity with the existing legal rules governing the election, which are found in the Regulations. [NAME] is not challenging the constitutional validity of the Regulations. When the constitutional validity of the law is not challenged, the Court’s role is to apply the law, not to change the law. There is simply no legal basis for [NAME]’s application. [ 12 ] This is not to say that [NAME]’s concerns are unwarranted. He has explained how his personal situation makes it difficult and costly for him to vote. Many First Nations have electoral codes that provide for various forms of distance voting. The First Nations Elections Regulations , SOR/2015-86, adopted pursuant to the First Nations Elections Act , SC 2014, c 5, provide for voting by mail. And indeed, [NAME]’s Council itself proposed amendments to the Regulations that would have allowed online voting, but they were not adopted by the membership. [ 13 ] The proper forum for addressing concerns regarding online voting, however, is [NAME]’s democratic process. The fact that the general meeting did not reach the desired outcome is not grounds for the Court’s intervention, in the absence of a constitutional challenge. If the Court were to intervene, it would be reversing the outcome of a democratic process, without any evidence that a legal rule was breached. Thus, [NAME]’s application is based on a misunderstanding of the role of courts in a democracy. [ 14 ] [NAME] also expresses concerns regarding the consultation process that led to the amendments proposed at the February 22, 2025, general meeting. For instance, he states: Based on the materials currently available to me, I have not seen detailed records documenting the scope, attendance, notice, or substance of certain meetings referenced in the Certified Tribunal Record, including what information was specifically presented to members during those discussions. [ 15 ] He also notes that the decision to reject the proposed amendments was made by the vote of approximately 10% of [NAME] members. [ 16 ] Again, this is based on a misapprehension of the legal process. [NAME] is the applicant and as such, he bears the burden of proof. If he had concerns that the process leading to the February 22, 2025, general meeting was not compliant with the existing law, it was incumbent on him to investigate and bring the evidence to the Court. Moreover, his application for judicial review did not identify the failure to adopt the amendments to the Regulations as the decision under review. If [NAME] wished to challenge this decision today, he would need to apply for an extension of time. B. Location of Polling Stations [ 17 ] [NAME] did not address this issue at the hearing, it is mentioned in his written submissions, and I will discuss it briefly for the sake of exhaustiveness. [ 18 ] Section 8.3 of the Regulations provide that polling stations are to be located in Fort Chipewyan, Peace Point, Edmonton and Fort McMurray. [NAME] challenges the fact that [NAME] does not intend to have a polling station at Peace Point. [ 19 ] I already addressed this issue in a decision pertaining to the 2020 election: [NAME] v [NAME] , 2021 FC 1063. The results of the election were challenged on several grounds, one of them being that the polling stations were not located at the places listed in section 8.3. Rather, they had been located at Fort Chipewyan, Fort McMurray, High Level, Edmonton and Fort Smith for at least the four preceding elections. The election appeal committee held that the practice appeared to be customary. On judicial review, I found this conclusion reasonable. While the provisions of written Indigenous law (such as the Regulations) should not easily be displaced by unwritten custom, our caselaw accepts that this may happen when a practice has become firmly established.

III. Disposition [ 20 ] As [NAME] did not show that the way in which [NAME] intends to conduct the next election is in breach of the Regulations, I must dismiss his application for judicial review. [ 21 ] Given the circumstances, I am of the view that no costs should be awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-2083-26 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The style of cause is changed to designate the respondent as “[NAME].” The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: T-2083-26 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v [NAME] OF HEARING: By videoconference DATE OF HEARING: June 9, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 9, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : O’[NAME] and Solicitors Edmonton, Alberta For The Respondent