Page: 29 That is of relevance in these proceedings because of the evidence of fraud occurring in the (4) [71] “…that affected the result of the Election.” This phrase speaks to the election results as a whole in each district. It is not necessary that the fraud or corrupt or illegal practice affected the vote of the elector or candidate who brings an annulment application. But it does require that one or more votes were improperly cast or denied in the district where the application is brought and that this had an effect on the outcome in that riding. [72] As the majority in Opitz observed at paragraph 25, “affected the result” includes a situation where a person entitled to vote was improperly prevented from doing so. In an election marred by procedural irregularities or electoral fraud, even one invalid or suppressed vote could in principle affect the result. But would it justify annulment? [73] In Opitz, at paragraph 61, the Supreme Court noted that an applicant who has led evidence from which an irregularity could be found will have met his or her prima facie evidentiary burden. At that point, the respondent runs the risk of having the votes in issue set aside, unless he or she can adduce or point to evidence from which it may reasonably be inferred that no irregularity occurred, or that despite the irregularity, the votes in question were nevertheless valid. The applicants rely on this to assert that they need only raise a prima facie 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) Guelph district.