Can candidates ask how you plan to vote? Tay Valley Township says law is ambiguous

With voting in Tay Valley Township’s municipal election just weeks away, the township says Ontario election law is ambiguous when it comes to candidates asking residents how they voted or intend to vote during at-home internet and telephone voting.

It’s a shift from a warning the township issued candidates, including current Reeve Rob Rainer, during the 2018 election.

“The Township recognizes that the Act is ambiguous with respect to at-home telephone and internet voting,” CAO/clerk Amanda Mabo told Hometown News in a Sept. 9 emailed response. “The Township continues to recommend that candidates refrain from asking electors how they voted or intend to vote until the courts or the legislature clarify this question.”

Tay Valley will use internet and telephone voting for the 2026 municipal election, with ballots cast during an eight-day voting period beginning Oct. 19 at 8:30 a.m. and ending Oct. 26 at 8 p.m.

Candidates warned conduct was an offence in 2018

Questions about the township’s interpretation arose after John Lang challenged direction given to candidates during the 2018 municipal election, including wording that treated a person’s home as a voting place during internet or telephone voting.

The Oct. 19, 2018 email, whose subject line began “URGENT,” followed complaints that a candidate had been telephoning electors asking “how’d you vote?” or “how are you going to vote?”

It was sent directly to a list of named candidates, including Rainer.

The email cited s. 49(2)(b) of Ontario’s Municipal Elections Act, which prohibits obtaining or attempting to obtain, “at a voting place,” information about how an elector intends to vote or has voted.

However, the provision as presented in the township”s email contained additional wording: “No person, (b) shall obtain or attempt to obtain, at a voting place (for internet/telephone voting place includes a person’s home), information about how an elector intends to vote or has voted.”

The wording in parenthesis, “for internet/telephone voting place includes a person’s home,” does not appear in s. 49(2)(b) of the Act.

The email also cited s. 94 of the Act, which states that a person who contravenes the Act, a regulation under it or a municipal bylaw passed under it is guilty of an offence.

“As a result, in accordance with Section 49 (2), the Municipality is putting ALL Candidate(s) and/or their campaign team and any other person on notice that this must stop immediately,” Mabo wrote at the time. “Failure to do so is an offence under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and is subject to penalty.”

The email said a separate communication would be sent to the person or people identified as making the calls.

It remains unclear whether that follow-up email was sent or whether anyone was investigated, charged, referred to police or another authority, or otherwise subject to enforcement action as a result of the complaint. Hometown News asked the township those questions but did not receive answers addressing them.

Lang challenges interpretation

Lang subsequently questioned the township’s authority for treating a person’s home as a voting place under s. 49(2)(b).

In an Aug. 22 response to Lang, Rainer said the township was confident the CAO/clerk had properly handled the 2018 and 2022 municipal elections.

That exchange prompted further questions from Hometown News about the statutory basis for the township’s 2018 direction and whether the township still stood behind it in 2026.

Asked what authority Tay Valley relied upon in 2018 for treating a person’s home as a voting place, Mabo stated: “This statement was based on a purposive interpretation of section 49, which is concerned with maintaining the privacy of voting decisions and preventing interference with votes. The Township, on legal advice, interpreted this provision as extending to circumstances where an elector votes from their residence.”

Hometown News asked who provided that legal advice, when it was obtained, whether it was written or oral and whether the township would provide a copy of any written opinion or correspondence. The township did not provide answers addressing those questions.

Hometown News also asked the township to confirm the parenthetical wording and its interpretation. The township did not answer that question.

It is also unclear whether Tay Valley issued the same or similar direction during the 2022 municipal election or whether complaints were received that year involving candidates, campaign workers or others asking electors how they voted or intended to vote. Those questions also went unanswered.

Rainer declines further comment

Hometown News went back to Rainer after Mabo acknowledged that the Act is ambiguous.

Rainer was specifically asked whether he stood behind the interpretation of s. 49(2)(b) communicated to candidates in 2018, including the statement that a person’s home constituted a voting place for internet or telephone voting.

“The Township provided comments in an email sent yesterday from CAO/Clerk Amanda Mabo, and has no further comment on this matter,” Rainer replied Sept. 11.

Its advice to candidates in 2026 is that they refrain from asking electors how they voted or intend to vote “until the courts or the legislature clarify this question.”

Hometown News also sought independent legal comment on the interpretation of s. 49(2)(b) of the Municipal Elections Act. Questions were sent to a municipal law lawyer on Sept. 11. No response had been received by publication time.

Follow our 2026 municipal election coverage in the Hometown News Election Centre. Keep connected to your community—Read the latest Tay Valley Township news.