English translation of reasons for judgment in Sinclair-Desgagné c. Procureur général du Canada, 2025 QCCS 3859

Translated

Original text: CanLII RFJ

This translation is not an authoritative English language translation. Updated on March 4, 2026: added reference to title.

Sinclair-Desgagné v. Attorney-General of Canada
2025 QCCS 3859

Superior Court
Civil Chambers

CANADA
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
DISTRICT OF TERREBONNE

N°: 700-17-021527-253
DATE: October 27, 2025

Presiding: The Honorable Éric Dufour, J.C.S.

NATHALIE SINCLAIR-DESGAGNÉ
    Applicant

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF CANADA
and
RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF TERREBONNE
and
TATIANA AUGUSTE
and
MAXIME BEAUDOIN
and
MARIA CANTORE
and
ADRIENNE CHARLES
and
BENJAMIN RANKIN
    Respondents

Judgment on Contested Election
(s. 524 of the Canada Elections Act)

Overview

[1] Following the April 28, 2025 federal election and a subsequent judicial recount, Tatiana Auguste (Auguste), the Liberal Party of Canada candidate, became the Member of Parliament for the electoral district of Terrebonne1. A single vote seperated her from her closest rival, Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Sinclair-Desgagné), the Bloc Québecois candidate. A voter alerted media that her mail-in ballot, sent with the required lead-up time, was returned to her the day after election day with the notation "Déménagé ou inconnu - renvoi à l'expéditeur" ("moved or unknown - return to sender")2. In fact, the postal code printed on the prepaid envelope by the Returning Officer and sent to the voter had a mistake such that the last three digits did not correspond to the elections office. This voter claims to have voted for Sinclair-Desgagné.

[2] On May 23, 2025, Sinclair-Desgagné applied to contest the election pursuant to s. 524(1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act3 and served notice to the Attorney-General of Canada (AGC), the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada (Elections Canada or CEC), the Returning Officer of the constituency of Terrebonne and the other candidates of the election. The AGC is appearing but only Elections Canada, Auguste and the Conservative Party of Canada candidate, Adrienne Charles (Charles), participated in the hearing. Charles supports Sinclair-Desgagné's application but Elections Canada limited its role to supporting the parties and the Court during the various procedural steps leading to and the hearing of the application.

[3] Fundamentally, this application is about whether the mistake on the ballot return envelope constitutes a reason to contest the election under s. 524(1)(b) of the Elections Act and whether this mistake influenced the result of the election. If so, the Court determine whether it should exercise its judicial discretion to annul the election pursuant to s. 531(2) of the Act.

[4] In summary, the Court finds that:

[5] The Court therefore dismisses the application, albeit without costs.

Disputed Issues

[6] This dispute lies solely in a possible application of s. 524(1)(b) of the Elections Act. There is no dispute as to eligibility as described in s. 524(1)(a) and s. 524(2) does not apply. The questions that must be answered, as submitted by Sinclair-Desgagné, are as follows:

  1. A) Does the mistake in the last three digits in the postal code on the ballot envelope and the Returning Officer's response constitute an irregularity within the meaning of s. 524(1)(b) of the Elections Act?
  2. B) Subsequently, should the Court exercise its judicial discretion to annul the April 28, 2025 eection in the electoral district of Terrebonne?

Analysis

(A) Does the mistake in the last three digits in the postal code on the ballot envelope and the Returning Officer's response constitute an irregularity within the meaning of s. 524(1)(b) of the Elections Act?

[7] The Court first reviews the applicable legal framework.

Applicable legal framework

  1. La Loi électorale du Canada
  2. PARTIE 20 - Contestation de l'élection
  3. 522 (1) La validité de l'élection d'un candidat ne peut être contestée que sous le régime de la présente partie.
  4. (2) La présentation d'une requête en contestation d'élection n'a aucun effet sur les droits et obligations des candidats à l'élection en question.
  5. 524 (1) Tout électeur qui était habile à voter dans une circonscription et tout candidat dans celle-ci peuvent, par requête, contester devant le tribunal compétent l'élection qui y a été tenue pour les motifs suivants :
    1. a) inéligibilité du candidat élu au titre de l'article 65;
    2. b) irrégularité, fraude, manœuvre frauduleuse ou acte illégal ayant influé sur le résultat de l'élection.
  6. (2) La contestation ne peut être fondée sur les motifs prévus au paragraphe 301(2) pour un dépouillement judiciaire.
  7. 525 (1) La juridiction siégeant dans le district judiciaire où se trouve, en tout ou en partie, la circonscription en cause ou la Cour fédérale constituent le tribunal compétent pour entendre la requête.
  8. (2) Au paragraphe (1), juridiction s'entend de :
    1. (...)
    2. b) au Québec, la Cour supérieure;
  9. (...)
  10. (3) La requête est instruite sans délai et selon la procédure sommaire; le tribunal peut toutefois entendre des témoins lors de l'audition dans des circonstances particulières.
  11. 526 (1) La requête est accompagnée d'un cautionnement pour frais de 1 000 $ et est signifiée au procureur général du Canada, au directeur général des élections, au directeur du scrutin de la circonscription en cause et aux candidats de celle-ci.
  12. 527. La requête en contestation fondée sur l'alinéa 524(1)b) doit être présentée dans les trente jours suivant la date de la publication dans la Gazette du Canada du résultat de l'élection contestée ou, si elle est postérieure, la date à laquelle le requérant a appris, ou aurait dû savoir, que les irrégularité, fraude, manœuvre frauduleuse ou acte illégal allégués ont été commis.
  13. (...)
  14. 531 (1) Le tribunal peut en tout temps rejeter toute requête qu'il juge vexatoire ou dénuée de tout intérêt ou de bonne foi.
  15. (2) Au terme de l'audition, il peut rejeter la requête; si les motifs sont établis et selon qu'il s'agit d'une requête fondée sur les alinéas 524(1)a) ou b), il doit constater la nullité de l'élection du candidat ou il peut prononcer son annulation.
  1. Canada Elections Act
  2. PART 20 - Contested Elections
  3. 522 (1) The validity of the election of a candidate may not be contested otherwise than in accordance with this Part.
  4. (2) The making of an application to contest an election does not affect any right or obligation of a candidate in that election.
  5. 524 (1) Any elector who was eligible to vote in an electoral district, and any candidate in an electoral district, may, by application to a competent court, contest the election in that electoral district on the grounds that
    1. (a) under section 65 the elected candidate was not eligible to be a candidate; or
    2. (b) there were irregularities, fraud or corrupt or illegal practices that affected the result of the election.
  6. (2) An application may not be made on the grounds for which a recount may be requested under subsection 301(2).
  7. 525 (1) The following courts are competent courts for the purposes of this Part:
    1. (a) a court listed in subsection (2) that has jurisdiction in all or part of the electoral district in question; and
    2. (b) the Federal Court.
  8. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the courts are
    1. (...)
    2. (b) in the Province of Quebec, the Superior Court;
  9. (...)
  10. (3) An application shall be dealt with without delay and in a summary way. The court may, however, allow oral evidence to be given at the hearing of the application in specific circumstances.
  11. 526 (1) An application must be accompanied by security for costs in the amount of $1,000, and must be served on the Attorney General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, the returning officer of the electoral district in question and all the candidates in that electoral district.
  12. 527 An application based on a ground set out in paragraph 524(1)(b) must be filed within 30 days after the later of
    1. (a) the day on which the result of the contested election is published in the Canada Gazette, and
    2. (b) the day on which the applicant first knew or should have known of the occurrence of the alleged irregularity, fraud, corrupt practice or illegal practice.
  13. (...)
  14. 531 (1) The court may at any time dismiss an application if it considers it to be vexatious, frivolous or not made in good faith.
  15. (2) After hearing the application, the court may dismiss it if the grounds referred to in paragraph 524(1)(a) or (b), as the case may be, are not established and, where they are established, shall declare the election null and void or may annul the election, respectively.
Interpretation of s. 524(1)(b)

[8] In Opitz, the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the words "irrégularité [...] ayant influé sur le résultat de l'élection" ("irregularity [...] that affected the result of the election"). The integrity of the election system was a primary consideration of this interpretation.

[9] The majority employed the modern approach to statutory interpretation5 and considered the following6:

The Constitution of Canada and the goals of the Elections Act

[10] Starting with the Constitution of Canada, the majority referred to s. 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms7, which provides that [e]very citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly. The majority referred to Figueroa8 for the proposition that the Charter provides for a right to all citizens to play a significant role in the election process9. Practically, the right guarantees that voters can vote for the Member of Parliament of their choice.

[11] Relying notably on Haig10, the majority in Opitz clarified that an election law should be interpreted in a generous way to give effect to the rights guaranteed by s. 3 of the Charter. The majority also noted that certain controls are put into place that facilitate the right to vote and prevent those who don't have that right from voting11. These controls are important because they preserve the integrity of the democratic process12 and because the equitable and uniform application of these controls contribute to public confidence in the electoral process.

The wording of s. 524 of the Elections Act

[12] The Supreme Court focused on the wording of s. 524(1)(b). To them, the choice of the word "irrégularité" ("irregularities"), as opposed to "erreur" ("administrative error"), and the placement with the words "fraude, manoeuvre ou acte illégal" ("fraud or corrupt or illegal practices"), was an intentional choice by the legislature to prevent minor administrative errors from causing election annulments13. The Court wrote:

  1. [42] Le mot « irrégularité » fait partie du groupe de termes suivant : « irrégularité, fraude, manœuvre frauduleuse ou acte illégal ». Ces termes évoquent une grave inconduite. Considérer que le terme « irrégularité » s'entend de toute erreur administrative reviendrait à l'interpréter en faisant abstraction des mots connexes.
  2. [43] Les termes « irrégularité, fraude, manœuvre frauduleuse ou acte illégal » ont pour dénominateur commun la gravité de la conduite et ses répercussions sur l'intégrité du processus électoral. Une fraude, une manœuvre frauduleuse ou un acte illégal sont des inconduites graves. Ce sont des inconduites qui ébranlent le processus électoral. Quand il a associé le terme « irrégularité » à ces mots, le législateur avait forcément à l'esprit les erreurs administratives graves qui peuvent miner l'intégrité du processus électoral. (Voir Cusimano c. Toronto (City), 2011 ONSC 7271, 287 O.A.C. 355, par. 62.)
  1. [42] The word "irregularities" appears as part of the following phrase: "irregularities, fraud or corrupt or illegal practices". These are words that speak to serious misconduct. To interpret "irregularity" as meaning any administrative error would mean reading it without regard to the related words.
  2. [43] The common thread between the words "irregularities, fraud or corrupt or illegal practices" is the seriousness of the conduct and its impact on the integrity of the electoral process. Fraud, corruption and illegal practices are serious. Where they occur, the electoral process will be corroded. In associating the word "irregularity" with those words, Parliament must have contemplated mistakes and administrative errors that are serious and capable of undermining the integrity of the electoral process. (See Cusimano v. Toronto (City), 2011 ONSC 7271, 287 O.A.C. 355, at para. 62.)

[13] A simple mistake that a reasonable well-informed citizen would not conclude undermines the integrity of the electoral process cannot be classified as an irregularity that justifies annulling an election. Integrity refers to the honesty of the electoral system. A mistake that doesn't question this integrity would in principle be excluded from the reasons to contest an election under s. 524 of the Elections Act.

[14] Again in Opitz, the Supreme Court introduced its reasons with this affirmation:

[2] Le pourvoi porte sur les principes applicables dans les cas où une élection fédérale est contestée pour cause d'« irrégularité ». Nous sommes ici en présence d'une contestation fondée sur des erreurs administratives. Personne n'a allégué quelque fraude, manœuvre frauduleuse ni acte illégal que ce soit. Rien n'indique non plus qu'un acte répréhensible a été commis par un candidat ou un parti politique quelconque. Vu la complexité de l'administration d'une élection fédérale, les dizaines de milliers de travailleurs électoraux en cause, dont beaucoup n'ont aucune expérience pratique, et la courte période durant laquelle il faut les embaucher et les former, les erreurs administratives sont inévitables. Si les élections peuvent être facilement annulées sur la base d'erreurs administratives, la confiance du public dans le caractère définitif et la légitimité des résultats électoraux s'en trouvera affaiblie. Seules des irrégularités influant sur le résultat de l'élection et entachant par le fait même l'intégrité du processus électoral justifient l'annulation d'une élection.

[2] At issue in this appeal are the principles to be applied when a federal election is challenged on the basis of "irregularities". We are dealing here with a challenge based on administrative errors. There is no allegation of any fraud, corruption or illegal practices. Nor is there any suggestion of wrongdoing by any candidate or political party. Given the complexity of administering a federal election, the tens of thousands of election workers involved, many of whom have no on-the-job experience, and the short time frame for hiring and training them, it is inevitable that administrative mistakes will be made. If elections can be easily annulled on the basis of administrative errors, public confidence in the finality and legitimacy of election results will be eroded. Only irregularities that affect the result of the election and thereby undermine the integrity of the electoral process are grounds for overturning an election.

[Highlighting added by judge]

[15] Later, in paragraphs 23 and 51, the Court added:

  1. [23] Pour décider s'il y a lieu d'annuler une élection, il faut tenir compte d'une considération importante, soit celle de savoir si le nombre de votes contestés est suffisant pour jeter un doute sur l'identité du véritable vainqueur de l'élection ou si les irrégularités sont telles qu'elles mettent en question l'intégrité du processus électoral. [...]
  2. [51] Étant donné l'importance fondamentale du droit de vote garanti par la Constitution, l'objet de la Loi, qui consiste à favoriser la participation au scrutin, le libellé de l'art. 524 et les nombreuses valeurs démocratiques en jeu, nous concluons qu'une « irrégularité [...] ayant influé sur le résultat » d'une élection est un manquement à la procédure prescrite par la loi qui fait en sorte qu'une personne a voté sans en avoir le droit. De tels manquements sont graves, parce qu'ils peuvent entacher l'intégrité du processus électoral.
  1. [23] In deciding whether to annul an election, an important consideration is whether the number of impugned votes is sufficient to cast doubt on the true winner of the election or whether the irregularities are such as to call into question the integrity of the electoral process. [...]
  2. [51] Having regard to the centrality of the constitutional right to vote, the enfranchising purpose of the Act , the language of s. 524, and the numerous democratic values engaged, we conclude that an "irregularit[y] ... that affected the result" of an election is a breach of statutory procedure that has resulted in an individual voting who was not entitled to vote. Such breaches are serious because they are capable of undermining the integrity of the electoral process.

[Highlighting added by judge]

[16] Concluding this topic, the Court wrote:

[74] (...) Il incombe au requérant de démontrer le non-respect d'une mesure de contrôle procédurale visant à établir le droit de voter d'un électeur. C'est ce en quoi consiste une « irrégularité ». Le requérant doit ensuite démontrer que l'irrégularité a « influé sur le résultat » de l'élection parce qu'une personne a voté sans en avoir le droit. (...)

[74] (...) An applicant must prove that a procedural safeguard designed to establish an elector's entitlement to vote was not respected. This is an "irregularity". An applicant must then demonstrate that the irregularity "affected the result" of the election because an individual voted who was not entitled to do so. (...)

The reconcilliation of opposing democratic values

[17] General elections present logistical problems for Elections Canada and represent a source of innumerable technical problems which, unfortunately, can affect the possibility for a person to exercise their right to vote. As regrettable it is that these administrative errors can produce such a result, they should not lead to the conclusion that an election should be annuled. Human errors, committed in good faith without suspicion of dishonesty and which don't diminish the integrity of the election process at all, must give way to other values equally important for democracy including the speed of determining the winner, the finality of the result, the efficiency and cost of the election process, all of which must take into account that the right to vote guaranteed by s. 3 of the Charter is the underlying value.

[18] This reconcilliation arises in the following paragraphs of Opitz:

  1. [46] Les réalités concrètes de l'administration d'une élection sont telles que des imperfections dans la tenue d'une élection sont inévitables. Comme l'a reconnu la Cour suprême des Territoires du Nord-Ouest dans Camsell c. Rabesca, 1987 CanLII 8600 (NWT SC), [1987] N.W.T.R. 186, il est clair que [TRADUCTION] « des irrégularités se produisent presque toujours d'une façon ou d'une autre dans toutes les élections, à plus forte raison dans celles tenues dans les circonscriptions urbaines comptant un grand nombre de bureaux de scrutin » (p. 198). La tenue d'une élection fédérale n'est possible que grâce au travail de dizaines de milliers de Canadiens et de Canadiennes embauchés dans tout le pays pour quelques jours ou, dans bien des cas, pour une seule journée de 14 heures. Ces travailleurs accomplissent de nombreuses tâches méthodiques dans des conditions difficiles. Ils doivent notamment appliquer de multiples règles dans un environnement qui ne leur est pas familier. Puisque des élections n'ont pas lieu tous les jours, on voit mal comment les travailleurs pourraient acquérir de l'expérience pratique, sur le terrain.
  2. [47] La disposition de la partie 20 de la Loi qui permet de contester une élection sert à rétablir l'exactitude et la fiabilité de ses résultats dans les cas où elles ont été compromises. Il faut toutefois concilier la possibilité de contester une élection pour cause d'irrégularités avec la nécessité d'obtenir rapidement des résultats définitifs. [...]
  1. [46] The practical realities of election administration are such that imperfections in the conduct of elections are inevitable. As recognized in Camsell v. Rabesca, [1987] N.W.T.R. 186 (S.C.), it is clear that "in every election, a fortiori those in urban ridings, with large numbers of polls, irregularities will virtually always occur in one form or another" (p. 198). A federal election is only possible with the work of tens of thousands of Canadians who are hired across the country for a period of a few days or, in many cases, a single 14-hour day. These workers perform many detailed tasks under difficult conditions. They are required to apply multiple rules in a setting that is unfamiliar. Because elections are not everyday occurrences, it is difficult to see how workers could get practical, on-the-job experience.
  2. [47] The provision for contesting elections in Part 20 of the Act serves to restore accuracy and reliability where it has been compromised. However, tension exists between allowing an application to contest an election on the basis of irregularities and the need for a prompt, final resolution of election outcomes. [...]

[19] This interpretive exercise balances the objective of restoring accurate and reliable election results where they are compromised14 with the object of obtaining definitive results quickly; this is why a contested election application proceeds without delay and in a summary way15. One should also keep in mind that the administration of an election does not attempt to attain perfection but rather tries to produce a system that allows as many people who have the right to vote to participate in the election.

[20] Additionally, courts have underlined the dangers of widening the window through which elections can be contested. The annulment of an election constitutes a heavy decision with consequences for the public, reserved for the worst scenarios that necessitate it16. The result is that those who have voted on a given election date lose their vote with no remedy if they don't participate in the new election. It is sufficient to consider those who pass away between the two election dates, who admittedly have no reason to complain, who are stripped of their political choice.

[21] Accuracy is not the single goal of the electoral system and the Elections Act, which is why courts cannot require absolute accuracy. The role of the court hearing a contested election application is to consider the integrity of the election with the overarching consideration of whether the election had an irregularity that affected the result of the election17.

[22] The Supreme Court has not revisited these principles from Opitz and since then, Canadian courts have relied on them18.

[23] I turn now to applying these principles to the facts of this application.

Applying the statutes to the facts

[24] In it written submissions, Elections Canada explains its own role and the role of its elections personnel. Some of these submissions are summarized below.

[25] Elections Caanda is an independent, non-partisan organization reporting to Parliament. Pursuant to s. 13 of the Elections Act, the CEC is appointed to the position for a ten year mandate by resolution of the House of Commons. The CEC is responsible for:

  1. (a) directing and overseeing election operations
  2. (b) ensuring that election officers act impartially and follow the Elections Act
  3. (c) giving instructions to election officers that he judges necessary to apply the Elections Act
  4. (d) exercising the powers and functions necessary to apply the Elections Act, except as expressly provided in the Act

[26] To implement the special voting rules in Part 11 of the Elections Act, the CEC can issue instructions that he or she considers necessary19.

[27] The CEC appoints a special voting rules administrator. Danielle Duquette held this position for the April 28 general elections. In this position, she organized special ballot voting, as established in Part 11 of the Elections Act. In summary, this involved implementing administrative voting procedures, sending the materials necessary to assemble special ballot voting kits, training constituency election personnel, managing internal computer systems and coordinating with Canada Post.

[28] The CEC nominates a Returning Officer for each constituency who is responsible for the preparation and holding of elections in their constituency, reporting however to the CEC. In this application, Claude Martel held this position.

[29] Complying with directives from the CEC, the Returning Officer appoints election officers they deem necessary. The CEC can also authorize the Returning Officer to appoints staff necessary to apply the Elections Act. Recruited staff are appointed per a prescribed form and make a solemn declaration also according to a prescribed form. They are dismissed from their roles when their services are no longer required.

[30] On January 5, 2025, in preparation for the general election, Martel appointed Mario Sabourin (Sabourin) to the position of service point supervisor in the constituency of Terrebonne. Martel knew Sabourin well, having also hired him in January 2019 and Decemer 2020. In this position, Sabourin was responsible for special ballot voting services for electors living in the constituency.

[31] As previously set out, the postal code mistake relates to the special voting envelopes and before continuing, I will discuss this method of voting.

[32] First, the Elections Act does not contain the concept of voting by mail. The law instead provides a way to exercise the right to vote by special vote, which first appeared in the nineties20 but grew in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to widespread health concerns, vote by mail became a favoured tool to express one's vote and encourage participation in democracy. The vote by mail method is in fact one type of special vote, which is found in the Elections Act Special Voting Rules Part 11 Division 4, in particular s. 232 which states:

232 (1) Tout électeur a le droit de voter en vertu de la présente section si sa demande d'inscription et de bulletin de vote spécial parvient au directeur du scrutin dans une circonscription quelconque ou à l'administrateur des règles électorales spéciales, après la délivrance des brefs mais avant 18 h le sixième jour précédant le jour du scrutin.

232 (1) An elector may vote under this Division if his or her application for registration and special ballot is received by a returning officer in an electoral district or by the special voting rules administrator after the issue of the writs but before 6:00 p.m. on the 6th day before polling day.

[33] Sections 233, 236 and 237 prescribe how special voting is done. From these sections, we can see that a voter who wishes to exercise their right to vote in this way needs to complete an application. Their information is recorded and the voter must present proof of identity. The application can be completed online on the Elections Canada website.

[34] Importantly, once an application for special voting is approved by Elections Canada, the voter who has elected to this method of voting cannot vote by another method without obtaining permission from the special voting rules administrator21.

[35] Schedule 1 Form 4 of the Elections Act prescribes the form of the special voting ballot. This ballot is given to the voter pursuant to s. 186 and 237(1).

[36] The special ballot voter receives a reference number that allows them to track the processing of their application, from when election authorities receive their application to when their ballot envelope is received by the office of the Returning Officer of their constituency22.

[37] Once their application is accepted, the voter who opts to vote by mail receives a voter's kit from Elections Canada. This kit contains: a special voting ballot, an interior envelope marked Envelope (A), an exterior envelope marked Envelope (B) and a postage-paid return envelope (C) on which an address label is placed for the office of the Returning Officer for the relevant constituency. The kit also contains voting instructions and obviously, an envelope containing the preceding items destined for the voter.

[38] When the voter receives their kit, they write the name of their chosen candidate on the special voting ballot. They sign the prescribed declaration, insert their ballot into Envelope (A) and then place this envelope into Envelope (B). Finally, the voter places everything into envelope (C) and mails envelope (C).

[39] Having described the special voting process, we can now understand the postal code mistake. The mistake is in the destination address labelled on envelope C, which Sabourin inputted onto certain special voting kits that he prepared.

[40] In his affidavit, Sabourin affirms that pre-assembling special voting kits is common in order to respond quickly to accepted special voting applications. The special voting ballots are not however added to the kit until a special voting application is acccepted.

[41] It was during the pre-assembly process on March 26, 2025 when the mistake occurred. Sabourin, by error, inputted on the return labels an address whose last three digits corresponded to his own residence. More precisely, instead of inputting J6W 5S6, the postal code of the office of the Returning Officer on Rue Lévis in Terrebonne, he inputted J6W 4R9, his own postal code23. These labels were affixed on some envelopes C.

[42] Sabourin estimates that three to five sheets of labels were printed with this label. Each sheet contains 21 labels. Of course, he did not identify his mistake. He then asked his team to use two of labels per kit: one in the upper-left hand corner of the envelope containing the kit and the other in the center of envelope C. Sabourin estimates at least forty kits with this error were sent to local voters. This number remains an estimate.

[43] On March 29, 2025, the office of the Returning Office received a special voting application from a voter named Emmanuelle Bossé (Bossé)24. The office approved the application on the same day. The kit sent to Bossé was one of the kits with the mistake on envelope C. This kit was mailed to the voter on March 31, 2025.

[44] It wasn't until April 6, 2025 that Sabourin notices the mistake. He thought to remedy the problem immmediately by printing new labels and affixing them to kits still in his possession. He gathered and destroyed as many kits affixed with an incorrect label from other office staff, but certain kits were locked in cabinets inaccessible to him.

[45] Sabourin did not inform Martel of the situation because the office of the Returning Office was still receiving completed kits with the incorrect postal code daily. In fact, Elections Canada's voter turnout system RÉVISE showed a turnout rate consistent with previous elections. Since this turnout rate was similar to previous elections' turnout rates, Sabourin did not consider the possible consequences of his mistakes.

[46] Martel was informed of the situation after the judicial recount by a journalist. He did not suspect any mistakes because the voter turnout rate for special voting ballots was similar to previous elections25.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

[47] Having set out the main facts, we now turn to the first disputed issue. Does the postal code mistake, combined with Sabourin's response, constitute an irregularity within the meaning of s. 524(1)(b) of the Elections Act?

[48] The Court finds that it does not.

[49] I reject the proposition that this is a case where a provision of the Elections Act has been violated. The mistake is located on an administrative document (mailing labels attached to envelopes) which election personnel use in their duties.

[50] It is evident that this mistake is one of inattention where Sabourin, either instinctually or reflexively, inputted his own postal code instead of that of the Returning Officer's. To be clear, even though the postal code were a problem, the civic address was inputted correctly. Thus the only mistake was in the last three digits of the postal code.

[51] Charles, the Conservative Party of Canada candidate, concedes that the mistake was unintentional in their written submissions26. This situation is light years away from one that would undermine the integrity of the electoral system as set out by the Supreme Court. There is no suggestion of fraud or corrupt or illegal practices, to use the terms from the Act. The mistake was not a conspiracy woven by malevolent actors. There were no serious actions27 nor were reprehensible, dishonest or criminal activities involved. In other words, the gravity of the mistake does not rise to that of fraud or corrupt or illegal practices.

[52] The same conclusion can be made about Sabourin's decisions after his discovery of the mistake on April 6. Sinclair-Desgagné calls the actions of the Elections Canada staff gross negligence. She pleads that Elections Canada staff ought have done more to recall kits with mistaken labels and report the mistake to their superiors. Duquette would have expected that Sabourin alert those above him of the mistake28. This would have been appropriate. The ideal course of action probably would have been to contact each person to whom defective kits were sent. Sabourin unfortunately did not think to do so29.

[53] However, it is important to put the sequence of events into context and consider them all together. Sabourin affirms that he was not very concerned about the mistake because defective envelopes were still being returned to him. There is no reason to doubt his good intentions. There is also evidence supporting his thinking; Auguste submits evidence from the Register30 that of all the ballots sent to local voters31 before April 6, 2025, only Bossé's ballot was not returned on time. Even though Sabourin did know this information at the time, it corroborates his contention that envelopes were being returned despite the mistake.

[54] Additionally, other explanations exist for why a special voting envelope would not be returned to the Returning Officer's office: a voter could forget to vote or simply choose not to exercise their right to vote. Canada Post or another shipping service could also mishandle the envelope. This is not an exhaustive list of plausible scenarios32. In this way, Sabourin's reaction was not unreasonable even if he could have taken further precautions. Again, perfection is not required from the eletoral system33.

[55] Sinclair-Desgagné pleads that the degree of irregularity required varies based on the consequence it produces. The Court does not accept this argument. With respect, the level of a minor mistake does not change regardless of the gravity of the consequences. The consequence, that a single vote was lost, does not transform the mistake into an irregularity that undermines the integrity of the electoral system within the meaning of s. 524(1)(b) of the Elections Act.

[56] In summary, even considering the actions Sabourin chose to take - or not take -, the events leading to this application did not prevent Bossé from voting, as set out below, and do not qualify as irregularities within the meaning of s. 524(1)(b) of the Elections Act. Despite the consequences for Bossé, the postal code mistake and Sabourin's decisions are within the risks that arise during a general election34. This is an unfortunate and regrettable situation, which, to use the words of Camsell v. Rabesca35, cited with approval in Opitz36, virtually always occur in one form or another [...].

[57] If citizens benefit from an electoral system which values efficient counting and definitive results in a country with hundreds of thousands voters exercising their democratic rights, or abstaining from the same, it is in spite of unfortunate human errors committed in good faith without any suspicion dishonesty which do not undermine at all the integrity of the election process.

[58] This conclusion does not mean that another human error could not apply in s. 524(1)(b) of the Elections Act. There are scenarios where a minor error could undermine the integrity of the electoral system. Sinclair-Desgagné has collated various decisions where courts have annulled elections for various reasons37. These examples illustrate a variety of situations where the integrity of the electoral system is undermined. However, the evidence in this application does not allow for such a conclusion.

(B) Subsequently, should the Court exercise its judicial discretion to annul the April 28, 2025 election in the electoral district of Terrebonne?

[59] If it had been necessary to proceed to the second step of the Opitz test, the Court would have then have found that Bossé's missing vote had a real impact on the result of the election. Bossé voted for Sinclair-Desgagné and if it were counted, her votes watch match those of Auguste. The Court would then have examined the issue of the three ballots counted for Sinclair-Desgagné but contested by Auguste during the judicial recount and the potential application of the magic numbers test that the Supreme Court has adopted, albeit with reservation.

[60] However, it would not be useful to dive into these thorny problems because even if the mistake were an irregularity within the meaning of s. 524(1)(b) and affected the results of the election, it would have been unreasonable to annul the election.

[61] Three reasons support this conclusion.

The fate of the three contested ballots have not been determined

[62] Auguste abandoned her dispute to three ballots because Sinclair-Desgagné had conceded the election. Pursuant to s. 286 of the Elections Act, Auguste now asks the Court to reject the ballots in question, which had been found in the garbage at the voting office. Sinclair-Desgagné and Charles contend that this section does not allow for such relief because Auguste abandoned her disputes during the judicial recount38.

[63] The Court finds that s. 286 does not allow the Court to make a finding as to the validity of a ballot. On the other hand, the evidence on the record is part of the factual matrix which the Court must review in the last step of the Opitz test during its exercise of judicial discretion.

[64] In particular, Part 12 of the Elections Act provides the procedure under which a candidate or their representative can object to a ballot. S. 286 provides:

  1. PARTIE 12
  2. Dépouillement du scrutin
  3. Bureaux de scrutin
  4. Dépouillement du scrutin
  5. 283 (1) Dès la clôture du scrutin, un fonctionnaire électoral affecté au bureau de scrutin procède au dépouillement du scrutin en présence, à la fois :
    1. a) d'un autre fonctionnaire électoral affecté au bureau;
    2. b) des candidats ou représentants qui sont sur les lieux ou, en l'absence de candidats ou de représentants, d'au moins deux électeurs.
    3. [...]
  6. Opposition
  7. 286 (1) L'un des fonctionnaires électoraux visés au paragraphe 283(1) prend note, sur le formulaire prescrit, de toute opposition soulevée par le candidat ou son représentant quant à la prise en compte d'un bulletin de vote, donne un numéro à l'opposition et inscrit ce numéro ainsi que son paraphe sur le bulletin de vote qui fait l'objet de l'opposition.
  8. Décision
  9. (2) Le fonctionnaire électoral qui procède au dépouillement tranche toute question soulevée par une opposition. Sa décision ne peut être infirmée que lors du dépouillement judiciaire ou sur requête en contestation présentée en vertu du paragraphe 524(1).
  1. PART 12
  2. Counting Votes
  3. Polling Stations
  4. Counting the votes
  5. 283 (1) Immediately after the close of a polling station, an election officer who is assigned to the polling station shall count the votes in the presence of
    1. (a) another election officer who is assigned to the polling station; and
    2. (b) any candidates or their representatives who are present or, if no candidates or representatives are present, at least two electors.
    3. [...]
  6. Objections to ballots
  7. 286 (1) One of the election officers referred to in subsection 283(1) shall make a record, in the prescribed form, of every objection to a ballot made by a candidate or candidate's representative, give a number to the objection, write that number on the ballot and initial it.
  8. Decision of election officer
  9. (2) Every question that is raised by the objection shall be decided by the election officer who counts the votes, and the decision is subject to reversal only on a recount or on application under subsection 524(1).

[Highlighting added by the Court]

[65] If a candidate or candidate' representative, during the vote count after the close of a polling station, opposes a ballot, an election officer assigned to that polling station records the opposition in the prescribed form. Then, the officer who counts the vote answers all questions raised by the opposition with their decision only subject to reversal by a judicial recount or on application under s. 524(1) CEA.

[66] In the absence of an objection raised during this time, the election officer's decision to accept or reject a ballot is not subject to review under s. 286 CEA and ballots which are not opposed are then counted in the election results.

  1. 287 (1) Le fonctionnaire électoral qui procède au dépouillement établit, selon le formulaire prescrit, un relevé du scrutin dans lequel sont indiqués le nombre de votes recueillis par chaque candidat ainsi que le nombre de bulletins de vote rejetés. Il place l'original et une copie dans des enveloppes séparées fournies à cette fin.
  2. (2) Il remet une copie du relevé du scrutin à chacun des représentants des candidats présents au moment du dépouillement.
  1. 287 (1) The election officer who counts the votes shall prepare a statement of the vote, in the prescribed form, that sets out the number of votes in favour of each candidate and the number of rejected ballots and shall place the original statement and a copy of it in the separate envelopes supplied for the purpose.
  2. (2) The election officer shall give a copy of the statement of the vote to each of the candidates' representatives present at the count.

[Highlighting added by the Court]TR1

[67] The election officer's acceptance or rejection of a ballot that has not been objected to may nevertheless form grounds for a judicial recount:

  1. 301 (1) Tout électeur peut, dans les quatre jours qui suivent la délivrance du certificat visé à l'article 29739 et après en avoir avisé par écrit le directeur du scrutin, présenter une requête en dépouillement à un juge.
  2. [...]
  3. (2) Le juge fixe la date du dépouillement s'il appert, d'après l'affidavit d'un témoin digne de foi, que l'une ou l'autre des situations suivantes existe :
    1. a) un fonctionnaire électoral, en comptant les votes, a mal compté ou rejeté par erreur des bulletins de vote ou le nombre qu'il a inscrit sur le relevé du scrutin comme étant le nombre de bulletins de vote déposés en faveur d'un candidat n'est pas exact;
    2. b) le directeur du scrutin a mal additionné les résultats figurant sur les relevés du scrutin.
  1. 301 (1) An elector may, within four days after the day on which a returning officer issues a certificate under section 29739 and after notifying the returning officer in writing, apply to a judge for a recount.
  2. [...]
  3. (2) The judge shall fix a date for a recount if it appears, on the affidavit of a credible witness, that
    1. (a) an election officer has incorrectly counted or rejected any ballots, or has written an incorrect number on the statement of the vote for the votes cast for a candidate; or
    2. (b) the returning officer has incorrectly added up the results set out in the statements of the vote.

[Highlighting added by the Court]

[68] That being said, s. 524(2) CEA explicitly excludes the grounds in s. 301(2) from a contested election application:

524 (2) La contestation ne peut être fondée sur les motifs prévus au paragraphe 301(2) pour un dépouillement judiciaire.

524 (2) An application may not be made on the grounds for which a recount may be requested under subsection 301(2).

[69] Therefore, an election officer's acceptenance or rejection of a ballot during the vote count only forms ground for a judicial recount but not for a contested election.

[70] The ability to contest a ballot still exists during a judicial recount. The judicial recount procedure is provided for in Part 14 of the Act. According to s. 304(3) CEA, Schedule 4 of the Act which provides the applicable recounting procedure:

304 (3) La procédure figurant à l'annexe 4 s'applique dans le cas d'un dépouillement judiciaire relatif au compte des bulletins de vote acceptés ou de tous les bulletins de vote retournés par les fonctionnaires électoraux ou le directeur général des élections.

304 (3) In the case of a recount conducted by counting the valid ballots or all of the ballots returned by election officers or the Chief Electoral Officer, the procedure set out in Schedule 4 applies.

[Highlighting added by the Court]

[71] Schedule 4 establishes the procedure to follow when a ballot is contested during a judicial recount:

  1. Annexe 4
  2. [...]
  3. 5 Les équipes de dépouillement ont la charge suivante :
    1. a) l'examen des bulletins de vote contenus dans les urnes qui leur ont été attribuées afin d'établir si elles approuvent le classement des bulletins;
    2. b) la mise de côté des bulletins dont le classement fait l'objet d'un désaccord (ci-après appelés « bulletins contestés ») afin qu'ils puissent être examinés par le juge;
    3. c) le compte et la communication du nombre de bulletins appartenant à chaque catégorie.
  4. [...]
  5. 13 Le dépouillement des bulletins de vote contenus dans chacune de ces enveloppes s'effectue selon les étapes suivantes :
    1. [...]
    2. g) si, après la présentation des observations, le classement du bulletin de vote ne fait toujours pas l'unanimité, celui-ci est alors considéré comme un bulletin contesté, auquel cas :
      1. (i) le préposé au dépouillement retire le bulletin de la pile de dépouillement et inscrit au verso de celui-ci (avec le crayon ou le stylo fourni à l'équipe de dépouillement, d'une écriture petite mais lisible) un numéro sous la forme « XX-Y », où « XX » correspond au numéro de l'urne et « Y », au numéro séquentiel unique, commençant par le chiffre 1, attribué à chaque bulletin contesté provenant de l'urne,
      2. (ii) le secrétaire indique sur le registre relatif aux bulletins contestés qui figure dans le rapport de dépouillement d'urne le numéro du bulletin contesté et l'enveloppe dont il provient,
      3. (iii) le préposé au dépouillement place le bulletin avec une autre enveloppe, celle-ci portant la mention « bulletins contestés »;
  6. [...]
  7. 16 Sur réception de l'urne, le directeur du scrutin vérifie si elle contient une enveloppe portant la mention « bulletins contestés ».
  8. [...]
  9. 18 Lorsqu'une urne contient une enveloppe contenant des bulletins contestés, le juge veille à ce qu'elle soit traitée selon les étapes suivantes :
    1. [...]
    2. c) le juge fixe le moment où la question du classement des bulletins contestés sera tranchée. Avant de rendre sa décision à l'égard d'un bulletin contesté, il donne aux parties l'occasion de présenter des observations. À moins qu'il n'en décide autrement, la partie qui conteste le classement initial du bulletin est considérée comme le requérant et les autres parties sont considérées comme des intimés;
    3. d) le juge consigne, dans le rapport de dépouillement d'urne, sa décision à l'égard de chaque bulletin contesté et remplit la portion du rapport de dépouillement d'urne intitulée « décision du juge »;
  10. [...]
  1. Schedule 4
  2. [...]
  3. 5 The functions of a recount team are the following:
    1. (a) to examine the ballots in any ballot box assigned to it to ascertain whether the team agrees on their classification;
    2. (b) to set aside for examination by the judge any ballots on whose classification there is not agreement ("disputed ballot"); and
    3. (c) to count and report the number of ballots in each classification.
  4. [...]
  5. 13 The recount of the ballots from each of those envelopes shall be conducted in accordance with the following steps:
    1. [...]
    2. (g) if, after any such representations, there is still no unanimous agreement on the classification of the ballot, the ballot shall be treated as a disputed ballot, in which case
      1. (i) the handler shall take the ballot from the counting pile, print on the back of the ballot (with the pen or pencil supplied to the recount team in small but legible script), a number in the form "XX-Y" where "XX" is the ballot box number and "Y" is a unique sequential number starting at "1" for each disputed ballot within that box,
      2. (ii) the recorder shall make an entry for the disputed ballot in the register of disputed ballots in the Recount Ballot Box Report, indicating its number and the envelope from which it originated, and
      3. (iii) the handler shall put the disputed ballot with an additional envelope marked "disputed ballots";
  6. [...]
  7. 16 On receipt of a recounted ballot box, the returning officer shall ascertain whether it contains a disputed ballots envelope.
  8. [...]
  9. 18 If the ballot box contains a disputed ballots envelope, the judge shall cause it to be dealt with in accordance with the following steps:
    1. [...]
    2. (c) the judge shall then set a time for the determination of the classification of the disputed ballots. Before the judge makes a determination with respect to a disputed ballot, each party may make submissions. Unless the judge decides otherwise, for the purpose of making submissions, any party opposing the original classification of the ballot will be considered an applicant, and all other parties will be considered respondents;
    3. (d) the judge shall, in the Recount Ballot Box Report, indicate in writing the determination with respect to each disputed ballot and complete the judge's disposition portion of the report;
  10. [...]

[72] The Elections Act thus provides distinct contested ballot procedures depending on whether the objection occurs during the initial vote count or during a judicial recount.

The dispute of ballots 19-1, 608-2 and those of box 612

[73] The respondent Auguste submits that the dispute of ballots 19-1, 608-2 and those of box 612 were not decided during the judicial recount and that the Court can reject these ballots during a contested election application under s. 286 of the Elections Act.

[74] With respect, she is incorrect.

[75] Section 286 of the Elections Act applies when an election officer makes a decision about a ballot objected to by a candidate or their representative. It is the election officer's decision on an objection that is subject to this section. Here however, the evidence shows that no opposition to these ballots was raised during the vote count; otherwise, an objection would have been recorded in the prescribed form and would have been subject to a decision by an election officer. The evidence rather shows that disputes arose during the judicial recount. In the absence of an objection to these ballots in the correct timeframe, namely during the vote count, the decision of the election official to not reject these ballots cannot be grounds to contest an election40.

[76] Next, disputes during a judicial recount is provided for by s. 304(3) and Schedule 4, rather than s. 286 of the Elections Act. These disputes must be decided on by the judge in charge of the judicial recount. However, the respondent Auguste abandoned her disputes, as shown by page 19 of the May 10, 2025 minutes of the judicial recount41.

[77] In any case, Auguste cannot rely on s. 286 of the Elections Act to reject the ballots she disputes.

[78] Does this mean that the Court cannot consider facts surrounding the ballots in question? The answer can again be found in Opitz. By virtue of s. 531(2) of the Elections Act, which is reproduced below, the court hearing a contested election application based on s. 524(1)(b) of the Elections Act may dismiss the application or annul the election:

531 (2) Au terme de l'audition, il peut rejeter la requête; si les motifs sont établis et selon qu'il s'agit d'une requête fondée sur les alinéas 524(1) a) ou b), il doit constater la nullité de l'élection du candidat ou il peut prononcer son annulation.

531 (2) After hearing the application, the court may dismiss it if the grounds referred to in paragraph 524(1)(a) or (b), as the case may be, are not established and, where they are established, shall declare the election null and void or may annul the election, respectively.

[79] The Supreme Court comments on the exercise of judicial discretion:

[22] Aux termes de ces dispositions, le tribunal doit constater la nullité de l'élection du candidat si le motif visé à l'al. 524(1)a) est établi (inéligibilité du candidat élu). Dans ce cas, c'est comme si aucune élection n'avait eu lieu. En revanche, si c'est le motif visé à l'al. 524(1)b) (irrégularité, fraude, manœuvre frauduleuse ou acte illégal ayant influé sur le résultat de l'élection) qui est établi, le tribunal peut prononcer l'annulation de l'élection. Dans cette situation, le tribunal doit décider si l'élection qui a été tenue a été compromise à un point tel que son annulation est justifiée.

[22] Under those provisions, if the grounds in para. (a) of s. 524(1) are established (the elected candidate was ineligible), then a court must declare the election null and void. In such circumstances it is as if no election was held. By contrast, if the grounds in para. (b) are established (there were irregularities, fraud or corrupt or illegal practices that affected the result of the election), a court may annul the election. Under these circumstances, a court must decide whether the election held was compromised in such a way as to justify its annulment.

[80] It adds:

[23] Pour décider s'il y a lieu d'annuler une élection, il faut tenir compte d'une considération importante, soit celle de savoir si le nombre de votes contestés est suffisant pour jeter un doute sur l'identité du véritable vainqueur de l'élection ou si les irrégularités sont telles qu'elles mettent en question l'intégrité du processus électoral. Puisque les électeurs canadiens votent par scrutin secret, cette analyse ne peut porter sur le choix qu'ils ont réellement fait. Si le tribunal est convaincu que le rejet de certains votes laisse planer un doute sur la victoire du candidat élu, il serait déraisonnable que le tribunal n'annule pas l'élection.

[23] In deciding whether to annul an election, an important consideration is whether the number of impugned votes is sufficient to cast doubt on the true winner of the election or whether the irregularities are such as to call into question the integrity of the electoral process. Since voting is conducted by secret ballot in Canada, this assessment cannot involve an investigation into voters' actual choices. If a court is satisfied that, because of the rejection of certain votes, the winner is in doubt, it would be unreasonable for the court not to annul the election.

[81] The Supreme Court concludes that [i]n determining whether the result was affected, an application judge may consider any evidence in the record capable of establishing that the person was in fact entitled to vote despite the irregularity, or that the person was not in fact entitled to vote42.

[82] Auguste's disputes of the three ballots are pertinent this analysis, not from the angle s. 286 of the Elections Act, but rather from that of the exercise of judicial discretion.

[83] Here, a doubt remains about the validity of the ballots which were not placed in the voter's box by the voters themselves or by their request. These ballots were found in the garbage of the polling station. Even if disputes were not raised during the initial vote count, this doubt remains pertinent in the exercise of judicial discretion of the Court. If the Court must consider all the evidence before it, it would be suprising if the Court, during the last step of the Opitz test, exclude a portion of the evidence in its analysis. This is the reason that the Court, during case management conferences prior to this hearing, elected to admit all evidence that the parties wanted to submit. Of course, a contested election application does not constitute an appeal of the judicial recount nor an inquest of the election. Despite all this, the Court cannot ignore these facts in its comprehensive evaluation of the situation for the purposes of determining, in the end, whether to annul the election.

[84] Sinclair-Desgagné and Charles add that the Court, in its exercise of judicial discretion, can also consider the proof by presumption that, according to them, some of the ballots inserted into envelopes with incorrect postal code sent before April 6, 2025 were attributed a candidate other than Auguste. In fact, Sinclair-Desgagné pleads that some ballots were definitely in her favour.

[85] All forms of evidence provided for in Book 7 of the Civil Code of Québec are admissable to prove a fact. These forms are by writing, by testimony, by admission, by production of real evidence and by presumption. Auguste's argument that proof by presumption is less convincing is without merit. Here, however, the evidence does not allow for the inference that Sinclair-Desgagné and Charles suggest. Conjecture and extrapolation from raw data43 from the Table (exhibit R-28) do not result in a presumption that is serious, precise and concordant44 within the meaning of s. 2849 CCQ; in particular, they do not allow for any conclusions on the allocation of ballots to a candidate in particular.

[86] In summary, despite its attractiveness, the Court rejects this argument of Sinclair-Desgagné and Charles.

Bossé had ways to ensure her vote arrived at its destination that she did not use

[87] It is the responsibility of each voter who votes by mail to ensure that the envelope containing their special voting ballot arrives at the voting office by the deadline:

  1. 239 (2) Pour que son bulletin de vote spécial soit compté, l'électeur dont la demande de bulletin de vote spécial a été approuvée par le directeur du scrutin de sa circonscription est tenu de veiller à ce que son bulletin de vote spécial parvienne au bureau du directeur du scrutin, avant la fermeture des bureaux de scrutin, le jour du scrutin.
  2. 240 Pour l'application de la présente section, il appartient à l'électeur seul de veiller à ce que sa demande d'inscription et de bulletin de vote spécial et son bulletin de vote spécial soient remplis et parviennent au fonctionnaire électoral compétent dans les délais fixés.
  1. 239 (2) In order to have their special ballot counted, an elector whose application for registration and special ballot was accepted by the returning officer in the elector's electoral district shall ensure that the ballot is received at the office of that returning officer before the close of the polling stations on polling day.
  2. 240 For the purpose of this Division, an elector has the sole responsibility to ensure that
    1. (a) his or her application for registration and special ballot is made within the period specified; and
    2. (b) his or her special ballot is received within the period specified to be counted as a vote.

[88] These legislative provisions, which place a burden on voters, are necessarily to absolve Elections Canada from failures on the part of the mail system and other parties which are outside of Elections Canada's control. It fell to Bossé to ensure the delivery of her special voting ballot. Of course, she was entitled to expect that the prepaid from the election authorities had no errors. However, this legitimate expectation does not mitigate the obligation that the Elections Act imposes on the voter to ensure that their ballot arrives at the voting office.

[89] Furthermore, Bossé received a tracking number associated with her special voting application by mail45. If she had kept herself aware of the situation using this code, she would have known that something was wrong with the delivery of her ballot. Before it was too late, Bossé could have asked to vote in person on election day by explaining that the situation was out of her control46. Additionally, the Court would have expected more vigilance from this voter who had serious doubts on the effectiveness of voting by mail, a method that she was trying for the first time and that she described using the imagery of a bottle in the sea47, like the following extract from her examination:

French English
Q. [194] [...] Dans la vidéo YouTube, donc, j'y reviens, ce n'était pas complet, vous dites avoir eu des doutes suite à la remise de l'enveloppe dans la boîte aux lettres sur le fait que ça se rendrait bien à bon port, c'est exact? Q. [194] [...] In the YouTube video, coming back to that, I wasn't done with it, you said that you had doubts after deposting the envelope in the mailbox on whether it would arrive safely, correct?
R. Oui. A. Yes.
Q. [195] Vous avez dit ça? Q. [195] You said that?
R. Oui. A. Yes.
Q. [196] Pourquoi vous aviez des doutes ou des inquiétudes? Q. [196] Why did you have doubts or worries?
R. Bien, je me disais, tu sais, je suis quand même consciente que voter par la poste, c'est un peu de, je ne sais pas, jeter une bouteille d'eau à la mer avec un petit message. On ne sait pas, tu sais, est-ce que ça va bien se rendre? Puis justement, je crois que mes doutes ont été un peu... J'avais raison d'avoir des doutes sur la façon de faire. Puis c'est ça, je me demandais est-ce que je suis censée recevoir un accusé de réception ou une confirmation que l'enveloppe s'est bel et bien rendue. Je ne sais pas encore à ce jour si c'est quelque chose qu'Élections Canada fait parce que je n'ai pas pu vivre... Mon vote ne s'est juste jamais rendu. Mais c'est ça, oui, j'avais des doutes. Je me demandais est-ce que ça va bien se rendre, étant donné qu'il n'y a pas de suivi après qu'elle soit postée. A. Yes, I said to myself, you know, I'm still conscious that voting by mail, it's a bit, I don't know, like throwing a bottle in the sea with a message. You don't know, you know, will it arrive safely? To be fair, I think that my doubts were a bit... I had reasons to doubt this way of doing things. It's just that, I wondered whether I would receive an receipt acknowledgment or confirmation that the envelope was delivered. I still don't know to this day whether it's something Elections Canada does because I wouldn't be able able to live... My vote was never delivered. But it's that, yes, I had doubts. I wondered whether it would be arrive safely, given that there was no way to follow it after it was sent.
Q. [197] Oui, en raison de ces doutes-là, est-ce que vous avez entrepris certaines démarches? Vous avez contacté Postes Canada? Est-ce que vous avez fait des recherches en ligne sur le traitement du courrier? Q. [197] Okay, because of these doubts you had, did you take any action? Did you contact Canada Post? Did you do any research online on the mailing process?
R. Non, j'ai juste fait confiance. A. No, I just had faith.

[90] In fact, Elections Canada's website provided a great deal of information and warnings. Elections Canada notably recommended that voters [v]érifier l'état d'avancement de [votre] demande ("verify the state of your application") and added [S]i vous craignez que votre bulletin de vote n'arrive pas avant la date limite, vous pouvez utiliser un service de livraison accélérée de colis, à vos frais ("If you are concerned that your ballot will not arrive by the deadline, you may use an expedited package delivery service, at your own cost")48.

[91] This is not to blame Bossé but to clarify that she had no shortage of ways to exercise her right to vote. It is evident that it would be unreasonable to force the voters of the constituency of Terrebonne to bear the brunt of an election annulment and a new vote for the case of Bossé, who had ways to ensure the mistake remained consequent free.

The voter was not deprived of her right to vote

[92] As set out above, individuals who choose special voting by mail and whose applications are accepted by the appropriate election authorities can vote in person at advance polling days or on election day. Those who choose to do so much obtain permission from the special voting rules administrator. If Bossé had contacted the administrator, her application for special voting, which is recorded on the electoral list, would have been cancelled and she would have been able to vote in person.

Conclusions on the second step of the Opitz test

[93] The annulment of an election has grave consequences. Returning to Opitz:

  1. [48] Il faut se rappeler que l'annulation d'une élection non seulement prive les personnes dont les votes sont rejetés de leur droit de participer au scrutin, mais en prive aussi tous les électeurs qui ont voté dans la circonscription. La possibilité pour les électeurs de voter ultérieurement dans une élection partielle n'est pas une solution parfaite, comme l'explique le professeur Steven F. Huefner :
    1. [TRADUCTION] ... une nouvelle élection ne peut jamais se dérouler comme si la précédente n'avait jamais eu lieu; elle porte toujours l'empreinte du résultat apparent de l'élection qu'elle remplace. Une nouvelle élection risque aussi d'importuner les électeurs, et il est presque assuré que ce sera une combinaison d'électeurs différents, disposant de renseignements différents, qui en déterminera l'issue. Qui plus est, rien ne peut garantir l'absence de problèmes additionnels, notamment de fraude, au cours de la nouvelle élection. À long terme, la tenue de nouvelles élections pourrait être une source de désillusion ou de lassitude même si, à court terme, la lutte entre les candidats à l'élection suscite de l'intérêt. De plus, la tenue fréquente de nouvelles élections ébranlerait la stabilité de la démocratie en mettant en doute la sûreté et l'efficacité des mécanismes de vote. (« Remedying Election Wrongs » (2007), 44 Harv. J. on Legis. 265, p. 295-296)
  1. [48] It should be remembered that annulling an election would disenfranchise not only those persons whose votes were disqualified, but every elector who voted in the riding. That voters will have the opportunity to vote in a by-election is not a perfect answer, as Professor Steven F. Huefner writes:
    1. [...] a new election can never be run on a clean slate, but will always be colored by the perceived outcome of the election it superseded. New elections may also be an inconvenience for the voters, and almost certainly will mean that a different set of voters, with different information, will be deciding the election. Moreover, there can be no guarantee that the new election will itself be free from additional problems, including fraud. In the long term, rerunning elections might lead to disillusionment or apathy, even if in the short term they excite interest in the particular contest. Frequent new elections also would undercut democratic stability by calling into question the security and efficiency of the voting mechanics. ("Remedying Election Wrongs" (2007), 44 Harv. J. on Legis. 265, at pp. 295-96)

[94] Jurisprudence suggests that re-holding an election is like a pipe dream and is strictly impossible. Political circumstances rapidly change. Who knows how the voters of Terrebonne will vote six months after the general elections of April 28? Would those who voted strategically change their vote in the domestic political context and international trade situation? Would voters who abandoned their usual political party return to them in light of the national results ex post facto?

[95] The many questions that they raise lead courts to conclude that new elections are not panaceas. The Superior Court of Ontario said in Cusimano v. Toronto49:

Aucune version française disponible.

  1. [66] The respondents minimize the significance of setting aside an election on the basis that all qualified voters will be entitled to vote in a by-election. In my view, this misses the point. The qualified voters were entitled to vote on election day and have their votes count on that day. A by-election is an inexact substitute. Gloria Saccon, who, as I have already mentioned, was one of the voters in Ward 9 whose vote was discounted by the judgment of the application judge, put it well in an affidavit filed on this motion. She said, "In my view, an election is a snapshot in time. It cannot be redone and should not be done over without a good reason." I agree.
  2. [67] A by-election is an entirely different election from the one it replaces. The candidates may be different. The issues may be different. The level of media attention may be different. The turnout may be different. And the electorate will be different: some voters will have died; some will have moved out of the ward and be entirely disenfranchised; some will have moved into the ward and may have already voted in another ward on October 25, 2010.
  3. [68] I do not intend to belittle the value of a by-election as a remedy when there are irregularities in an election that violate the principles of the MEA or affect the results of an election. I simply say that a by-election is second best and cannot serve to lessen the significance of setting aside an election or the caution that must be exercised before doing so.

[96] A similar proposition can be found in Paquachan v. Louison50:

Aucune version française disponible.

Inherent Dangers in Annulling an Election: Too lightly annulling an election has sweeping consequences as described in Opitz and summarized by Justice Schwann in McNabb [QB]. First annulling an election, although necessarily disenfranchising electors whose votes were rightly and properly disqualified, disenfranchises the votes of every person who was qualified to vote and who voted without attendant contravention of voting procedures. Annulling an election because of improper procedures is understandably necessary, but annulment comes with the self-evident result that all properly cast votes are set aside. Second, annulling an election increases the potential for litigation and undermines the certainty of outcome which has inherent value in a democracy. Third, a subsequent and new election will always be coloured by the perceived outcome of the election which preceded it and may lead to disillusionment or voter apathy.

[97] Elections should only be annulled in the most serious cases51, and with respect, the present scenario is not one of those.

[98] For the reasons set out above, and having considered all evidence and argument, there are no grounds to annul the election held in the constituency of Terrebonne on April 28, 2025.

Sinclair-Desgagné's motion to sanction Auguste's adjournment motion

[99] A few days before the hearing of this application and having been denied access to partial results, Auguste requested an adjournment to allow the Commissioner of Elections of Canada to complete an investigation allegedly still in-progress. Sinclair-Desgagné moved to sanction this adjournment request pursuant to s. 342 of the CCP.

[100] The Court dismissed the motion for adjournment and production of documents and deferred the issue of sanctions until the hearing of the application. However, Sinclair-Desgagné did not argue the issue of sanctions at the hearing and the Court considers the issue abandoned.

COSTS

[101] This contested election application posed questions of public interest not only for the citizens of Terrebonne, but also for all of Québec and Canada. It would therefore be injust that the applicant Sinclair-Desgagné, who had the support of many voters, pay costs for the dismissal of her application.

[102] The same conclusion can be made for Charles, who supported Sinclair-Desgagné's application.

[103] In the circumstances, the Court declines to award costs.

NOTES

[104] It would be appropriate to recognize the professionalism of the attorneys during each step of the process and the effective collaboration of all parties to ensure that this hearing proceeded quickly.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[105] DISMISSES the contested election application;

[106] Parties are to bear their own costs.

__________________________________

ÉRIC DUFOUR, J.C.S.

Date of hearing: October 20 and 21, 2025

Me. Stéphane Chatigny
FORTIER D'AMOUR GOYETTE
Counsel for the Applicant

Me. Daniel Baum
Me. Jean-Philippe Dionne
LANGLOIS AVOCATS, SENCRL
Counsel for the Respondents Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and the Returning Officer for the Electoral District of Terrebonne

Me. Marc-Étienne Vien
Me Frédéric Arcand
ST-AMAND & VIEN AVOCATS D'AFFAIRES
Counsel for the Respondents Tatiana Auguste

Me Chris Semerjian
Me Marie-Ève Labonté
FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN, SENCRL, SRL
Counsel for the Respondent Adrienne Charles

  1. 1. Official Gazette of Canada, Part I: Volume 159, Extra no. 10, May 15, 2025; exhibit R-3.
  2. 2. Exhibits R-6 and R-3.
  3. 3. LC 2000, c. 9 (Elections Act or CEA). English version in appendix (not reproduced in this translation).
  4. 4. 2012 SCC 55 (CanLII), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 76.
  5. 5. Piekut v. Canada (National Revenue), 2025 SCC 13 (CanLII), in para. 42, which summarized ideas from Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (CSC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, para. 21. See also R v. Wilson, 2025 SCC 32, October 24, 2025, para. 32.
  6. 6. Opitz from note 4, para. 26.
  7. 7. Part 1 of The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11.
  8. 8. Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912. See also Ontario (Attorney General) v. Working Families Coalition (Canada) Inc., 2025 SCC 5.
  9. 9. Opitz from note 4, para. 28.
  10. 10. Haig v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), 1993 CanLII 58 (CSC), [1993] 2 SCR 995.
  11. 11. Opitz from note 4, para. 33.
  12. 12. Opitz from note 4, para. 38.
  13. 13. Opitz from note 4, para. 39.
  14. 14. Opitz from note 4, para. 47.
  15. 15. s. 524(3) of the Elections Act
  16. 16. See McEwing v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 525 (CanLII), 2013 FC 525, para. 56.
  17. 17. Opitz from note 4, para. 50.
  18. 18. See for example McEwing v. Canada (Attorney General) from note 16, para. 83; Larocque c. Wilson-Rayboud, 2017 QCCS 5229;Cusimano c. Toronto (City), 2012 ONCA 907.
  19. 19. s. 179 of the Elections Act
  20. 20. An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act, (PL C-114) 1993 art. 126.
  21. 21. Instruction 179-G-2019-07 dated September 24, 2019; exhibit DD-1 (ITA-3).
  22. 22. Danielle Duquette affidavit dated July 22, 2025, para. 10 and 11. See also exhibits R-9, R-15 and ITA-2.
  23. 23. Mario Sabourin affidavit dated July 18 2025, para. 8, 11 and 14.
  24. 24. Exhibit R-26.
  25. 25. Claude Martel affidavit dated July 22, 2025, para. 15 and exhibit R-13.
  26. 26. Charles' written submissions dated October 6, 2025, para. 36 and 44.
  27. 27. Larocque c. Wilson-Rayboud from note 18
  28. 28. Cross-examination of Danielle Duquette affidavit dated July 31, 2025, p. 78.
  29. 29. Cross-examination of Mario Sabourin affidavit dated July 31, 2025, p. 39.
  30. 30. Exhibit ITA-39.
  31. 31. Exhibit R-28.
  32. 32. Claude Martel affidavit dated July 22, 2025, para. 23. Danielle Duquette affidavit dated July 22, 2025, sub-para. 25 (d).
  33. 33. Opitz from note 4, para. 50.
  34. 34. Opitz from note 4, para. 2.
  35. 35. 1987 CanLII 8600 (NWT SC), [1987] N.W.T.R. 186.
  36. 36. Note 4, para. 46.
  37. 37. Sinclair-Desgagné's written submissions, p. 17 to 21.
  38. 38. Certified copy of May 8, 9 and 10, 2025 minutes, exhibit R-2.1.
  39. 39. The certificate described in s. 297 CEA is prepared by the returning officer after validating the results.
  40. 40. 524(2) CEA.
  41. 41. Exhibit R-2.
  42. 42. Opitz from note 4, para. 74.
  43. 43. Hinse v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 CSC 35 (CanLII), [2015] 2 S.C.R. 621, para. 72.
  44. 44. Barrette c. Union canadienne (L'), compagnie d'assurances, 2013 QCA 1687, para. 31 and following. See also Trudel c. Piuze, 2017 QCCQ 13441.
  45. 45. Exhibits ITA-1, R-9 and R-16.
  46. 46. Danielle Duquette affidavit dated July 22, 2025, para. 18.
  47. 47. Cross-examination of Emmanuelle Bossé affidavit on July 8, 2025, by Me. Marc-Étienne Vien, para. 44.
  48. 48. Exhibit R-4, p. 4 and 7.
  49. 49. 2011 ONSC 7271, affirmed in 2012 ONCA 907.
  50. 50. 2017 SKQB 239.
  51. 51. Opitz from note 4, para. 49, 50 and 70. See also McEwing from note 16, para. 56.
  52. TR1. There are no highlightings of the statute in the reasons for judgment, despite this marking.