🎭 The Appearance of Fairness Matters
The October minutes state that two candidates have already put their names forward for the upcoming board election.
No names, just a number.
But even that small disclosure breaches the principle of natural justice and procedural impartiality that every democratic process depends on.
It’s not about secrecy – it’s about fairness of timing and neutrality of process.
⚖️ What Natural Justice Requires
Natural justice means decisions and processes must be impartial, unbiased, and transparent.
In elections, it means that:
- All participants must have the same access to information, and
- No one in power can gain an advantage from inside knowledge before the process closes.
By revealing that two candidates have already applied – before the nomination deadline – the board (or management) has signaled insider awareness of private submissions. That destroys the appearance of neutrality, which is just as important as actual neutrality.
Courts have said for decades:
“Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.”
The same logic applies here. Once owners know the board has inside information about the nominations, the process stops looking impartial.
📜 The Legal Framework
Under O. Reg. 48/01, sections 11.6 to 11.8, candidate disclosure is part of the official Notice of Meeting, not earlier.
- The nomination deadline must be at least 35 days before the meeting.
- Only after that deadline passes can the final list of candidates be circulated – and only through the Notice of Meeting, sent to all owners simultaneously.
Disclosing “two candidates so far” confirms that the board has advance access to confidential submissions.
That knowledge can be used – or even just perceived to be used – to plan campaigns, influence proxies, or discourage others from running.
⚔️ Why It Undermines Impartiality
When the people already in power know who’s interested in challenging them, it shifts the balance. Even if they don’t act on it, the potential for bias exists.
That alone violates the principles of:
- Procedural fairness (everyone treated equally under the rules), and
- Natural justice (no one should be a judge in their own cause).
It’s like a referee knowing which player plans to challenge his decisions next game – even if he swears he’ll stay fair, the appearance of bias is enough to taint the match.
💥 The Real-World Consequence
Once the board learns insider details before the community does, the election process becomes compromised in appearance, if not in substance.
That perception – that the incumbents get early intelligence – erodes trust.
It’s not transparent governance. It’s managed optics.
Under s.135 of the Condominium Act (oppression remedy), any conduct that is unfairly prejudicial or disregards owners’ interests can be challenged. Election unfairness falls squarely in that category.
🧭 The Proper Procedure
- Preliminary notice is sent with a nomination deadline.
- Candidate forms go privately to management.
- No details – not even how many forms have arrived – are shared with the board.
- After the deadline, the full candidate list is finalized.
- The Notice of Meeting is sent to all owners at once – including directors.
That’s what neutrality looks like.
🧩 Bottom Line
Even “two candidates so far” crosses the line, because information asymmetry is the first step toward bias.
A fair election is one where the board doesn’t know a thing until every owner does.
Natural justice isn’t a technicality – it’s the foundation of legitimacy.
When the process stops looking fair, the outcome stops deserving respect.
