Page: 24 every elector who voted in the riding; the reparative measure that voters will have the opportunity to vote in a by-election is not a perfect answer for a number of reasons; permitting declaration that an election is annulled may be considered the ultimate public consequence of violating provisions of the Act and accordingly should be reserved for serious cases (Opitz paras 48, 49 and 70). [57] This is not a case about “irregularities” in the electoral process impugning some of the votes cast, as addressed in Opitz. The objection to the election of the respondent MPs in this instance is based on allegations of “fraud or corrupt or illegal practices that affected the result of the election” made against a person or persons unknown. As the Supreme Court noted in raising the bar for irregularities by analogy to the other language used in s 524, these are very serious matters. Where they occur, the electoral process will be corroded (Opitz, para 43). [58] Examples of “corrupt practices” and “illegal practices” are given in the statute but no formal definition of these terms or of “fraud” is provided. There are a number of Part 19 provisions dealing with offences that would constitute fraud or corrupt or illegal practices, such as wilfully preventing or endeavouring to prevent an elector from voting (ss 281(g) and 491(3)(d)), and inducing a person by pretence of contrivance to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate in an election (s 482(b)). The Act also creates offences that may apply to the actions of candidates and their official agents under the heading of “illegal and corrupt practices” in s 502, which may also fall within the scope of s 524. 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) elections to be lightly overturned would increase the likelihood of post-election litigation; and a