First post-election Signal · Chris June
Chris June · Commentary
Unofficial results put Michael Bondy ahead in the mayoral race, with all 32 locations reporting and turnout of 40.79%. Our first post-election Signal examines the count and sets out how campaign commitments will be followed into the public record.
PUBLIC RECORD · CALCULATIONS FROM THE RESULTS
The municipal dashboard gives Michael Bondy 15,818 votes and Darrin Canniff 11,501: a calculated gap of 4,317 votes across 36,410 mayoral selections. Reported turnout is 40.79%. Explore turnout, winning votes in CK-wide context and each race’s vote distribution.
Reported municipal turnout was 45.44% in 2018, 30.56% in 2022 and 40.79% in the unofficial 2026 snapshot. Each percentage uses that year’s electorate, not the total resident population.
Sources: historical municipal reports for 2018 and 2022; the unofficial dashboard for 2026. These figures compare the municipality as a whole. They do not explain motives, the effects of voting methods or changes within wards.
| Year | Registered / eligible electors | Ballots cast | Reported turnout | Source and status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 76,418 | 34,722 | 45.44% | 2018 · historical municipal report |
| 2022 | 80,332 | 24,546 | 30.56% | 2022 · historical municipal report |
| 2026 | 89,987 | 36,703 | 40.79% | 2026 · unofficial |
Select a name or slice to highlight a result.
36,703 of 89,987 eligible electors voted (40.79%). The remaining 53,284 did not vote (59.21%), calculated from those totals. This does not mean lost, blank or declined ballots, and it does not explain why people did not vote. Voting-channel percentages use 36,703 ballots as their denominator.
Two calculations for each unofficial seat recipient: their votes divided by the 36,703 ballots cast in CK, then by CK’s 89,987 eligible electors. Each candidate’s share of votes in their own race appears in the pie charts below.
Blue bars: share of ballots cast. Gold trace: share of eligible electors (not the total resident population). Each point represents a different person; the line is not a trend over time. Both use the same percentage scale.
For ward councillors, these denominators include electors who could not vote in their ward. These are CK-wide context ratios, not the percentage of their ward’s electors or evidence of municipality-wide support. Ward elector totals are not available in this snapshot. Votes can overlap across contests: do not add these percentages.
| Person and contest | Votes | Votes ÷ 36,703 CK ballots | Votes ÷ 89,987 CK electors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Bondy · Mayor | 15,818 | 43.10% | 17.58% |
| Mark Authier · Ward 1 | 2,998 | 8.17% | 3.33% |
| Melissa Harrigan · Ward 1 | 1,653 | 4.50% | 1.84% |
| Anthony Ceccacci · Ward 2 | 3,190 | 8.69% | 3.54% |
| Albert Pilbeam · Ward 2 | 2,802 | 7.63% | 3.11% |
| Emery Huszka · Ward 3 | 1,052 | 2.87% | 1.17% |
| Rhonda Jubenville · Ward 4 | 1,436 | 3.91% | 1.60% |
| Jim Blake · Ward 5 | 1,467 | 4.00% | 1.63% |
| Bill Wolsing · Ward 5 | 959 | 2.61% | 1.07% |
| Alysson Storey · Ward 6 | 2,606 | 7.10% | 2.90% |
| F. Brian Machado · Ward 6 | 1,964 | 5.35% | 2.18% |
| Steve Kenney · Ward 7 | 2,318 | 6.32% | 2.58% |
| Amy Finn · Ward 7 | 1,551 | 4.23% | 1.72% |
| Brock McGregor · Ward 8 | 2,594 | 7.07% | 2.88% |
| Conor Allin · Ward 8 | 2,413 | 6.57% | 2.68% |
Choose a tab to view a race. Each pie uses only the total candidate votes in that race. In two-seat wards, these are candidate selections, not unique voters. Select a name or slice to highlight a result.
36,410 candidate selections · 1 seat · Unofficial
Select a name or slice to highlight a result.
| Candidate | Votes | Share of selections | Unofficial status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Bondy | 15,818 | 43.44% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Darrin Canniff | 11,501 | 31.59% | — |
| Lauren Anderson | 4,983 | 13.69% | — |
| Randy Hope | 2,818 | 7.74% | — |
| April Colby | 570 | 1.57% | — |
| Nelson Burm | 469 | 1.29% | — |
| Ryan Gow | 251 | 0.69% | — |
7,279 candidate selections · 2 seats · Unofficial
| Candidate | Votes | Share of selections | Unofficial status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Authier | 2,998 | 41.19% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Melissa Harrigan | 1,653 | 22.71% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Gerhard Taves | 905 | 12.43% | — |
| Michael Bond | 840 | 11.54% | — |
| Andréa Palmer | 535 | 7.35% | — |
| Tom Askew | 348 | 4.78% | — |
10,589 candidate selections · 2 seats · Unofficial
| Candidate | Votes | Share of selections | Unofficial status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony Ceccacci | 3,190 | 30.13% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Albert Pilbeam | 2,802 | 26.46% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Brad Snobelen | 2,097 | 19.80% | — |
| Matthew Giffin | 761 | 7.19% | — |
| Chad Carnie | 479 | 4.52% | — |
| Matt Lamarche | 391 | 3.69% | — |
| Spencer Stinson | 368 | 3.48% | — |
| Denise Maynard | 328 | 3.10% | — |
| Fred Hooper | 114 | 1.08% | — |
| Hassan Tariq | 59 | 0.56% | — |
2,285 candidate selections · 1 seat · Unofficial
| Candidate | Votes | Share of selections | Unofficial status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emery Huszka | 1,052 | 46.04% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Lauren Aziz | 397 | 17.37% | — |
| Mark Huston | 356 | 15.58% | — |
| Cory Couture | 248 | 10.85% | — |
| Kyle Carter | 145 | 6.35% | — |
| James Plunkett | 45 | 1.97% | — |
| Matthew Pietens | 42 | 1.84% | — |
2,998 candidate selections · 1 seat · Unofficial
| Candidate | Votes | Share of selections | Unofficial status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rhonda Jubenville | 1,436 | 47.90% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| John Cummings | 1,287 | 42.93% | — |
| Kirk Hooker | 275 | 9.17% | — |
6,806 candidate selections · 2 seats · Unofficial
| Candidate | Votes | Share of selections | Unofficial status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jim Blake | 1,467 | 21.55% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Bill Wolsing | 959 | 14.09% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Zac Nicholson | 793 | 11.65% | — |
| Brendan Authier | 698 | 10.26% | — |
| Chris Young | 519 | 7.63% | — |
| Mark Childs | 421 | 6.19% | — |
| Loree Bailey | 411 | 6.04% | — |
| David Hyatt | 335 | 4.92% | — |
| Dave Brundritt | 308 | 4.53% | — |
| Jason DeBuck | 242 | 3.56% | — |
| Steven Burritt | 241 | 3.54% | — |
| Victoria Stewart | 225 | 3.31% | — |
| Brent DeNure | 127 | 1.87% | — |
| Bill Arends | 60 | 0.88% | — |
10,432 candidate selections · 2 seats · Unofficial
| Candidate | Votes | Share of selections | Unofficial status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alysson Storey | 2,606 | 24.98% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| F. Brian Machado | 1,964 | 18.83% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Ben Labadie | 1,738 | 16.66% | — |
| Jeff Comiskey | 1,717 | 16.46% | — |
| Sheila Moir-Martin | 1,423 | 13.64% | — |
| Dave Palmer | 331 | 3.17% | — |
| Karen Montgomery | 323 | 3.10% | — |
| Bonny Pigeon | 221 | 2.12% | — |
| Marc Westerman | 109 | 1.04% | — |
9,931 candidate selections · 2 seats · Unofficial
| Candidate | Votes | Share of selections | Unofficial status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Steve Kenney | 2,318 | 23.34% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Amy Finn | 1,551 | 15.62% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Marjorie Crew | 1,367 | 13.76% | — |
| Penelope Duchesne | 675 | 6.80% | — |
| Steve Adkins | 674 | 6.79% | — |
| Karen Robinet | 518 | 5.22% | — |
| Dustin Ryan | 459 | 4.62% | — |
| Doug Robbins | 423 | 4.26% | — |
| Larry Hutchins | 380 | 3.83% | — |
| Michael Fife | 331 | 3.33% | — |
| Dale VanDusen | 290 | 2.92% | — |
| Jason Reynolds | 265 | 2.67% | — |
| Michael Gibbons | 173 | 1.74% | — |
| Marc King | 145 | 1.46% | — |
| Jonathan Meriano | 127 | 1.28% | — |
| Dustin (Duddee) Gawne | 123 | 1.24% | — |
| Rick Hottot | 112 | 1.13% | — |
11,982 candidate selections · 2 seats · Unofficial
| Candidate | Votes | Share of selections | Unofficial status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brock McGregor | 2,594 | 21.65% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Conor Allin | 2,413 | 20.14% | Incoming seat — unconfirmed |
| Rick Nicholls | 2,059 | 17.18% | — |
| Stephani Shill | 1,102 | 9.20% | — |
| Sandra Dorner | 936 | 7.81% | — |
| Scott Thompson | 902 | 7.53% | — |
| Bruce Caldwell | 448 | 3.74% | — |
| Cynthia Côté | 443 | 3.70% | — |
| Luke Van Der Vliet | 419 | 3.50% | — |
| Andy Fisher | 242 | 2.02% | — |
| Ryan Drouillard | 171 | 1.43% | — |
| John Duquette | 132 | 1.10% | — |
| Paulo Graciano | 121 | 1.01% | — |
Turnout = ballots cast ÷ eligible electors. A candidate’s pie-chart share = their votes ÷ total candidate votes in their race. The winning-vote comparison uses two different common denominators: 36,703 ballots cast in CK and 89,987 eligible electors in CK. Percentages are rounded to two decimal places; calculations use integer counts. The tables are server-rendered and remain available without JavaScript.
Turnout: 40.79%. These graphs show the exact unofficial counts. Each has its own scale. The electorate total overlaps its two components: do not add all three bars.
Non-participation is calculated by subtracting ballots cast from eligible electors. Blank or declined ballots are not non-participation. These counts do not explain motives or the difference between ballots cast and mayoral candidate selections.
| Measure | Count |
|---|---|
| Eligible electors | 89,987 |
| Voted | 36,703 |
| Did not vote (calculated) | 53,284 |
| Turnout | 40.79% |
| Online ballots | 12,313 |
| Tabulator ballots | 24,390 |
| Reported declined ballots | 44 |
| Reported blank ballots | 26 |
The 36,410 mayoral selections are not the 36,703 ballots cast. The reported 44 declined and 26 blank ballots do not fully explain that difference: we do not assign a cause to the remaining difference. Two-seat ward selection totals cannot establish ward turnout.
Municipal source and result limitations · Observed:
Election status
PUBLIC RECORD
The Municipality’s results dashboard is explicitly unofficial and subject to change. All 32 tabulator locations have reported. This edition preserves the October 26, 10:30 p.m. Toronto snapshot, checked October 27. An incoming role is not confirmation of certification or taking office. The next Council comprises one mayor and 14 councillor positions across eight wards.
INTELLISYNC VIEW
During the campaign, I asked what candidates were promising and what evidence supported those promises. Our work now follows those commitments into budgets, Council decisions and measurable results. The election gives us the starting point for that work. It does not tell us why each person voted, endorse every proposal in a platform, or establish that any promise has been delivered.
Accountability standard
The original commitment
The starting baseline
Who has authority
Cost and funding
Milestones and dates
Evidence of outcomes
INTELLISYNC VIEW
Chris June · INTELLISYNC VIEW · The same five themes will guide our coverage of the incoming mayor and every member of Council: transparency, responsibility, honesty, integrity and accountability.
Independent editorial analysis
Bondy’s 15,818 votes represent 43.4% of the candidate selections shown in the mayoral contest. His lead over Canniff is 4,317 votes. That is a plurality in this count, not more than half of the mayoral vote. I would not turn it into a claim that most residents supported every part of his platform. The useful next question is what he brings forward, how it is assessed and what changes as a result.
The reported turnout is 40.79%: 36,703 ballots against 89,987 eligible electors. The dashboard separates 12,313 online ballots from 24,390 tabulator ballots. Those figures describe participation and voting channels. They do not explain non-participation, establish satisfaction or frustration, or show which issues decided the election. We should keep those questions open rather than fill them with a convenient story.
A mayor can lead, propose and use the powers attached to the office. A councillor can bring forward proposals and vote. Their responsibilities are not interchangeable, and many outcomes also depend on staff, Council decisions, outside funding and delivery partners. I will distinguish a statement from a motion, a motion from an approved budget, and an approved budget from a result residents can see. When a timetable changes, the explanation belongs beside the original commitment.
Signals will connect meeting agendas, decisions, recorded votes, official news and attributed statements to the campaign record we have preserved. An agenda item is still a proposal until the decision record establishes otherwise. Public comments can raise useful questions, but they need a checkable source and context and cannot stand in for representative public opinion. The five themes from our campaign closing brief will guide that work across the mayor’s office and all fourteen councillor positions. We will recognize verified progress and examine gaps using the same evidence standard. Missing evidence will remain visible, and corrections will be recorded.
After the campaign
We do not yet have verified post-election statements to share in this edition. This space remains empty pending source verification and editorial review. Campaign statements preserved in the archive are not post-election statements.
INTELLISYNC VIEW
Our coverage continues across the incoming mayor’s office and all fourteen councillor positions. The campaign closing brief gave us five themes to carry into the next term. These are our follow-up questions, not verdicts on work that has yet to be done.
I will look for options, costs, supporting reports and relevant relationships while a decision can still be examined. Residents should be able to follow a proposal from the agenda to the public decision record.
I will follow the work of the office, including committees, and ask who is responsible for each next step. The mayor, councillors, staff and outside partners have distinct roles. When a task cannot be fulfilled, the explanation and the plan to address it belong in the record.
I will ask for the full figure, its date, its denominator and its limits. A funding request remains a request; an approval remains an approval until delivery is documented. When evidence contradicts a published claim, we will show the correction and apply that standard to our own reporting.
I will look for relevant relationship disclosures before public money is directed, and for independent advice where personal connections could affect confidence in a decision. Questions will follow the evidence; a connection alone will not be treated as proof of wrongdoing.
I will return to the original commitment: what happened, what it cost, who decided and what changed for residents. We will connect promises to budgets, recorded votes, milestones and measurable outcomes, recognize verified achievements, and ask what changes when results fall short. The same test applies to the incoming mayor and every councillor.
Common questions
What precisely was committed, and where is the original source?
What action is within this office’s authority, and whose approval or funding is still required?
What baseline, cost, milestone and reporting date will let residents assess progress?
If the proposal changes, what changed, why, and where is that decision recorded?
Provenance
Register verified 2026-10-27. Each source preserves its publisher, evidence role, and access date.