Page: 32 may be annulled if fraud casts doubt on its integrity even if the fraud does not raise doubts as to The common thread between the words "irregularities, fraud or corrupt or illegal practices" is the seriousness of the conduct and its impact on the integrity of the electoral process. Fraud, corruption and illegal practices are serious. Where they occur, the electoral process will be corroded. In associating the word "irregularity" with those words, Parliament must have contemplated mistakes and administrative errors that are serious and capable of undermining the integrity of the electoral process. (See Cusimano v. Toronto (City), 2011 ONSC 7271, 287 O.A.C. 355, at para. 62.) [79] The assessment of whether the impact of fraud affecting the result of the election is sufficient to warrant annulling the election result falls within the application of the judge’s discretion under s 531. If the number of suppressed votes is sufficient to cast doubt on the true winner, the Court has an easier task. Absent a clear finding to that effect, the more difficult question is whether the fraud, corrupt or illegal practice, if proven, was sufficiently serious to call the integrity of the election process into question. [80] The applicants cite American jurisprudence for the notion that election results may be overturned where fraud has affected the integrity of the election regardless of whether there is evidence of the number of votes affected. The American cases point to the difficulty in each instance of establishing how votes would have been cast if the election had not been overshadowed by irregularities or electoral fraud. But in each case it was found to matter whether doubt had been cast on the outcome even if the contestants could not prove that they would have been elected but for the fraud or irregularity: Penta v City of Revere, 8 Mass L Rep 106 at fn 20 (Mass Super Ct 1997), 1997 Mass Super LEXIS 62; Gooch v Hendrix, 851 P 2d 1321 at p 1331 (Cal Sup Ct 1993), 1993 Cal LEXIS 2497; Valence v Rosiere, 675 So 2d 1138 at p 1139 (La Ct App 5th Ct 1996), 1996 La App LEXIS 953; Marks v Stinson, 19 F 3d 873 (3d Cir 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) the true winner, relying on the Supreme Court’s comments at paragraph 43 of Opitz: