Page: 27 [65] In the context of the Act as a whole, the object of the Act and the ordinary and gramatical meaning of fraud, it is sufficient to show that a false representation has been made in an attempt Hammell, 1999 BCCA 23 at para 75. [66] The respondent MPs contend that if the acts alleged to be contrary to s 524 also constitute offences under the Act, they must be proven to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. In making that argument counsel for the respondent MPs relied upon jurisprudence under the old Dominion Controverted Elections Act. That statute, as I noted above, is of little assistance in interpreting the modern legislation as the civil consequences of a violation, such as annulment, flowed from the conviction of the perpetrator. It was, therefore, necessary to first establish the guilt of an individual on the criminal law standard. That is no longer the case as I read s 524 and the related provisions in Part 20. Authorship of the fraud and the guilt of any person or persons are not material. What is relevant is the fact of the fraud and the effect it had on the outcome. [67] As discussed by Justice Lederer at para 53 of Wrzesnewskyj: In the present case, there is no charge; no one is at risk of any penalty being imposed as a result of any finding that may be made, nor has anyone been convicted of any offence under the Canada Elections Act. [. . .] In Johnson v. Yake, the election was declared void because the two individuals were found guilty of such offences. The finding of guilt was "... the most important point ..." … [. . .] Under s. 51 of the legislation applicable in that case, a candidate's election would be void if it was found that any corrupt or illegal practice had been committed by the candidate and/or his agent. The offences charged would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but the voiding of the election flowed automatically from the convictions. 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) to prevent electors from exercising their right to vote for the candidate of their choice: Friesen v