Page: 28 [68] A finding of guilt is no longer “the most important point”. The Québec Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion in interpreting the provisions of the Québec Election Act, RSQ, c E- appellant challenged the constitutionality of s 465 of that Election Act, which stipulates that the standard of proof in civil matters applies in an application to oppose an election. The appellant contended that a declaration of annulment of an election could result in the suspension of his political rights, a sanction he characterized as penal and thus requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding at paragraphs 118-119 that the two aspects of control over elections are distinct and require the application of different substantive principles and rules of evidence. In particular, the fact that a breach of the statute might result in the invalidity of an election did not require the application of the criminal standard of proof. [69] I agree with the submission of the Chief Electoral Officer that any action or instance meeting the dictionary definition of fraud would constitute electoral fraud where it was done in contravention of a provision of the Canada Elections Act or where it served to defeat a process provided for in that Act. It seems to me to be clear that deliberately misinforming electors about their polling location would thus be fraud within the meaning of s 524 and is provable on the civil standard. [70] I also accept the submissions of the applicants and the Chief Electoral Officer that in considering whether the integrity of the electoral process has been compromised, the Court may take into account admissible evidence which shows that the fraud was of a broader scope than the manifestations of it which occurred in a single district that is the subject of an application. 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) 3.3. In Pellerin v Thérien, 1997 Carswell Que 214, 148 DLR (4th ) 255, [1997] RJQ 816 (CA), the