Canadian Crowdsourced Judicial Decision Translations Project

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Sinclair-Desgagné c. Procureur général du Canada, 2025 QCCS 2551 ======

Original Source: [[https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2025/2025qccs2551/2025qccs2551.html|CanLII RFJ]]

----

**Sinclair-Desgagné v. Attorney-General of Canada** \\
**2025 QCCS 2551**

**Superior Court** \\
Civil Chambers

CANADA \\
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC \\
DISTRICT OF TERREBONNE 

N°: 700-17-021527-253 \\
DATE: July 14, 2025 

----
Presiding: The Honorable Éric Dufour, J.C.S.
----

**NATHALIE SINCLAIR-DESGAGNÉ** \\
Applicant

v.

**ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA** \\
and \\
**CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF CANADA** \\
and \\
**RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF TERREBONNE** \\
and \\
**TATIANA AUGUSTE** \\
and \\
**MAXIME BEAUDOIN** \\
and \\
**MARIA CANTORE** \\
and \\
**ADRIENNE CHARLES** \\
and \\
**BENJAMIN RANKIN** \\
Respondents

----
**Judgment on Electoral Document Inspection** \\
**(s. 540(3) and (8) of the Canada Elections Act)**
----

[1] Following the April 28, 2025 federal election and a subsequent judicial recount, Tatiana Auguste (**Auguste**), the Liberal Party of Canada candidate, became the Member of Parliament for the electoral district of Terrebonne. A single vote seperated her from her closest rival, Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (**Sinclair-Desgagné**), the Bloc Québecois candidate.

[2] On May 23, 2025, Sinclair-Desgagné filed an application to contest the Auguste's election pursuant to s. 524 of the //Canada Elections Act//((LC 2000, c. 9 (**Elections Act**).)). As required by the Elections Act, she served the application on each candidate in the election. As required by the //Elections Act//, she served the application on each candidate in the election.

[3] Auguste, who opposes the application, demands the production of certain documents, in particular two ballots attributed to Sinclair-Desgagné. She says these ballots will aid the Court during the hearing of the application, in particular during the application or non-application of the magic number test discussed in the Opitz((//Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj//, 2012 SCC 55, para. 38.)) decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[4] **CONSIDERING** s. 540 of the Elections Act;

[5] **CONSIDERING** the minutes of the Court from the judicial recount held on May 8, 9 and 10, 2025 for the electoral district of Terrebonne;

[6] **CONSIDERING** Auguste's application materials, her affidavit and the parties' submissions during the hearing of the present application;

[7] **CONSIDERING** that, even if Auguste's affidavit in support of her application can be reduced to a generic attestation of the truth of the facts she states, the Court, anxious not to dismiss an application for this single reason, deems it sufficient for the purposes of this application;

[8] **CONSIDERING** the arguments of irregularity submitted by Sinclair-Desgagné;

[9] **CONSIDERING** that Auguste intends to raise question of law about the application of the Opitz test;

[10] **CONSIDERING** that at these embryonic stages of proceedings and without commenting on the merits of the parties' arguments, the Court strives not to prevent Auguste from presenting the evidence she deems necessary to support her response to Sinclair-Desgagné's application((//Lukiwski v. Anderson//, 2004 SKCA 115.));

[11] **CONSIDERING** that relevance should be adjudicated with leeway, especially at this early stage of proceedings when the Court doesn't have the benefit of tested evidence or complete pleadings from all parties;

[12] **CONSIDERING** however that in order to limit the scope of disputed issues in play, the Court, with her consent, has limited the scope of Auguste's arguments in relation to these ballots to those discussed in the minutes of this application;

[13] **CONSIDERING** that Auguste's application, being related to two ballots, is raised in the context of neither an commission of inquiry((//Larocque c. Wilson-Rayboud//, 2017 QCCS 5229.)) nor an appeal of a judicial recount;

[14] **IN VIEW** of the representations of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada that it would take ten days to produce the requested documents;

**FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:**

[15] **ALLOWS** Tatiana Auguste's application to inspect the electoral documents;

[16] **AUTHORIZES** the Respondent, the Chief Electoral Officer, to open ballot boxes 19 and 608 from the April 28, 2025 election for the electoral district of Terrebonne;

[17] **ORDERS** that the Chief Electoral Officer provide, by notification, a certified copy of ballots 19-1 and 608-2 to every party within ten days of this judgment. The originals shall be preserved in an appropriate manner as determined by the Chief Electoral Officer and be brought to the first day of the hearing of the contested election application.

[18] **COSTS** are to be determined.

%%__________________________________%% \\
**ÉRIC DUFOUR, J.C.S.**

Date of hearing: July 11, 2025

Me. Stéphane Chatigny \\
FORTIER D'AMOUR GOYETTE \\
Counsel for the Applicant

Me. Daniel Baum \\
Me. Geneviève Claveau \\
LANGLOIS AVOCATS, SENCRL \\
Counsel for the Respondents Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and the Returning Officer for the Electoral District of Terrebonne

Me. Marc-Étienne Vien \\
ST-AMAND & VIEN AVOCATS D'AFFAIRES \\
Counsel for the Respondents Tatiana Auguste

Madame Camille Trudel, Articling Student \\
DELEGATUS SERVICES JURIDIQUES INC. \\
Representative for the Respondent Maxime Beaudoin

Me Marie-Ève Labonté \\
Me Chris Semerjian \\
FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN, SENCRL, SRL \\
Counsel for the Respondent Adrienne Charles