This is an appeal of a decision by the Joint Compliance Audit Committee for the Town of Oakville, which authorized a compliance audit of a municipal councillor's campaign finances.
The appellant argued that the applicant for the audit lacked standing because they were not an elector of the specific ward in which the councillor ran.
The court, applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation and the presumption of consistent expression, found that the relevant statutory provision (s. 88.33(1) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996) must be read in conjunction with s. 19(7) of the same Act, which limits an elector's voting entitlement to their ward of residence in ward-divided municipalities.
Consequently, the court held that only an elector residing in the specific ward has standing to request a compliance audit for a candidate in that ward.
The Committee's decision to order the audit was set aside due to the applicant's lack of standing.
