The final snapshot.
Mayoral voting intention
Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied
Undecided respondents are excluded from candidate shares and shown separately above. Percentages may be rounded.
Source: Northbound Insights, supplied report figures. Response base: Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied. Subgroup interview counts were not supplied.
Burton has the largest single share, but the four challengers collectively hold 69% of decided and leaning support. That arithmetic does not establish a unified or transferable change vote.
One electorate.
Different patterns.
Want a shift in development and traffic management
Reported attitudinal measure; exact wording and answer options not supplied
Midtown TOC / intensification as primary voting issue
Reported primary-issue measure; exact question and other response categories not supplied
Reported group differences are descriptive. Smaller bases, weighting and selection can increase uncertainty; no design-adjusted significance tests are claimed.
The town-wide result leaves several contenders in view
Burton leads Hanna by four points in the supplied topline, with O’Meara a further five points behind Hanna. Knoll and Choudhary account for another 20% between them. A five-way distribution of support is different from the almost two-candidate contest at the top of the 2022 result.
The ward groups tell different stories
In Wards 1–3, Burton’s reported 38% is nine points above Hanna’s 29%. In Wards 6–7, Hanna is at 26%, Burton at 24% and O’Meara at 22%; Knoll and Choudhary each have 14%. The four challengers sum to 76% in that northern ward group, but this does not measure how voters would behave on a different ballot.
Two 69% figures answer different questions
The four challengers’ town-wide shares add to 69% among decided and leaning respondents. Separately, the supplied attitudinal result says 69% want a shift in development and traffic management. The matching numbers do not mean the same people supplied both answers, and one should not be substituted for the other.
Midtown is prominent without explaining every vote
The report’s 36% Midtown TOC and intensification figure indicates an important issue within the supplied question. It does not establish that a specific candidate gained support because of that issue. No earlier Oakville wave, respondent transition table or causal analysis was supplied to substantiate the claimed four-point late gain for O’Meara.
The 2022 result provides context, not a poll benchmark
Official 2022 results gave Burton 49.24% and Hanna 47.06%, a difference of 2.18 percentage points. Those were counted election votes on a different ballot. They are kept separate from the 2026 survey, its decided-and-leaning base and its 11% undecided share among all respondents.
How to read
this study.
The supplied methodology is preserved alongside its disclosure gaps, so the total sample, ballot base and subgroup estimates can be assessed separately.
Study design and disclosure · n=650
- Research provider
- Northbound Insights
- Report provenance
- Figures, release label and methodology supplied by Northbound for this website update on 25 October 2026. The underlying interviews have not been independently audited here.
- Release date
- 24 Oct 2026
- First publication of this web page
- 25 Oct 2026
- Fieldwork
- 20 Oct 2026 – 23 Oct 2026
- Population
- Eligible municipal voters in Oakville
- Total interviews
- 650
- Ballot denominator
- Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied. Effective sample size was not supplied.
- Undecided
- 11% of all respondents; not assigned to candidates.
- Interview mode
- IVR telephone interviews and targeted SMS-to-web panels. The mode split was not supplied.
- Recruitment and sampling
- Described in the supplied release as a random sample of eligible Oakville voters, stratified across seven wards. SMS-panel recruitment, frame selection and overlap treatment were not supplied.
- Weighting
- Age, gender and homeownership status. Numerical targets, census vintage, weight trimming and effective sample size were not supplied.
- Supplied precision statement
- ±3.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20
- Uncertainty assessment
- The supplied release reports ±3.8 pp, 19 times out of 20. A conventional margin is not assigned here to a combined IVR and targeted-panel result without a documented probability design for all components.
- Commissioning / funding
- Not identified in the supplied material.
- Questionnaire / response rates
- Exact wording, order, response options, response and completion rates were not supplied.
- Subgroup bases / design effects
- Unweighted and weighted subgroup bases, weighting distributions and design-effect estimates were not supplied.
- Tracking design
- No earlier comparable wave was supplied for this report.
Sample size alone does not validate a probability margin for a mixed-mode study. Reported margins are retained as source statements in the disclosure record. They are not used as confidence intervals for the charts, point-estimate gaps or subgroup estimates.
The figures,
open to inspection.
- Northbound Insights · report figures and methodologyRelease 24 Oct 2026 · supplied for this website on 25 Oct 2026. Earlier-wave metadata is left blank where unavailable.
- Official election / referendum information ↗Election context and candidate records; not a source or endorsement of this poll.
- Town of Oakville: official 2022 election results ↗
This report presents the figures supplied by Northbound. It does not reconstruct respondent records, infer missing categories or claim independent verification of the fieldwork. A point-estimate lead is not a forecast of the outcome. Publication standards.