Three weeks after four candidates were cleared by a provincial court to run in next week’s election, the judge in the case has released her written reasons on why she found the candidates to be eligible.

In a six-page document, Judge Carol Baird Ellen notes that the challenge was brought forth by RMOW chief election officer Lonny Miller to seek clarity on whether or not the information on the candidates’ nomination papers was provided correctly and if one of the nominators, former Whistler mayor Drew Meredith, was an eligible nominator by putting his Pemberton address on the forms.

“The act does not provide a prescribed form for nominations,” wrote Baird Ellen in her statement, which also noted that, “no clarification was sought from any of the respondents before the application was made in court,” and that, “there was no opportunity for the candidates to rectify the problems, once notified of them.”

Baird Ellen went on to write that, “the fact that (the addresses) were in the wrong places on the form apparently provided by the municipality is a mere technicality,” and, “respect for the electoral process demands that technical issues not defeat a qualified candidate.”

For challenged candidate Jack Crompton, the statements simply reinforce what he had thought going into court three weeks ago.

“I think they’re pretty self-evident,” said Crompton of the reasons. “It makes sense. All of our nominators were qualified. It was a technicality that I don’t think ever should have been challenged.”

Crompton referred to the following excerpt from the reasons as standing out the most: “The case at hand falls far short of showing any breaches of the provisions relating to the qualifications of nominators; viewed at their worst, they each consist of a failure to provide information that was readily ascertainable and did not affect the substance of the nomination.”

Said Crompton, “It was information that they could have just opened their books and found. The information on who Drew was, as well as any other of the other nominators — that information was easily ascertainable.”

Mayoral candidate Nancy Wilhelm-Morden, who was also challenged in court, repeated the sentiment that the whole situation was waste of resources for all involved.

“Reading between the lines with all of this, it confirms what I’ve said all along — that this was a complete waste of time,” she said.

As for the legal costs of going to court, with both Crompton and Wilhelm-Morden having hired lawyers for the case, both said the prospect of the costs being covered by the municipality has yet to be determined.

Ultimately, the ordeal is one that both candidates have put past them, but when asked about looking back on it, it’s clear that neither have fond memories of the challenge.

“They could have put their efforts elsewhere, instead they decided to go with a court challenge,” said Crompton.

Added Wilhelm-Morden, “It was nothing more than a diversion. It was just a big waste of time.”

Council candidates Steve Anderson and Steven Andrews were also both challenged and deemed eligible to run.