The second-place candidate... claims that the victor... violated the Local Government Act by vote buying and voter intimidation and seeks an injunction requiring a new election ....

My view is that, except for exceptional circumstances, no reasonable voter could be persuaded to vote differently by the mere offering of a cup or a cinnamon bun.

Michetti v. Veach, 2023 BCSC 43 (Jan. 10, 2023).

The violent attack on the United States' legislature seems to have temporarily saved democracy (as it is). This story shows that democracy is vulnerable in all places, but perhaps less so when election-rigging allegations involve bribing votes with cinnamon buns.

Two (2) buns were provided by Danielle Veach, a mayoral candidate, to potential voters at a Pouce Coupe "Tea and Talk” event. Veach defeated Lorraine Michetti by only two percentage points (32.2%) to 30.2%). Two percent is the margin Hillary Clinton held over what's her name. But in Canada, the person with the most votes wins. (The Electoral College, which I should remind you isn't actually an institution for higher learning--has only awarded the presidency to two larger losers: Rutherford B. Hayes (3.0%) or John Quincy Adams (10.4 %).)). The margin was even more significant because only 261 out of 800 Pouce Coupe citizens voted. This means that the absolute margin was only five votes.

The court stated in its January 10 opinion that Pouce Coupe had been "the subject of many political firestorms well beyond its size." This includes the time Michetti sued the mayor of the village and an administrator for libel. Michetti was elected to succeed him. The mayor resigned later. In 2018, she was elected to a full four year term. Michetti posted some controversial posts on social media in the early 2021. The council censured Michetti. She won the court challenge. Two new members of the council were elected shortly thereafter. One of them was Danielle Veach. Veach also brought another motion for censure. This was also passed but was later reversed. Veach then decided to run for mayor.

This was the beginning of Tea and Talk.

Veach reviewed an official election guide before scheduling the event. It stated that "meet-and-greet" events were fine, but that "incentives" may not be. It was section 161 of 2015's Local Government Act that made it illegal to "pay or lend, or procure inducement" to induce someone to vote. The law defines inducement as "money, gift or valuable consideration", refreshment, entertainment and office. The guide then provided a poorly written example that involved coffee.

Vote-buying is the act of buying coffee for customers or driving an elector to the polls in return for their vote. These activities are allowed provided that there is no implied or explicit obligation for the elector to vote in favor of a particular candidate.

Veach advertised her event by saying that they could enjoy tea or coffee and a cinnamon bun, ask questions and get to know her. Although it's unclear how many people attended the event, Veach later admitted that she purchased refreshments for some of them and distributed five (5) drinks as well as two (2) cinnamon buns. Veach purchased six (6) buns, but she ended up bringing four [(4)] home for her family.

Veach won the election by five votes over Michetti a month later. Michetti filed suit against Veach, claiming she had "intimidated voters" by making false statements at campaign events and that Veach's provision of coffee and cinnamon buns was illegal "vote buying."

A hearing was held by the court in which at least eight witnesses gave evidence. The matter, which you may remember, concerned a local election where only 261 voters voted. The witnesses to Michetti and Veach included the owner and three possible voters who attended the "Tea and Talk" event. The court denied Michetti's petition after hearing the dramatic testimony.

The Act allows for "intimidation" to include manipulating a voter through "fraudulent means", but the court found that the evidence didn't support this charge. We of course are more interested in the cinnamon-bun-vote-buying allegations, and those also fell short.

Michetti claimed that Veach provided refreshments "for the purpose of inducing people to vote for Veach," and not Michetti. It is against the Act to "give inducement" voters to vote. Michetti was correct that Veach did so. This is only prohibited if it is done to induce someone to vote in a certain way. This was not Veach's intention, according to the court.

Veach, however, denied the claim. All three voters also testified that they were not influenced by the alleged inducement. Although the court considered their testimony to be relevant, it suggested that an objective test be used "to avoid having to call evidence form many eligible voters."

The court suggested that "[s]pecial conditions might include specific evidence on the candidate's corrupt intent or evidence of an evident need for sustenance by the voter." However, there didn't appear to be any clearly starving voters at Tea & Talk and no evidence of corruption was presented. According to the court, the evidence showed that Veach's intention for providing coffee and buns for morning meetings was simple human decency and politeness and not election-rigging.

This resolution avoided the question of whether an "inducement" might be so trivial that it would not apply to law. In other words, it is possible that, in certain circumstances, giving someone a cinnamon bun could be considered illegal "induction to vote" under Canadian law. These facts prove that it did not. It's likely that it will only take a few more years before this is tested.