[48] It was further urged that besides Canada, the position held by the House of Lords has recently been emulated by the Constitutional Court of Seychelles in Wavel John Charles Ramkalawan v. The Electoral Commission.10 [49] Citing the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in the case of FH v. McDougall11, the petitioners contended that the elevation of the civil standard of proof in respect of matters which are not criminal in nature on the basis that they are deemed as ‘serious matters’ is improper. In the circumstances, they urged the Court to find that the applicable standard of proof in the presidential election petition is on a balance of probabilities. [50] The petitioners concluded by submitting that their petition is merited and should be allowed in the following terms: (a) Immediately upon the filing of the Petition, the 1st respondent do avail all the material including electronic documents, devices and equipment for the Presidential Election within 48 hours. (b) Immediately upon the filing of the Petition, the 1st respondent do produce, avail and allow access for purposes of inspection of all the logs of any and all servers hosted by and/or on behalf of the 1st respondent in respect of the Presidential Election within 48 hours. (c) A specific order for scrutiny of the rejected and spoilt votes. 10  Wavel John Charles Ramkalawan v. The Electoral Commission (2016) SCCC 11.    FH v. McDougall (2008) 3 SCR 41.   11 Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            18  |  P a g e