The yes-or-no question, “Are you in favour of a third-party review of Council size and related ward boundaries?” will appear on the municipal ballot in October.

Elections Ontario Hearing Officer James Ayres denied Julia Swedak’s appeal of the proposed question, ruling it raised issues beyond the ballot.

“Much of the appellant’s written submissions focused on matters outside of the jurisdiction provided to me by the Act,” Mr. Ayres said.

Municipal lawyer Sarah Viau argued at the May 6 hearing at Shire Hall that the ballot question complied with the requirements of the Municipal Elections Act, which states such questions must be clear, concise and neutral. Further, they can only be answered with a “yes” or “no.” 

Ms. Swedak had suggested alternative options to direct a third-party review of Council ward sizes and related ward boundaries without adding a question to the ballot. She even prepared a proposal for reducing Council size and a six-ward map of the County.

Focusing more narrowly on whether the proposed plebiscite is neutral, clear, concise, and answerable with yes or no, Mr. Ayres still rejected Ms. Swedak’s positions.

Regarding neutrality, Ms. Swedak argued the question is not neutral because it does not disclose that the result will only be legally binding if at least 50 percent of eligible electors vote.

At the hearing, Ms. Viau posited that whether or not the outcome will be legally binding has no bearing on the neutrality of the question itself. Mr. Ayres agreed.

Ms. Swedak also argued the question is not clear because it does not inform electors that any consequence initiated by the plebiscite would not take effect until the 2030 municipal election.

“I do not accept this argument,” said Mr. Ayres. “The question does not mislead electors about the process being undertaken; it specifically asks: are you in favour of a third-party review of Council size and related ward boundaries? The question does not guarantee a change to Council size or ward boundaries or set out a timeline for their implementation.” 

Should the legislative thresholds regarding voter turnout and “Yes” votes be met, a third-party review is still at the discretion of the municipality, as well as implementing its recommendations.

“The question does not suggest that there will be any binding obligation on the municipality resulting from the review; it only asks whether the review should be undertaken,” he reasoned.

“Much of the detail included in [Ms. Swedak’s] appeal is directed at Council and County staff, and is not within this Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The County thoroughly considered the question, held public meetings, and passed the bylaw approving the question. The question will be on the ballot. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”