How have courts treated the issue of conflict of interest in elections?

Electors generally need not encompass all electors, but it is those affected electors who are to be regarded when considering the issue of conflict of interest: see Biffis v. Sainsbury, 2018 ONSC 3531, 79 M.P.L.R. (5th) 49.

In Biffis v. Sainsbury, the councillor resided in one of approximately 1,400 condominium residences that were affected by the matter before city council. The court found that the councillor’s shared interest with the other residents fell within the definition of “interest in common with electors generally.”

In Gammie v. Turner, the respondent voted in favour of a grant for a local festival. No pecuniary interest was found, and the court also held that the respondent’s interest in the festival grant was shared with electors generally.

In Davidson v. Christopher, 2017 ONSC 4047, 68 M.P.L.R. (5th) 154, the respondent had a pecuniary interest in a property that would need to be acquired to permit a highway roundabout to be constructed. The respondent argued that his interest in the construction project was shared with electors generally. The court rejected this argument, noting that while there were approximately 145 other property owners in the vicinity of the construction project, they did not share the respondent’s pecuniary interest.