Dismissed: Municipal election ballot question appeal
Administrator | May 17, 2026 | Comments 4
By Sharon Harrison
Elections Ontario has dismissed an appeal made by Julia Swedak regarding adding a ballot question to the County’s 2026 municipal election, as it pertains to having a third-party review of council size and related ward boundaries.
A hearing for the appeal took place in council chambers at Shire Hall May 6 with the designate Ontario Chief Electoral Officer, James Ayres. No decision was made at the hearing, but a written decision was forthcoming on May 13.
Swedak was not present at the hearing, having advised on April 22 that she would not be able to attend in person and requested that the hearing proceed in her absence. The period for appeal (20 days from the bylaw being passed) closed on March 19, the same day Swedak filed an appeal.
Council voted to approve a bylaw in February authorizing the placement of a question on the ballot for the upcoming municipal election, which passed on Aug. 26, 2025, adopting the wording for the referendum question: “Are you in favour of a third-party review of council size and related ward boundaries?”
In his Reasons for Decision, Ayres addresses two issues in the appeal. First, does the appeal comply with the grounds for bringing an appeal, as set out in s. 8.1(6) of the Act? And second, does the question comply with paragraphs 3 and 4 of s. 8.1(2) of the Act?
Ayres states that much of the Appellant’s (Swedak’s) written submissions were focused on matters outside of the jurisdiction provided to him by the Act.
“For example, she made detailed submissions regarding alternative options that council may employ to direct a third-party review of council ward sizes and related ward boundaries without a question being added to the ballot, and she even prepared her own proposal for how the municipality may reduce the size of council and re-draw the ward boundaries using a six-ward model,” Ayres stated.
“I do not have jurisdiction to address such matters. My jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the question complies with paragraphs 3 and 4 of s. 8.1(2).”
He further noted that Swedak also made direct submissions on the neutrality, clarity and conciseness of the question.
“Accordingly, the appeal does contain submissions that comply with the grounds for bringing an appeal… and I therefore have authority to make determinations in accordance with my jurisdiction,” stated Ayres.
In the second question, of does the question comply with paragraphs 3 and 4 of s. 8.1(2) of the Act, Ayres states that the Appellant argues that the question is not neutral because the question does not disclose that the result will only be legally-binding if at least 50 percent of eligible electors vote on the question.
“Whether or not the outcome will be legally binding has no bearing on the neutrality of the question itself,” stated Ayres.
“In this context, the purpose of neutrality is to ensure that the question does not persuade the elector to vote for, or against, the question,” he explained. “The question, as set out in the bylaw, does not improperly encourage or persuade the elector to vote “Yes” or “No” to whether they are in favour of a third-party review of council size and related ward boundaries.”
“Second, the Appellant argues that the question lacks the required clarity because an elector could conclude that voting “Yes” will directly result in a review and potential change to council size, when, in fact, the result may be non-binding due to either 50 per cent of voters not casting a vote on the question, or if 50 per cent of voters do cast a vote on the question, 50 per cent of those votes may not be in favour of a third-party review of council size and related ward boundaries.”
With respect to the second half of Swedak’s submission, Ayres states how he finds it difficult to believe that any one elector may perceive that their sole “Yes” vote, alone, would result in a third-party review of council size and the related ward boundaries.
“The thrust of the Appellant’s submission is made in the first half of the sentence, where she submits that the result would be non-binding if less than 50 per cent of eligible electors in the municipality vote on the question in accordance with s. 8.2(1)(a) of the Act, and therefore it is not clear.”
And thirdly, Ayres states that Swedak submits that the question is not clear because it does not inform electors that, even if legally binding, any change would not take effect until the 2030 municipal election.
“I do not accept this argument,” he stated.
“The question does not mislead electors about the process that is 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.”
He said, it simply asks electors whether the municipality should engage a third-party to review council size and ward boundaries.
“Should the legislative thresholds regarding voter turnout and “Yes” votes be met, it remains entirely within the discretion of the municipality whether to implement the recommendations from the third-party review. 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 added.
Fourth, the Appellant submits that, as written, the question may cause electors to reasonably expect a more comprehensive governance review than the bylaw authorizes, outlined Ayres.
“I reject this submission,” he stated. “The question is clear, in that should the statutory thresholds be met, and the outcome is “Yes”, a third-party review of council size and related ward boundaries will be completed.”
He further added that the question does not create an expectation that the third-party will complete a comprehensive governance review beyond council size and ward boundaries.
“Having reviewed the Appellant’s written submissions in detail, it seems to me that much of the detail included in her 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,” concluded Ayres.
Council passes bylaw to put question on 2026 municipal election ballot
Question on structure of council to be on 2026 election ballot
Filed Under: Featured Articles • Local News
After reviewing the decision carefully, I respectfully disagree with several aspects of the reasoning and believe the decision applies an unduly narrow interpretation of both “neutrality” and “clarity” under section 8.1(2)(3) of the Act.
The appeal did not challenge whether Prince Edward County could conduct a review of council size or ward boundaries, nor did it seek to substitute policy preferences for the municipality’s decision-making authority. Rather, the appeal focused specifically on whether the wording of the ballot question itself adequately informed electors of the true nature and effect of their vote.
In the submission, the decision incorrectly limits neutrality to the absence of overtly persuasive language. A question may appear neutral in tone while still failing the statutory requirement if it materially omits information necessary for electors to understand the practical and legal implications of their vote. Neutrality is not solely about wording; it is also about whether the question presents the issue in a manner that does not create a misleading impression.
The ballot question omits several objectively material facts:
that the result is only legally binding if at least 50 percent of eligible electors participate;
that Council already possesses the authority to initiate such a review without a referendum; and
that any resulting governance changes could not take effect until a future council term.
These omissions are significant because they directly affect how a reasonable elector would interpret the consequence of a “Yes” vote.
The decision states that whether the outcome is legally binding “has no bearing on the neutrality of the question itself.” Respectfully, I disagree. The binding or non-binding nature of the result fundamentally informs the meaning and practical effect of the vote. An elector could reasonably interpret the question as asking whether a review should occur as a direct consequence of voting “Yes,” when in reality the referendum may have no binding effect whatsoever.
Similarly, the decision appears to reduce “clarity” to whether a question can be answered “Yes” or “No.” However, section 8.1(2) intentionally distinguishes between:
paragraph 3, requiring that the question be “clear, concise and neutral”; and
paragraph 4, requiring that the question be capable of being answered by “Yes” or “No.”
If clarity is satisfied merely because a question can be answered affirmatively or negatively, paragraph 3 loses independent meaning within the statute.
The issue raised in the appeal was not hypothetical. Historical turnout data in Prince Edward County demonstrates that the statutory threshold required for a binding result is difficult to achieve. The County also has prior experience with non-binding referendum outcomes despite majority support. These realities materially affect the substance of the decision presented to electors and, in my view, should have been considered relevant to assessing both clarity and neutrality.
I also remain concerned that proceeding with a referendum under these circumstances represents an unnecessary and financially irresponsible use of public funds, particularly where Council already possesses the authority to undertake a third-party governance review without incurring the costs associated with a ballot question that may ultimately produce a non-binding result.
Further, the Province already possesses mechanisms to address municipal governance and representation concerns where warranted. If there are legitimate concerns regarding council composition or ward structure in Prince Edward County, those matters could be reviewed directly through existing municipal governance processes or through engagement with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, without requiring taxpayers to fund a potentially ineffective referendum process.
While I acknowledge and respect the decision rendered, I remain concerned that the interpretation adopted establishes an exceptionally low threshold for compliance with the statutory requirements of neutrality and clarity, potentially permitting materially incomplete referendum questions so long as they avoid overt advocacy language.
Here’s something else that the majority of PEC’s voters are not aware of – the notification for residents to have this question put on the ballot had NOT BEEN SENT TO RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE PRINCIPLE RESIDENCE IS OFF COUNTY. I asked Shire Hall, and they confirmed this. I did not receive any response to why this could not be done, as they send out all Property Taxes by mail. I know of people who are just hearing about this now. They are eligible to vote in PEC, but haven’t been told? Council wonders why people don’t vote.
Just to be clear I was not in attendance because they scheduled the hearing during a work day, which would have required me to take time off work.
To clarify 50% of eligible voters have to vote yes for the process to move forward. PEC in the last 3 election cycles has never had 50% of eligible voters vote. So how is this fair. plus haven’t we already been through a review that was not acted on. A third party review, will cost 100K.