Can Courts enforce election promises made by political parties during an election campaign? No, according to the Ontario Superior Court, Canada. McGuinty, as leader of the Liberal Party inter alia promised during the election campaign that he would not raise taxes. On September 11, 2003, at the request of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), McGuinty signed a document entitled ‘Taxpayer Protection Promise’. It promised that ‘‘if my party is elected as the next government, I will not raise taxes or implement any new taxes without the explicit consent of Ontario voters’’.The Liberal Party was elected and McGuinty became the Premier of the Province of Ontario. On May 18, 2004 the Liberal government delivered its first Budget. Lo and behold, it provided for the introduction of a new health tax. Sorbara, the finance minister acknowledged that the introduction of this new health tax was in breach of the party’s campaign promises but in light of the province’s financial situation and the need to improve health services in Ontario the government was left with no reasonable alternative.CTF went to court. Its case was that the promise in writing made by McGuinty constituted a legally binding contract and sought its enforcement. The Court rejected the plea. It ruled that government could not bind Parliament from exercising its powers to legislate because that would negate the sovereignty of Parliament. Moreover, commitments previously made by a Minister regarding future conduct cannot fetter that Minister’s freedom to ‘‘propose, consider and, if they think fit, vote for laws, even laws which are inconsistent with the contractual obligations’’. The Court held that undertakings given as to what the government will or will not legislate in the future are without value, do not amount to consideration and cannot form the basis of a contract.The Court’s further observations are interesting. ‘‘In the course of election campaigns, politicians and their parties commonly make promises and pledge that they will or will not do various things if and when they are elected. It is hoped that, if elected, the politicians and their parties will keep their promises and will follow through with the pledges given. This said, however, few people would consider that all of the promises made and pledges given constitute legally binding agreements’’. It bemoaned the fact that McGuinty and the Liberal Party did not keep their promise ‘‘but that is a matter for the electorate to take into account at the next election. It is not a matter for the courts.’’The message of the judgment is that electors should not be foolish to believe that electoral promises will be kept. In any case that is a matter for the electorate at the next election and Courts have no role to play. Obviously judicial activism is absent in the Ontario Court. It is hoped that the Canadian judgment will not find acceptance in our country where judicial activism is assertive, political immorality is all pervasive and voters are taken for a ride.Poetic justice for a lawyerA Lawyer in America purchased a box of expensive cigars and then insured them against fire. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these rare cigars and without having paid even his first premium payment on the policy he filed a claim against the insurance company. The grounds were that the cigars, because of the smoking, were lost ‘‘in a series of small fires’’. The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the lawyer had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued and won!In delivering judgment, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. However as the lawyer ‘‘held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable fire’’ the insurance company was bound to pay the claim. One may be forgiven for thinking that the law is an ass. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars in the ‘‘fires’’.After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of arson. On the basis of his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous suit, he was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.Poetic justice was indeed done. Incidentally, there are black sheep in every profession and fields of human endeavour. Why are lawyers singled out? Ask the average consumer of justice and you will get the answer.
