Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Lack of any sworn declaration within the statutory four-day period rendered the recount application procedurally defective.
• The applicant did not clearly allege or substantiate “reasonable grounds to believe” in illegal counting, rejection of votes, or an inaccurate tally.
• A strong presumption of regular and conscientious conduct by election officials was not rebutted by concrete or credible evidence.
• Mere numerical comparison between the margin of victory and the number of rejected ballots was held insufficient to justify a judicial recount.
• Vague, anecdotal complaints about specific rejected ballots and higher local rejection rates, unsupported by precise facts or documents, fell short of the “reasonable probability” standard.
• Self-represented status did not relax compliance with the LERM or the Code of Civil Procedure; the same strict rules applied to all parties.

Facts and procedural background

The dispute stems from the 2 November 2025 municipal election in Notre-Dame-de-la-Salette, Québec, for the position of councillor, seat number 5. In this small municipality of 881 citizens, Jean-Claude Boucher was declared elected with 197 votes, while his opponent, Dany Bérubé, obtained 186 votes, for a margin of 11. A total of 27 ballots were rejected. Relying on the fact that the number of rejected ballots exceeded the vote difference, Bérubé, acting without counsel, filed and served a “Requête pour recomptage judiciaire” (judicial recount application) on 6 November 2025, naming Boucher as defendant and involving the election president, Kasandra Mageau, as mise-en-cause. The application was timely filed with the civil registry, but the registry inexplicably took 20 days to transmit the file to the regional coordination of the Court of Québec. Once received, the matter was quickly set down, and the hearing was held on 1 December 2025 before Judge Steve Guénard, with all parties self-represented.

Legal framework and procedural requirements

The Court analyzed the application under sections 262 to 264 of the Loi sur les élections et les référendums dans les municipalités (LERM). These provisions allow a person to seek a new counting or compilation of votes if they have reasonable grounds to believe that votes were illegally counted or rejected or that the statement of votes is inaccurate. The application must be filed and served within four days of the end of the vote count and is heard urgently according to the Code of Civil Procedure. Relying on prior Court of Appeal guidance, the judge confirmed that a delay caused by the court registry after timely filing and service does not nullify the remedy. However, he stressed that other statutory and jurisprudential requirements remain strictly enforceable, including the obligation—recognized by a consistent line of decisions—that a recount application be supported by a sworn declaration (affidavit) detailing the facts said to justify the remedy. In this case, no such sworn declaration was ever filed, making the application procedurally deficient even before examining the merits.

Assessment of reasonable grounds and evidentiary shortcomings

On the substantive side, the Court examined whether Bérubé had established the “reasonable grounds to believe” required by section 262 LERM. The written application was extremely brief: it simply noted the 11-vote difference, the 27 rejected ballots, and asserted—based on an incorrect reference to another LERM article—that when the margin is less than or equal to the number of rejected ballots, this automatically justifies a recount. The application did not explicitly allege the existence of “reasonable grounds to believe” in illegal counting or rejection, nor did it identify specific irregularities. At the hearing, Bérubé candidly admitted that his argument was essentially based on his own impression that the numbers alone should be enough. He added that the proportion of rejected ballots in his municipality was, in his view, higher than in nearby municipalities and mentioned in general terms that some ballots might have been wrongly rejected for reasons such as torn paper or imperfect circles. However, he offered no documents, no precise counts, no identification of particular polling stations, and no sworn witness statements to support these claims. The election president, Kasandra Mageau, explained that the poll worker who counted the votes had received full training and used clear written criteria to determine when to accept or reject a ballot.

Presumption of regularity and treatment of numerical disparities

Applying well-established jurisprudence, including recent recount cases, the Court reaffirmed that there is a presumption of regularity in the work of election officials: they are presumed to have complied with the law and conscientiously performed their duties. This presumption can be rebutted, but only through concrete, credible facts suggesting probable irregularity. The Court emphasized that a mere possibility of error, or a suspicion triggered by numbers alone, does not meet the civil standard of a reasonable probability. Prior decisions had already rejected the idea that a margin smaller than the number of rejected ballots, by itself, is enough to order a recount. In line with those authorities, Judge Guénard held that Bérubé’s bare reliance on the 11-vote margin versus 27 rejected ballots, unsupported by sworn, detailed and specific evidence of illegality or error, was insufficient to justify a judicial recount. The anecdotal and imprecise assertions about allegedly mis-rejected ballots and higher rejection rates elsewhere did not displace the presumption that the electoral staff had correctly applied the LERM’s criteria.

Decision and consequences

Judge Guénard concluded that the application failed both procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, the absence of any sworn declaration filed within the strict statutory delay was, in itself, a fatal defect. Substantively, the applicant had not alleged or proven specific facts capable of establishing reasonable grounds to believe that votes were illegally counted or rejected or that the official tally was inaccurate. The Court therefore dismissed Dany Bérubé’s “Requête pour recomptage judiciaire,” leaving intact the result of the 2 November 2025 election. The judgment was rendered without costs (“sans frais de justice”), and no damages or other monetary relief were ordered. As a result, the successful party is the declared councillor, Jean-Claude Boucher, whose election remains valid, and the total monetary amount awarded or ordered in favour of any party, including costs, is zero.