Page: 23 The remedy the court may provide is in s 531(2): (2) After hearing the application, the court may dismiss it if the grounds referred to in paragraph 524(1)(a) or (b), as the case may be, are not established and, where they are established, shall declare the election null and void or may annul the election, respectively. (2) Au terme de l’audition, il peut rejeter la requête; si les motifs sont établis et selon qu’il s’agit d’une requête fondée sur les alinéas 524(1)a) ou b), il doit constater la nullité de l’élection du candidat ou il peut prononcer son annulation. [Je souligne] [My emphasis] [54] The Supreme Court determined, at paras 20-22 of Opitz, that the use of the word “respectively” means that where the grounds in s 524(1)(a) are established, a court must declare the election null and void; where the grounds in s. 524(1)(b) are established, a court may annul the election. Under the latter circumstances, the court must decide whether the election held was compromised in such a way as to justify its annulment. [55] The use of “established” in s 531(2) places the burden on the applicant throughout. The applicable standard of proof is the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. The applicants must establish that electoral fraud occurred and that the results of the election were affected (Opitz paras 52-53). In the present case, the applicants must establish that in each of the subject ridings there was at least one elector in each riding who did not vote as a result of the fraud. [56] Among the other principles that I must keep in mind in assessing the degree of compromise to an election result are the following: annulling an election would disenfranchise 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) [53]