Elections BC has filed its response to a losing B.C. Conservative candidate who filed a petition in B.C. Supreme Court claiming alleged election "irregularities" in the provincial election in October.
Honveer Singh Randhawa, who lost Surrey-Guildford by 22 votes to New Democrat Garry Begg following a judicial recount, filed a petition at the New Westminster Supreme Court on Jan. 13 asking the Supreme Court of British Columbia to declare Begg's election invalid under Section 150 of the Election Act.
One clause under that section allows for an election to be "declared invalid because it was not conducted in accordance with this Act or a regulation under this Act."
Randhawa has taken aim specifically at 22 mail-in ballots associated with a care facility in Surrey.
The response from Elections BC filed on June 19 in the BC Supreme Court noted that its staff had noted that the same email and phone number was used to request the 22 mail-in packets.
"However, the team also noted that the request came from a care facility with resident individuals," reads the petition.
The staff at Elections BC approved the request in light of the recent changes to the Election Act that allowed for an individual to help "more than one voter with a mail-in voting package provided the individual was appointed as an election official using the powers in s. 77(6)."
The 22 mail-in ballots were sent to the home. "However, the Team failed to follow up with the District Electoral Officer, Ms. Malhi, to confirm that an individual at (the facility) was appointed as an election official," according to Elections B.C.'s response.
The petition noted that all 22 certification envelopes for the mail-in ballots were signed, but three of them were not counted as they did not "meet certain requirements for counting."
The envelopes did not identify anyone who had assisted the voters.
Randhawa's lawyer, Sunny Uppal, issued a press release Tuesday (June 24) in response.
"In their response materials, Elections BC acknowledges that they sent mail-in ballots to a mental health facility without ensuring that an election official was present, as required by the Election Act," Uppal said. "That this constitutes a serious irregularity in which one individual ordered 22 mail-in ballots on behalf of 22 vulnerable individuals without any checks and balances being in place to ensure those individuals were not being used as a tool for election fraud."
Voter participation information report
Part of Randhawa's case centres on "voter participation information" he had sought from Elections BC.
Elections BC's filing outlined the type of reports candidates could download during the election. Starting three days before advanced voting, candidates could download voter participation information that included "the voter's unique identifier number (called the voter number), electoral district and voting area. In addition, if the voter updated their registration information or registered to vote in conjunction with voting, the voter's name and/or address was also included."
This information was available to download in a spreadsheet until 8:30 p.m. on election day.
"Candidates were advised in the Elections BC Guide for Candidates and Political Parties that the purpose of providing this information was to inform campaigns about which voters had already voted to assist in get-out-the-vote efforts," noted the petition.
After the election, on Oct. 29, Randhawa asked for the updated voter participation information spreadsheet but was told that due to the judicial recount, it "could not be provided on an urgent basis."
He requested the information again on Nov. 10, and a few days later, he heard back from counsel for Elections BC that it would take some time to provide him with the information in the requested format.
Elections BC also noted its information does not include where a specific person voted to ensure the "secrecy of voting."
On the same day (Nov. 14), Randhawa told Elections BC that it needed the voter participation information to investigate "any wrongdoing in the voting" in Surrey-Guildford.
On Nov. 22, Randhawa received the documents he had requested with the voter participation information. "However, it was noted that this was interim information and Elections BC had not completed its quality assurance of the information."
The response to the petition noted that Randhawa did not file the petition within the 30-day limit set out in the Election Act and that his application to the court "can only be made on the basis of alleged contraventions of ss. 255-258 of the Election Act."
"To the extent that he makes any allegations pursuant to s. 150(5)(b) of the Election Act (i.e. that the election was not conducted in accordance with the Election Act or a regulation), those allegations are out of time and cannot be advanced as bases to invalidate the election in Surrey-Guildford," Elections BC's response said.
Ultimately, Elections BC said, Randhawa must rely on a different section of the Election Act to challenge the result.
"Mr. Randhawa must prove that at least 22 votes cast in the Surrey-Guildford electoral district were invalid as a result of contraventions of ss. 256 and 257 of the Election Act in order for his petition to succeed," it said.
Section 256 covers "intimidation" – including circumstances in which someone is "persuaded or compelled" to vote for a particular candidate or party – while section 257 covers "corrupt voting," including circumstances in which a person applies for more than one mail-in voting package.
Uppal argues that Randhawa's challenge under Section150(5)(b) should stand.
"Now, despite admitting their error, Elections BC argues that Mr. Randhawa’s petition to challenge the election is time-barred because it was not filed within 30 days of the writ of the election," he said. "Conveniently, the 30-day period lapsed before Elections BC admitted their error. Mr. Uppal contends that Election BC’s position is contrary to public policy because it allows Elections BC to benefit from concealing their error from Mr. Randhawa and the public."
Possible 'non-resident' voters under scrutiny
Elections BC's petition also addressed the issue of possible non-resident voters who voted in Surrey-Guildford.
Elections BC stated that every effort is made to ensure that voters are eligible to vote in a designated riding. "Despite these methods and best efforts, Elections BC cannot verify whether someone actually lives at the residential address they provide when voting."
It noted that of the 23 reported non-resident voters listed in the initial petition, three had updated addresses within the riding. Another voter had cast their ballot at a local hospital. "The voter had updated her address to an address at a care home facility in the Surrey City Centre electoral district in August 2024 and the electronic voting book reflected the change; however, a registration in conjunction with voting was applied to her record moving her back to her previous address in Surrey- Guilford based on two pieces of identification provided at the time of voting."
Another person had voted at the SFU Halpern Centre. Their address had been updated through ICBC in 2024 to the Surrey-Cloverdale riding, but had not been successfully updated in the Elections BC database.
"At the time of voting, an election official looked up the voter in the electronic voting book which contained her previous address located in the Surrey-Guildford electoral district. The voter provided her BC driver's license as identification when voting."
"The remaining 18 voters voted using identification with a residential address that matched the information on the list of voters at the time of voting."
Two of the 18 had updated their address to another address within the riding around the time of the writ of election being issued and the election.
"The records of the other 16 individuals have remained stable and unchanged on the list of voters and in secondary data sources since the Election."
The petition also noted that there were not multiple votes by the same person – as Randhawa had claimed in his original petition. Randhawa dropped that claim in his amended filing, agreeing with Elections BC that in fact it was two votes by two people with very similar names but different birthdays and driver's licence numbers.
The next scheduled court appearance is June 25 for a case management conference. A trial is scheduled to take place in late summer or early fall and is expected to last two to three weeks, Uppal said.
The claims in the petition have not been tested or proven in court.
