E-3.3, r. 9 - Regulation respecting the determination of the candidates entitled to recommend certain election officers

Updated to 10 March 2022

This document has official status.

chapter E-3.3, r. 9

Regulation respecting the determination of the candidates entitled to recommend certain election officers

Election Act

(chapter E-3.3, ss. 311 and 550).

Decision 89-03-23; Decision 2000-12-20, ss. 1 and 2; Decision 2001-06-15, s. 1; Decision 2004-03-31, s. 1.

DIVISION I GENERAL

1. The Interpretation Act (chapter I-16) applies to this Regulation.

Decision 89-03-23, s. 1.

DIVISION II NEW OR CHANGED ELECTORAL DIVISION

2. In a new electoral division or an electoral division whose boundaries have been changed since the last election, the Chief Electoral Officer shall reapportion the results of the last election to the electoral precincts and polling subdivisions included in the new electoral division by calculating the number of valid votes attributed to the candidates of authorized parties and to independent Members elected as such.

A deputy returning officer shall be recommended by the candidate of an authorized party or by the independent Member elected as such who received the greatest number of votes after a reapportionment made under the first paragraph.

A poll clerk shall be recommended by the candidate of an authorized party or by the independent Member elected as such who received the second greatest number of votes after reapportionment.

Decision 89-03-23, s. 2.

3. If the independent candidate who would have been entitled to recommend the deputy returning officer according to the criteria in section 2 is not a candidate or if the party whose candidate would have been entitled to make such a recommendation does not put up a candidate, the deputy returning officer shall be recommended by the candidate who would have been entitled to recommend the poll clerk.

The poll clerk shall then be recommended by the candidate of the authorized party that came next in order after reapportionment.

Decision 89-03-23, s. 3.

4. If the independent candidate who would have been entitled to recommend the poll clerk according to the criteria in section 2 is not a candidate or if the party whose candidate would have been entitled to make such a recommendation does not put up a candidate, the poll clerk shall be recommended by the candidate of the authorized party that came next in order after reapportionment.

Decision 89-03-23, s. 4.

5. If the independent candidate who would have been entitled to recommend the deputy returning officer according to the criteria in section 2 is not a candidate or if the party whose candidate would have been entitled to make such a recommendation does not put up a candidate, and if the party whose candidate would have been entitled to recommend the poll clerk under this section does not put up a candidate, the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk shall be recommended by the candidates of the authorized parties that came next in order after reapportionment.

Decision 89-03-23, s. 5.

DIVISION III ELECTORAL DIVISION WHERE NO CANDIDATE OF AN AUTHORIZED PARTY CAME SECOND

6. In an electoral division where no candidate of an authorized party came second in the last election, the deputy returning officer shall be recommended by the candidate of the authorized party whose candidate came first in the last election or by the independent Member elected as such if he runs for re-election.

The poll clerk shall be recommended by the candidate of the authorized party whose candidate came next in order in the preceding election.

Decision 89-03-23, s. 6.

7. If the independent candidate who would have been entitled to recommend the deputy returning officer according to the criteria in section 6 is not a candidate or if the party whose candidate would have been entitled to make such a recommendation does not put up a candidate, the deputy returning officer shall be recommended by the candidate who would have been entitled to recommend the poll clerk.

The poll clerk shall then be recommended by the candidate of the authorized party whose candidate came next in order in the preceding election.

Decision 89-03-23, s. 7.

8. If the party whose candidate would have been entitled to recommend the poll clerk according to the criteria in section 6 does not put up a candidate, the poll clerk shall be recommended by the candidate of the authorized party whose candidate came next in order in the preceding election.

Decision 89-03-23, s. 8.

9. If the independent candidate who would have been entitled to recommend the deputy returning officer according to the criteria in section 6 is not a candidate or if the party whose candidate would have been entitled to make such a recommendation does not put up a candidate, and if the party whose candidate would have been entitled to recommend the poll clerk under this section does not put up a candidate, the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk shall be recommended by the candidates of the authorized parties whose candidates came next in order respectively in the preceding election.

Decision 89-03-23, s. 9.

DIVISION IV SPECIAL CRITERIA

10. For the purposes of Divisions II and III:

(a)  if the results of a reapportionment or of the preceding election do not point to any candidate of an authorized party as entitled to make a recommendation, the recommendation shall be made by one of the following candidates, in the order indicated, provided that the candidate has not already been entitled to recommend a deputy returning officer or a poll clerk, as the case may be:

i.  the candidate of the authorized party forming the Government;

ii.  the candidate of the authorized party forming the Official Opposition;

iii.  the candidate of an authorized party represented in the National Assembly, beginning with the candidate whose party has the most Members;

iv.  the candidate of an authorized party not represented in the National Assembly;

v.  an independent candidate;

(b)  in the case of a tie, the returning officer shall draw lots in the presence of the candidates or their representatives or, failing them, 2 electors. The same procedure will be followed in the case of competition between candidates covered by subparagraphs iv or v of paragraph a.

Decision 89-03-23, s. 10; Erratum, 1989 G.O. 2, 3727.

DIVISION IV.1 IDENTIFY VERIFICATION PANEL MEMBERS

Decision 2000-12-20, s. 3, Erratum, 2001 G.O. 2, 1829.

10.1. Divisions II, III and IV apply with the necessary modifications to the determination of the candidates entitled to recommend identity verification panel member appointments.

Decision 2000-12-20, s. 3.

DIVISION IV.2

(Implicitly revoked)

Decision 2001-06-15, s. 2; I.N. 2022-04-01.

10.2. (Implicitly revoked).

Decision 2001-06-15, s. 2; I.N. 2022-04-01.

DIVISION V FINAL

11. (Omitted).

Decision 89-03-23, s. 11.

12. (Omitted).

Decision 89-03-23, s. 12.

REFERENCES

Decision 89-03-23, 1989 G.O. 2, 1577 and 3727

Decision 2000-12-20, 2001 G.O. 2, 1183 and 1829

Decision 2001-06-15, 2001 G.O. 2, 3562

Decision 2004-03-31, 2004 G.O. 2, 1286