Page: 36 contemplates the filing of applications on the basis of mere allegations before they can be substantiated, in order to meet the limitation period. This may have the undesirable effect of withdrawn if evidence to support them is not uncovered. [89] Where 527(a) does not apply, as here, the thirty day limit begins to run only when the occurrence was discovered or was reasonably discoverable in the circumstances. There is no outside time-limit in the Act for bringing an application on freshly discovered grounds, other than that presumably imposed by the Parliamentary term as the matter would then become moot when another election was convened. [90] In interpreting s 527(b), the Court should seek to find a balance between the objective of discouraging untimely applications that have no prospect of success and those that address serious concerns with the integrity of the electoral process. (6) [91] Section 527, “knew or should have known” The legislation leaves the door open for an application that is brought within thirty days of the day when the elector or candidate “knew or should have known” of the occurrence (in French, “a appris, ou aurait dû savoir”). The language “knew or should have known” allows for some flexibility in determining on the evidence when the applicant had actual or imputed knowledge of the occurrence sufficient to start the 30 day deadline running. 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) encouraging litigation that is not well-founded but such applications may, of course, be