Turning next to the first asserted irregularity, I accept the evidence of some voters’
confusion about where to vote. It is reasonable to infer that the 11 voters, including Chief
Yellowknee’s mother, who were informed that they could not vote in the Ward 6 election were
surprised and upset. The possibility that they might have been prevented from exercising their
democratic right to vote is troubling, though, as will be discussed below, no such interference
actually occurred. An act or omission by the Board in running the election that resulted or could
have resulted in Ward 6 voters being confused and thereby disenfranchised would constitute an
irregularity, which could impact on the results of the election and thereby render it invalid
(Marquette and Skaret). However, confusion about where to vote can only constitute an
“irregularity“ if the Board, as overseer of the election, caused or significantly contributed to that
 The Board’s evidence with respect to preparing for and running the Ward 6 and 7
elections did not reveal any such acts or omissions; in fact, the opposite is true. Anticipating that
Ward 6 and Ward 7 voters might be confused because of past practices and changes in Ward
boundaries, the Board took ample and reasonable steps to prevent voter confusion, including
sending targeted and general letters, paying for public advertisements, and hiring a special
mapmaker. Significantly, the Board did not suggest any alternative or additional steps that could
have been taken to prevent voter confusion, nor did the Board suggest that the steps taken were
 The Board was entitled to change Ward boundaries and voting locations. Such changes
may indeed have resulted in voter confusion for Ward 6 and Ward 7 voters. Perhaps the low
voter turnout for the Ward 6 election relative to the municipal election is some evidence of that
confusion. But, where the Board exercised due diligence in advising voters of the changes, and
prepared and ran the election in keeping with the requirements of the LAEA, the Board can not
be held responsible for that confusion.
 Considering all the evidence in this case, I find that the Board exercised due diligence in
advising voters of where to vote, how to vote, what Ward they should vote in, and who the
candidates were in their Wards.
 Evidence of voter confusion came in the form of hearsay evidence from Ms. Sutherland
and Chief Yellowknee. They testified that some Ward 7 voters thought they were Ward 6 voters,
and could vote at Mistassiniy School. They were advised by Ms. Sutherland that they could not.
Those Ward 7 voters were not actually disenfranchised or prevented from voting as a result of
showing up at the Ward 6 polling station: they did not need to proceed to another location to
exercise their right to vote because the Ward 7 candidate won by acclamation.
 Importantly, no evidence was provided of any eligible Ward 6 voter being unable to cast
a vote the day of the election – i.e. there was no evidence that, because of confusion about where
to vote, they attended and attempted to vote at St. Theresa School in Ward 7, where a polling
station had been located in the past but where there was no polling station on election day
because of the acclamation.
 There was no evidence provided of any Ward 6 voter, or any other person trying to
contact the School Board, Mistassiniy School, or St. Theresa School the day of the election, or at