Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)
supreme Court of Canada case
Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519, 2002 SCC 68 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that prisoners have a right to vote under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court overturned the prior decision of the Federal Court of Appeal and held that section 51(e) of the old Canada Elections Act, which prohibited prisoners serving a sentence of over two years from voting, was unconstitutional. Section 51(e) had been repealed before the date of the Court's judgment, but the decision applied equally to section 4(c) of the new statute, which was substantially the same. The Court ruled that the provision violated section 3 of the Charter and was not a reasonable limit under section 1.
As a result of the decision, all adult citizens living in Canada are now able to vote, save the top two officials of Elections Canada. Relevant sections of the Canada Elections Act was amended in 2018 as part of the Elections Modernization Act.
See also
List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
Richardson v.
The public source identifies “Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)” as supreme Court of Canada case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Sauvé, Canada and Chief.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)”, the useful work is to connect “supreme Court of Canada case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 11, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7427642. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2002 and 2018.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) primary sources, Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) archive and Sauvé research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.