Maskless Canadian voters to be denied ballot even though Supreme Court guarantees right to vote

"There will be masks," Perrault told reporters. "If Canadians do not have a mask, we will offer a mask. We have purchased a very, very large number of masks."

Elections Canada, in a technical document Key Changes For The 44th General Election, explained the requirement. "Electors will be required to wear masks if masks are required in the province or local jurisdiction," wrote staff.

"If masks are not required, electors will still be strongly encouraged to wear one. There will be sanitizing stations at entrances and exits, as well as physical distancing measures."

"You will not deny me my ballot if I choose not to be masked and I’m six feet away from everyone else, correct?" asked a reporter. "Well, you have to be careful here," replied Perreault.

"I think electors have a responsibility whether it’s by personal choice or even for medical reasons," he said. "Now there are medical exemptions, but they should plan their vote. And if you do not intend to vote with a mask, I would encourage you to vote by mail."

"Now, if you have a medical exemption and you have not been able to vote by mail in advance, and you have a medical reason not to wear a mask, then you will not be denied a right to vote," said Perreault. "But if it’s just a matter of personal choice and the mask is mandatory in the jurisdiction in which you’re voting, then we will apply those rules."

The agency did not point to any Act of Parliament that would permit denying ballots to maskless electors.

The Canada Elections Act states a returning officer may only eject a voter from a polling station if "the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person has committed in the office or place an offence under this Act, any other Act of Parliament or any regulation made under any other Act of Parliament that threatens the maintenance of order."

The Supreme Court of Canada, in multiple rulings, has described the right to vote as fundamental. The Court, in a 2019 case Frank v. Canada, ruled citizens who were longtime non-residents could not be denied a ballot, and in a 2002 case, Sauve v. Canada ruled federal prisoners were entitled to vote.

"Just because you’re in jail doesn’t mean you are no longer a citizen," Fergus O'Connor, a Kingston, Ontario lawyer who argued the prisoners' case, said in an earlier interview. "This is a fundamental argument."

"Since voting is a fundamental political right, and the right to vote is a core tenet of Canadian democracy, any limit on the right to vote must be carefully scrutinized and cannot be tolerated without a compelling justification," wrote the Supreme Court. "Intrusions on this core democratic right are to be reviewed on a stringent justification standard."