Hamilton was arguing in Federal Court in Ottawa Tuesday, where a group of voters backed by the Council of Canadians are alleging a systematic campaign of voter suppression took place during the last federal election.
"All they are doing is saying, 'I want another election'," Hamilton said later in an interview outside the court.
"Because it's a zero-sum game, and it's the applicant that's bringing this forward, it's not in the public interest, it's a very narrow interest to defeat the person who won the election in favour of having a new election."
The challengers claim that live calls and robocalls purporting to be from Elections Canada directed non-Conservative voters to the wrong polls, and that a small but significant number of voters in their ridings didn't vote as a result — and they want the results in those ridings thrown out.
The seven Conservative MPs whose election victories are being challenged are asking that $260,000 be set aside by the applicants to help cover their legal fees.
The Canada Elections Act specifies that $1,000 is all a voter need put up in order to contest an election in court, however the Act does allow some leeway for that amount to be increased.
If the court grants the MPs' request, the deposit would ostensibly be borne by the Council of Canadians, whose lawyers are representing the seven voters.
Council of Canadians lawyer Steven Shrybman argued Tuesday that the voters challenging the results don't stand to gain anything, but are fighting for democracy in the public interest.
Shrybman told the court it would impede access to justice if voters are required to deposit large amounts of money in order to contest an election. The Canada Elections Act states that "any" voter can challenge the results of an election if there are grounds to do so.
He also argued that its clients are public-interest litigants and money raised for a defence fund for them comes from donors' pockets with no hope of a tax receipt, unlike the Conservative MPs, whose legal bills are being paid by the Conservative Party, which can issue generous tax receipts.
"They're asking the court to order that the individual applicants who have come forward in the public interest actually post security for costs in the aggregate amount of $260,000," said Shrybman in a interview. "That would likely crush the life out of these applications."
But Hamilton noted the voters in this case aren't paying their own fees; rather, he said, the COC has promised to cover all their costs.
In an interview, Hamilton said that the COC has "infinitively more avenues to raise that money. There's circumstances where unions are looking to park their money, so big labour, as a sponsor of the Council of Canadians, would be looking for other places to park their money to become engaged in the political debate of the day."
Hamilton also argued the COC has produced only one witness in all seven ridings who says that he or she didn't vote because of a misleading phone call. The other voters in the case have all filed affidavits saying they received misleading or harassing calls but don't say they didn't vote as a result.
The Canada Elections Act specifies that fraudulent activity must be shown to have affected the results of an election if the results are to be thrown out.
The federal court reserved judgment on the motion about security deposits until further notice. The case itself that will decide the fate of the seven incumbent MPs will be heard in federal court on Dec. 10.
The seven ridings where election results are being contested are: Don Valley East and Nipissing-Timiskaming in Ontario; Elmwood-Transcona and Winnipeg South Centre in Manitoba; Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar in Saskatchewan; Vancouver Island North in B.C.; and Yukon.
Also on HuffPost