I don't think he's being vexatiously repetitive, although I do think the same question got asked.
Maybe I could address a different aspect, because I think I've gone as far as I can in responding to the substance of that question. This is about the Chief Electoral Officer issuing an interpretation. My understanding of these interpretations is that he's effectively saying Revenue Canada does much the same thing. There's some ambiguity in some provision of the law as to what falls afoul of the law. In looking at it, I'm going to say that I won't prosecute if you do up to this point, but if you go beyond it, you stand in danger of a prosecution.
With that in mind, I think the issue would not be the kind of thing that's likely to find itself before the courts because of the fact that this is about his indication to us as to what he'll do as an actor, as opposed to determining what the actual law is, and where the line is that you're drawing, if you follow.... If a tennis ball lands on the white line, is it in or out? We say the line is not zero points of thickness.
I don't think that the particular danger Mr. Christopherson is addressing is likely to produce litigation. That's just my own impression. I am now beyond the bounds of my own expertise, but that's my sense.