to have lacked the resources to hire a lawyer and take the necessary steps. She also pointed to an apparently difficult set of family issues associated with the breakdown of her marriage as
having occupied her time and attention. While these factors may
mitigate to some degree the almost two years of inaction, I cannot accept that evidence as a complete excuse. Notwithstanding
Ms. Giannini’s protestation that she always intended to comply
with the MEA, I find her actions (and lack of action) to have
been much more consistent with a relative indifference to the
matter given that the only known material consequence to her
was ineligibility to run in an election she had no intention of
running in. There is no evidence that she knew or considered the
policy of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario towards
its nominees until very recently.
 I next consider the gravity of the breach. The timely provision of financial statements is an important part of the framework of the MEA. The statements once filed permit public access
and scrutiny of such matters as the identity of campaign donors,
the amount spent and whether spending limits were complied
with, among other things. The important public policy of the
MEA is to ensure free, open and fair elections and it seeks to
achieve that objective through the liberal application of sunlight
as the best disinfectant. By failing to file her financial statements in a timely way or at all, Ms. Giannini frustrated that
important public policy goal.
 The fact that more than 100 candidates in Toronto have
failed to comply with their obligations under the MEA suggests
to me that the bar for granting equitable relief ought not to be
set too low if it is not to risk undermining the legislative scheme.
 Finally, I turn to the consequences of the breach. Mr.
Giannini was not successful in the election. She has no office to
forfeit. The only consequence to her of her failure to comply with
the MEA is her continuing ineligibility to run in the next municipal election — an election that she claims to have no intention
of contesting in any event. While I do not lightly discount the
loss of eligibility to run in an election as a penalty, that is not the
nub of the applicant’s problem here. If it were, an urgent hearing
in advance of the scheduled date would not have been requested.
 The real consequence that she seeks to avoid is that of
being described as a defaulting candidate. It is, in a sense,
a reputational question. It is not a legal impediment that she
seeks to avoid but an informal policy of a political party that is
not directly connected to the MEA.
 Relief from forfeiture is a discretionary remedy. It is
also an extraordinary remedy. Having regard to the criteria in