An election result may be final, but as the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent ruling in Resler v. Anglin confirms, the conduct of public officials during an election may still be open to civil scrutiny if not protected by a specific statutory immunity. The Court weighed whether Joseph Anglin, a former political candidate who accepted his electoral defeat, could nevertheless pursue damages against Glen Resler, Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer, for allegedly exercising statutory powers in bad faith. In permitting the claim to proceed beyond a motion to strike, the Court defined the line between an impermissible challenge to an election result and a properly pleaded civil claim for alleged misuse of public power, with direction on parliamentary privilege, statutory immunity and misfeasance in public office[1].
Background
Joseph Anglin, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Alberta from 2012 to 2015, lost his re-election bid in the 2015 provincial election. During the campaign and in his role as Chief Electoral Officer, Glen Resler caused at least 25 of Anglin’s signs to be removed because they improperly identified Anglin as “MLA,” and displayed insufficient sponsorship information. Anglin later alleged that Resler lacked authority for those directions, wrongfully told the media that the signs were illegal and worked in conjunction with Anglin’s opponents to remove or damage the signs. Anglin subsequently commenced a civil action against Resler. Resler moved to strike the civil action by arguing that Anglin’s claim was an improper attempt to challenge the election, outside Alberta’s statutory controverted-election process, and that he was protected by parliamentary privilege and the good-faith immunity provision in Alberta’s Election Act.
Issues before the Court:
The Court structured the appeal around two issues[2]:
- Are there any barriers that could prevent Anglin’s claim from proceeding?
- The Court stated that this included “whether the amended statement of claim constitutes a collateral attack on the 2015 election result, whether it is an abuse of process, whether Resler’s conduct is protected from civil claims by parliamentary privilege or statutory immunity and whether the Election Act precludes civil claims.”
- If not, do the allegations and facts pleaded in the amended statement of claim disclose a reasonable cause of action?
Decision
Justice Moreau, writing for the majority, answered both issues in Anglin’s favour. The majority dismissed Resler’s appeal and held that Anglin’s civil claim could proceed, except for the malicious prosecution allegation that had already been struck.
On the first issue, the majority held that no threshold barrier applied. Anglin sought damages for alleged misconduct by a public official, not an order overturning the election or determining the Legislative Assembly’s membership. The claim was therefore neither a collateral attack on the election result nor an abuse of process.
Parliamentary privilege and statutory immunity did not change that result. Although a legislature has privilege over its own composition, Anglin’s claim did not ask the Court to decide who should sit in the Legislative Assembly, and Resler’s alleged conduct was not sufficiently connected to that protected function. Section 5.1(1) of Alberta’s Election Act also did not bar the claim at this stage because it protects acts or omissions done in good faith, while Anglin alleged bad faith.
On the second issue, the majority held that Anglin’s pleading met the low threshold of pleading a reasonable cause of action for misfeasance in public office. The Court did not find that Resler committed a misfeasance. Rather, it held that the pleaded facts, taken as true for the limited purpose of the motion to strike, were legally sufficient to allow the claim to proceed. Anglin alleged more than an error by an election official; he alleged that Resler exercised public powers for an improper purpose, knew or was reckless as to whether he had authority to act, knew the conduct was likely to harm Anglin and caused material damage.
Justice Rowe, joined by Justice Côté, agreed with the majority but wrote separately to address the loss-of-chance damages. Concurring with Justice Moreau, they suggested that the Court should not decide the unsettled issue of election-related loss-of-chance damages on a thin pleadings record or use free-standing public policy as a catch-all basis to strike a claim where entrenched doctrines did not bar it[3]. Justice Karakatsanis dissented in part: she agreed that the misfeasance and trespass claims could proceed, but would have struck the loss-of-chance damages claim as unduly speculative and potentially harmful to public confidence in the electoral process[4].
Conclusion
The pragmatic lesson following Resler is simple: finality at the ballot box does not necessarily foreclose accountability for the conduct that precedes it. This ruling confirms that public officials exercising statutory authority may still face civil scrutiny where bad faith is properly alleged and statutory immunity clauses only protect good faith conduct. For candidates, public bodies and organizations that interact with government decision-makers, the decisionmaintains the role of motions to strike is an important, though limited, civil-procedure tool that ought not to foreclose arguable claims for public-law accountability before a more fulsome record is developed.
For more information, please reach out to the authors, Laurie Livingstone and Tom Nichini.
The authors wish to thank Ira Chandershekar, a summer law student, for her valuable contribution to this article.
[1] 2026 SCC 23 at paras 38–44, 50–55, 56–70, 82–93.
[2] Ibid at para 22.
[3] Ibid at paras 120–127, 128–145.
[4] Ibid at paras 146–150, 173–179, 184–189.
