Constitutional Law: Working Families Coalition v. Ontario
- LSOU Publications
- 7 days ago
- 4 min read
Written By: Jissana Ahad
Introduction
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Working Families Coalition (Canada) Inc. (2025 SCC 5), decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in March 2025, addresses whether Ontario’s limits on third party political advertising before elections violated democratic rights under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case centers on whether spending caps in Ontario’s Election Finances Act unfairly restricted the ability of ordinary citizens, unions, and community groups to participate meaningfully in elections by allowing political parties to dominate political discourse. The Court found the limits unconstitutional, emphasizing that the right to vote includes access to diverse information and perspectives necessary for informed participation. The case warrants public attention because it determines who can be heard in democratic debate and how influence is distributed before voting. Given that election rules shape political engagement across society, the ruling has broad implications for the functioning of Canadian democracy.
Background
Ontario amended its Election Finances Act to extend strict spending limits on third party political advertising to the 12 months before an election, while political parties faced far fewer restrictions. Civil society groups and unions argued that this created a significant imbalance in political speech, limiting access to diverse viewpoints. After the law was initially struck down for violating freedom of expression, Ontario re-enacted it using the notwithstanding clause, leading challengers to rely instead on s. 3 of the Charter. The Working Families Coalition argued that the spending limits undermined voters’ ability to fully engage in the electoral process, while Ontario defended the law as necessary to promote electoral fairness and prevent wealthy actors from dominating elections. The Ontario Court of Appeal ultimately found the limits inconsistent with s. 3 of the Charter, prompting Ontario to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada for clarification.
Court's Ruling & Reasoning
The Supreme Court of Canada, in a narrow 5-4 decision, invalidated Ontario’s limits on third party political advertising as unconstitutional for violating s. 3 of the Canadian Charter. The Court held that the law restricted voters’ ability to cast an informed vote by giving political parties a disproportionate advantage in political communication, thereby undermining democratic participation.
In reaching this conclusion, the majority emphasized that s. 3 protects the structural conditions of the electoral process, not only the formal act of voting. The spending limits, tightly constraining third party advertising while allowing political parties far greater freedom, were found to distort electoral competition and debate. The Court focused on the law’s comparative and practical effects on different political actors and its impact on the overall quality of election-related discourse.
The dissenting judges would have upheld the legislation, placing greater weight on the province’s objective of promoting election integrity and deferring more heavily to legislative judgment. They adopted a narrower view of the right to vote and a different approach to evaluating when election spending limits infringe constitutional protections.
Significance
The ruling restores the ability of unions, advocacy organizations, and other non-party actors to engage more fully in political speeches during the pre-election period. In result, Ontario is required to amend its election financing framework to remove spending limits that placed these groups at a structural disadvantage.
Beyond the immediate parties, the decision limits how provinces can regulate electoral advertising without distorting political debate. It confirms that courts will look closely at how election laws operate in practice, rather than relying solely on legislative claims about fairness or balance.
As a precedent, the case reinforces constitutional scrutiny of election legislation by focusing on comparative effects across political actors. It is likely to shape future challenges to laws that create unequal influence in electoral discourse and guide how governments balance democratic participation with regulatory objectives.
Evaluation & Critique
I agree with the Court’s decision because democratic participation depends on people being able to express ideas and hear diverse perspectives before voting. The strongest aspect of the reasoning is its focus on the law’s real-world effects, particularly how the spending limits operated in practice to restrict some voices while amplifying others. However, while the Court clearly identified this problem, it left unresolved where the limits of election spending regulation should be drawn. The narrow 5-4 split reflects unresolved tension between democratic rights and legislative efforts to regulate elections for fairness.
Practical Implications
In real-world scenarios, the decision affects businesses, advocacy groups, and individuals by shaping who holds influence during election periods and how governments must design proper laws to withstand Charter review. Actors with greater financial resources can gain increased visibility and credibility in political debate, contributing to unequal power. The key takeaway from this case is that democracy is shaped by who actually gets heard in practice, not just by the formal rules that govern elections.
Broader Societal Impact
At a systematic level, this case relates to broader political issues concerning democratic equality, political power, and access to public discourse. By focusing on who is able to participate in political speech, the decision highlights how election laws can shape whose voices are amplified or marginalized. The ruling has clear implications for democratic fairness and civil liberties, particularly freedom of expression and meaningful participation in elections.
Personal Conclusion
From my perspective, this case highlights the importance of freedom and equity in political participation, and I agree with the Court’s decision to protect open and balanced debate. Democratic rights exist to ensure that every citizen has an equal opportunity to be heard, not to allow wealth or status to determine whose voice carries more weight. I want to encourage readers to never feel silenced or discouraged because others may appear more knowledgeable, influential, or powerful. Those differences do not make one opinion more valid, nor do they make another wrong. Political engagement is a personal expression of values and beliefs, and democracy depends on individuals feeling confident enough to share their perspectives. At its core, I hope readers recognize that participation belongs to everyone and that it should not be limited by fear or inequality.
Document with citations:
Comments