For the second straight election, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party got fewer popular votes than the rival Conservatives (in this case about 32% vs. just under 34% for the CPC), but still won by far the most seats in Parliament, and will thus get to form the government. That's because the Liberal vote is far more efficiently distributed across districts (called "ridings" in Canada) than the Conservatives. The LPC's 32-33% of the vote routinely translates to about 45% of the seats, which is enough to form a "minority" government.
There is an obvious analogy to how the GOP won the presidency in 2000 and 2016 without winning the popular vote, and how the Republicans also have an edge in converting votes to House seats (though a much smaller one than the Liberals do).
Sure enough, here's a piece by a Canadian conservative columnist making most of the same arguments against the Liberal advantage in her country, that Democrats make against the electoral college in the US.
There are various ways to distinguish the two situations (i.e. - to argue that the Liberal efficiency edge is justified, but the GOP's isn't or vice versa). But it's not an easy case to make. In both countries, whether you think the winning party's countermajoritarian success is justified depends in large part on which party you support yourself.