An elector applied to the Compliance Audit Committee for a compliance audit of four municipal election candidates' campaign finances, alleging various contraventions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.
The Committee dismissed the application.
On appeal, the court considered the appropriate standard of review, the meaning of "reasonable grounds," and whether the candidates had contravened the Act.
The court found that the Committee was entitled to deference as an expert body and applied a reasonableness standard.
The court upheld the Committee's decision, finding no reasonable grounds to believe the candidates had contravened the Act, as they had promptly returned improper contributions upon becoming aware of them and any filing errors were unintentional and did not materially affect the public's ability to review campaign finances.