Page: 21 [49] The respondent MPs contended initially that criminal investigations and controverted validity applications in relation to an election should proceed sequentially, with Part 19 argued, that annulment under Part 20 should be a last resort when there has been wrongdoing in the course of an election. To address the strict time limitation on the bringing of an annulment application imposed by the statute, they suggested that the Court could impose a stay pending the outcome of the investigation and the prosecution, if any, that might follow within the statutory limitation period set out in s 514. That is 5 years from the day on which the Commissioner became aware of the facts giving rise to the prosecution but, in any case, not later than 10 years after the day on which the offence was committed. [50] I agree with the Chief Electoral Officer that the Act contemplates that applications to annul an election may be brought at the same time as an investigation into possible violations of the Act is conducted by the Commissioner. This conclusion is supported by the time limit imposed for bringing a civil application, the requirement, in s 525(3), that such applications shall be dealt with summarily and without delay and the lengthy limitation period for prosecutions provided for in s 514. It is also consistent with the objective of ensuring the integrity of the electoral process when the results are found to have been affected by the conduct described in s 524. At the conclusion of the hearing, the respondent MPs conceded that this interpretation was correct. (2) The test, burden and standard of proof for invalidity 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) procedures being completed first and then Part 20 procedures begun. Parliament intended, they