I hope you're right but I also hope there is an extension to the election. In my current ward, which may change, Michelle Holland was going door to door today, Crawford has been all over the place and because they have both done this before they have such a head start on the new people who aren't career politicians. I'm sure it's no different in other wards.
This is right to the point! I don't see how the Judiciary could overlook this, and as reluctant as they need to be on any political aspects, Constitutional Rights are uppermost in this case. That's what it's all about. And that's where the "Status Quo being 47 wards" kicks in, because if all legal action is removed, which is the gist of the 'stay'...it will be to default to the Status Quo: 47 wards. That could be conditional on the granted stay.
In my prior post I quoted, I expressed concern over whether intervenor status would be party to the stay or not. Clearly it is, and the many intervenors with very powerful arguments. Presented with such arguments, I don't see how a stay can be granted, *especially in lieu of an Appeal applied for, but the Province not asking for an expedited hearing on it*. The Judges are going to query that....and ask 'why not'?
And as to the election date itself, being the highest court in Ontario (branch of the Ont Supreme Court), the Judges might just rule (albeit the mechanism eludes me, I'm not an attorney) that a case be submitted to their court for a new date with added time for the election, or to the appropriate court to doing so. I don't know if this is the venue for ruling on it, but effectively the Toronto election date might be declared null and void until a court can examine the arguments to set a new one.
I also wouldn't be surprised that the Triumvirate excuse themselves from deciding on this case, and move it to the SCC. No matter what the outcome, Ford Incorporated is going to have to shut down the production line, at least for the 25 ward Civic Election model, for the next four years.