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.
The contest has tightened as Bradford’s share rises and support for other candidates falls. The final survey still places Chow ahead; it does not establish a certain outcome.
The change behind
the topline.
One electorate.
Different patterns.
Reported group differences are descriptive. Smaller bases, weighting and selection can increase uncertainty; no design-adjusted significance tests are claimed.
A narrowing lead, rather than a reversal
Chow’s supplied share moves from 53% on September 22 to 51% in both October waves. Bradford rises from 39% to 44% and then 46%, while other candidates fall from 8% to 3%. The Chow–Bradford gap narrows from 14 to five percentage points across the three observations.
The suburbs do not form a single bloc
Bradford leads in the supplied North York and Etobicoke / York estimates, while Chow leads in Old Toronto / East York and Scarborough. Scarborough’s 54–43 ordering differs from the other suburban regions. The chart preserves those differences without turning them into a neighbourhood-level forecast.
Age patterns cut across the city-wide result
The supplied 18–34 estimate favours Chow 61% to 36%, while the 35–54 estimate favours Bradford 52% to 45%. Among respondents aged 55 and older, the estimates are 49% and 48%. Subgroup counts, weighting effects and turnout rates are needed before making stronger claims about which group will decide the result.
What falling undecided and other shares do not establish
The undecided share among all respondents falls from 18% to 6%, while other-candidate support falls on the decided-and-leaning ballot. Those changes are consistent with a more concentrated contest. They do not identify individual voter transfers, prove that a particular withdrawal caused the change or isolate the effect of a campaign platform.
Voting intention is not a turnout model
The supplied material does not include a turnout-model specification, calibration data, coefficients or validation. This page therefore reports the survey and its observed group differences, rather than a win probability or a claim about how remaining undecided voters must divide.
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=1,200
- 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
- 21 Oct 2026 – 23 Oct 2026
- Population
- Eligible municipal voters in Toronto
- Total interviews
- 1,200
- Ballot denominator
- Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied. Effective sample size was not supplied.
- Undecided
- 6% of all respondents; not assigned to candidates.
- Interview mode
- 55% live-agent telephone interviews via mobile and landline; 45% verified online voter panels.
- Recruitment and sampling
- Described as a hybrid RDD telephone and online-panel sample, stratified across four community council districts. Verification does not itself establish probability recruitment; panel inclusion probabilities were not supplied.
- Weighting
- Age, gender, education and housing tenure using Statistics Canada census parameters. Numerical targets, census vintage and design effects were not supplied.
- Supplied precision statement
- ±2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20
- Uncertainty assessment
- The supplied release reports ±2.8 pp, 19 times out of 20. A conventional margin is not assigned here to the combined telephone and panel result without documentation of probability recruitment and the combined estimator.
- 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
- Separate wave toplines are supplied. Reinterviewed respondents and individual transitions are not documented.
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.
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.