The judge in Wright v. Koziak concluded that the cumulative impact was a consideration that could impact on the result: "Certainly one non-compliance or irregularity might not materially affect the result, whereas the combination of four or five, taken together, might". He considered the cumulative impact and concluded that he remained of the view that the election should not be set aside (see Wright v. Koziak, supra, at paras. 48-49). It is important to understand what the judge was referring to when he took account of the "cumulative impact". Apart from the cumulative impact, there were four substantive complaints. None was accepted by the judge. In dealing with the cumulative impact, he made the following observation [Wright v. Koziak, supra, at para. 49]: As I say, I can conceive of a case where permitting a number of unauthorized persons to vote, which was not sufficient in number to affect the result, [page382] could be taken with another breach of the Act which resulted in another group of persons not being able to vote, and, again, not of sufficient number which would materially affect the result, but if these irregularities were taken together, the result might well be affected. In these circumstances, it might well be that a cumulative effect has to be considered.
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.