Far from being frivolous or vexatious, or an obvious abuse, the applications raise serious issues about the integrity of the democratic process in Canada and identify practices that if proven, point to a campaign of activities that would seek to deny eligible voters their right to vote and/or manipulate or interfere with that right being exercised freely - all of which if permitted to escape even the prospect of judicial scrutiny, could shake public confidence and trust in the electoral process and in those who in good faith stand for public office. Bielli v Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 916, [2012] FCJ No 971 (QL) at para 11 [Bielli]. [19] Prothonotary Milczynski concluded that the issues would be best raised and argued on a full record. The question of whether the applications were brought within the statutory limitation period could not be resolved without the applicants’ evidence and any possible crossexaminations on their evidence by the respondents. [20] Also on May 22, 2012, the respondent MPs initiated a motion to have the applications dismissed on the ground that they were the product of maintenance and champerty by an organization not party to the proceedings, the Council of Canadians (the “Council”). This motion was supported by an affidavit sworn by Peter Henein, a member of the law firm acting on behalf of the respondent MPs. The applicants moved shortly thereafter to strike the affidavit on the ground that it was contrary to Rule 82 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [the Rules] and the principle that counsel may not be a witness in the same case in which they represent a party. [21] Following a case conference in August, the applicants agreed to withdraw the Rule 82 motion without prejudice to their right to impugn the evidence at the hearing of the applications. 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) Page: 11