Page: 46 occurrence in early March. As none of the applicants and supporting electors were cross- [121] The Supreme Court expressed the concern in Opitz, at para 56, that Part 20 of the Act "… should not be taken by losing candidates as an invitation to examine the election records… in the hopes of getting a second chance". This is not such a case. These applications do not constitute an abuse of s 524. They are brought out of legitimate concerns that the electoral process was violated by persons seeking to suppress the applicants’ votes. [122] The respondent MPs rely on Hilton v Norgaard, [1992] BCJ No 1742 (QL) (SC). In that case, several town council members sought the disqualification of the mayor on conflict of interest grounds. The council members had been aware of the grounds for the application for some considerable time but delayed in bringing their application until they had obtained legal advice that they had sufficient information to proceed. That situation bears little resemblance to the facts of this matter. [123] In this instance, the applicants were not put on notice of the fraud by their awareness of the calls that they had received. Nor were they aware of the fact that those calls were part of an orchestrated campaign of misdirection. That fact was not readily discoverable by them with a reasonable exercise of diligence within thirty days of the occurrence. The applicants bore no individual responsibility to make in-depth inquiries about the calls they had received. 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) examined on their affidavits this evidence remains uncontroverted.