You've hit a good point. This is actually what the majority examined, and so that was the majority finding. As well, they looked at the distinction between somebody not following the proper procedure, which is permitted by the act, to have procedure, and it meets the charter test to have appropriate procedures.... They say, at paragraph 65, that they think it's superior to actually have someone go away and come back compliant rather than allow a non-compliant vote to happen. At paragraph 65 they say:
However, unlike the rejection of a valid vote, turning away a voter on election day is not fatal to that person’s right to vote. If at first that voter could not comply with a procedural requirement, with some additional effort, he or she can return to the polling station and obtain a ballot.
So the Supreme Court has the opinion that to protect the integrity of our system it's probably superior to maintain a rigid procedure, and it does not disenfranchise someone.
In our act, we are actually allowing an additional day of voting so if people show up and don't have the right documents they can go back. Does that not protect the fact that we're not disenfranchising?