On the evening of Feb. 13, 2026, two separate rulings landed that will reverberate through the federal political scene: the Supreme Court of Canada threw out a one-vote result in the Montreal-area riding of Terrebonne, and Elections Canada found that former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland inadvertently breached the Elections Act by mentioning a by-election candidate at official government events. One development creates a vacancy in the House of Commons; the other prompted corrective action and scrutiny over ministerial conduct.
What the Supreme Court decided
The high court set aside an election decided by a single ballot after finding that a mail-in vote, returned with a postal-code error on its label, had been mishandled. The Bloc Québécois argued the mistake meant the vote could not be properly counted; the court concluded that any irregularity of that kind undermined confidence in an outcome settled by one vote. The declared winner has been stripped of the seat and a federal by-election is now mandatory.
How this changes the campaign map
A by-election in Terrebonne forces parties to reallocate staff, money and messaging on short notice. For campaign teams, a race that once seemed closed becomes an intense, compressed fight: new turnout models, revamped canvassing scripts and urgent volunteer coordination are all required. With margins as tight as one ballot, every door, phone call and piece of targeted advertising takes on greater weight.
Procedural fallout and the mail-in vote issue
Beyond partisan calculations, the ruling raises questions about the safeguards that govern mail-in voting. Elections officials are likely to face pressure to tighten labeling, tracking and handling procedures to avoid similar disputes. Expect calls from political actors for clearer administrative rules and for Elections Canada to review training and quality-control protocols.
How the case reached the Supreme Court
The challenge originated after the Quebec Superior Court dismissed the initial complaint. The losing candidate, Sinclair-Desgagné, appealed and the matter climbed to the Supreme Court, which heard argument and quickly overturned the lower-court decision—vacating the seat and triggering the legal mechanism for a by-election.
Political reactions and parliamentary math
Liberal spokespeople said they accept the ruling and will contest the seat when the writ is issued. The Bloc urged a swift timetable so voters in Terrebonne can resolve the uncertainty. Practically speaking, Terrebonne is one seat among three vacancies now in the Commons (two others in Toronto), so the broader balance of power won’t shift hugely. Still, every vacancy chips away at the governing party’s flexibility and complicates any path toward a future majority.
Timing: delay or speed up?
The government controls the timing of writs within statutory limits, so scheduling this and any other by-elections is a tactical decision: delay to prepare and polish campaigns, or move quickly to restore full representation. Officials expect the contests
The Freeland finding and corrective steps
Separately, Elections Canada concluded that Ms. Freeland breached the Elections Act inadvertently by discussing a by-election candidate during official events. The ruling did not suggest malicious intent; rather, it highlighted the sometimes-thin line between public office and partisan activity. Freeland and her former riding association have taken remedial steps in response to Elections Canada’s recommendations.
Why the Freeland case matters
This finding is a reminder that ministerial appearances and remarks at government functions are subject to scrutiny when they touch on electoral matters. Beyond immediate remedies, the episode may prompt clearer guidance for ministers and staff about what is permissible at official events—especially during a period with active or upcoming by-elections.
What to watch next
– When writs for Terrebonne and the other vacancies are issued and whether the government moves quickly or delays. – How parties shift resources and adjust ground operations in response to a short campaign calendar. – Any procedural changes from Elections Canada on mail-in ballot handling, labeling, and ministerial conduct guidance. – Whether the Terrebonne ruling spurs further legal challenges or administrative reforms in future races.
What the Supreme Court decided
The high court set aside an election decided by a single ballot after finding that a mail-in vote, returned with a postal-code error on its label, had been mishandled. The Bloc Québécois argued the mistake meant the vote could not be properly counted; the court concluded that any irregularity of that kind undermined confidence in an outcome settled by one vote. The declared winner has been stripped of the seat and a federal by-election is now mandatory.0