The following excerpt is from Herbert Goldie v. The Corporation of the Township of Brock, et al.,, 2010 ONSC 6930 (CanLII):
In Di Biase v. Vaughan (City), supra, the votes were cast in person. The voting machine was not programmed to “return” or “out-stack” a ballot with an under or over-vote. At paras. 27-28, Howden J. said: 27 For an underdetermined number of the 1,656 ballots not counted for mayors under- or over-votes, there are no doubt votes which are valid in law under the Municipal Elections Act and its regulation. The machine cannot read the intent of marks, only their spatial area. … 28 As to the under-votes, reliance merely on information from a supplier to determine the validity of a vote in a democratic process is simply unacceptable. In another city where over- and under-votes were returned for the voter's attention, fewer lost votes were experienced. Significantly fewer.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.