Page: 35 but the usual practice is for originating notices to be filed first and served later. Rule 304 of the Federal Courts Rules provides that an originating notice of application must be served on the [86] There does not appear to be any jurisprudence on the meaning and effect of the requirement under this Act that security for costs accompany the application. It was in the predecessor legislation and dates back for many years. The object of a similar provision, of equal long-standing, in s 60 of the Patent Act, is to deter irresponsible invalidation actions: Apotex Inc v Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, [1980] 2 FC 586 at para 28. The amount, $1000, was no doubt a significant deterrent in 1900 but is clearly inadequate to serve that purpose to-day. Where the plaintiff has failed to make payment in proceedings under the Patent Act, the Court has been prepared to relieve against the infraction: Teva Canada Ltd v OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc, [2012] FCJ No 1670 (QL) at para 21. Similarly, I find that a defect under this Act may be cured by payment into court subsequent to the filing of the application. It is not a ground for dismissing the application at this stage of the proceeding. [87] The time-limit in s 527 is mandatory. The Act does not allow for the exercise of discretion by the Court to extend the time within which an application may be brought. This was also the rule for the similar provision in the predecessor legislation, s 12 of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act: Money v Rankin, [1909] OJ No 75 (QL) (HCJ) at paras 9-10. [88] Parliament’s intent appears to be that such applications should be brought and dealt with without delay. The respondent MPs and the Chief Electoral Officer observe that the Act 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) respondents and proof of service filed within ten days of issuance of the notice.