submission from brian kolenda on behalf of candidate mark grimes - part 3 (ea.supp.ea4.2.3)...

8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)

1/62

4


2/62

0

0


3/62


4/62

Lancaster v. SL Cathartnes (City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 Carswel lOnt 1595

2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt

1595, [2012}

O.J. No. 626,

211

A.C.W.S. (3d) 5f, .

-.

Chapman v. Hamilton City) (2005), 2005 ONCJ 158, 2005 CarswcllOnl 1914, 10

MP

L R (4th) 120 (Ont. C.J .)

- e o n ~ i e r e

•

yras

v. Heaps (2008), 2008 ONCJ 524, 2008 CarswcllOnt 6348, 51 M.l'.L.R. (4th) 277 (Ont. CJ.) - followed

Mastroguiseppe v. Vaughan City)

(2008), 2008 ONCJ 763, 2008 Car.;wellOnt 9087,

61

M.P.L.R . (4th) 138 Onl.

CJ. considered

Na'1aimo

City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd (2000), 20 Admin. L.R. (3d) I , 183 D.L.R (4th) I. 2000 CorswellBC 392,

2000 Cari.-wcllBC 393, 2000 SCC 13, 251N .R.42, 132 B.C.A.C. 298, 215 W.A.C. 298, [2000) I S.C.R. 342, [2000)

6 W.W.R.

403,

76 B.C.L.R.

(3d) 201,

9 M .P.L.R.

(3d)

I (S.C.C.) -

referred lo

New Brunswick Boord

of

Management) v. D11nsm ir(2008

),

372

N.R. I,

69 Admin. LR

. (4th)

I, 61) Imm .

LR

. (3d)

1, sub

nom.

Dum·muirv. New Bnmswick) (2008] I S.C.R. 190, 844 A.P.R.

l,

sub nom . Dummuir v. New Brunswi

ck)

2008 C.L L.C . 220-020, D.T.E. 2008T-

223

, 329 N.B.R. (2d) I, (sub

nom

. D11nsm11

ir v New

Bnmswick)

170

L.A.C.

(4th) 1, (sub

nom

. Dunsmuir'

New

Bnmswick) 291 D.L.R. (4th) 517,

2008

CarswelJNB 124, 2008 CarswcllNB 125,

200R SCC 9, 64 C.C.E.L. (Jd) 1,

(sub

nom.

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick)

95

L.C

R. 65

SC C.) -

fo llowed

R. \ .Sanchez

(1994),

32

C.R. (4th) 269,

93

C.C.C. (3d)

35

7,

20

O.R. (3d)

468,

1994

Carswel!Ont

97

(Ont. Gen.

Div .) - considered

Statutes considered:

Jvfunicipal

Elections A.cl,

1996, S.O. 1996, c.

32, Sched.

Generally - referred to

.

69 l ) m)-

considered

s.

71 1)-considercd

http:///reader/full/251N.R.42http:///reader/full/251N.R.42http:///reader/full/251N.R.42http:///reader/full/251N.R.42


5/62

Lancaster v. SL Catharlnes City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595

2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnl 1595, [2012) 0 .J.

NO.

626, 211 A.C.W.S. (3d}574...

The Appellant applied

lo

the Compliance Audit Committee of the Corporation of the City of tCatharines

(hcreim1fter

referred to as the Committee ) pursuant

to

section

Ill

of

the

Municipal Elections Ac t, 1996

(the Act'')

for

a compliance audit

of

the

campaign finances of candidates Brian Dorsey, Matthew Harris, Mathew Siscoe nod Len Stack.

2 The Committee dismissed that application on July

19,

201 k

3

The Appellant

ha. >

appealed to the Ontnrio Court of Justice requesting

that

the decision of the Committee be set aside

and that the Committee be directed to appoint an audilor to conduct a complete compliance audit of the campai ,'ll finances of

the four named candidates.

4 The Notice

of

Appeal wa.-. served on

all

four candidates and I granted all oflhem status as added parties.

5

In

this appeal, the following issues

nrc

to be addressed:

I) What

s

the appropriate standard for review on this appeal? Is the decision o f the Committee entitled to deference

such

that a standard

of

reasonableness should apply or should l

undert11ke

my own analysis of the issues and apply a correctness

standard?

2) What

s

lhc test of rcasonable grounds under the Act?

3)

On the material before the Committee, were there reasonable grounds lo believe that

any

of

the named candidates

hnd

contravened any provision of the Act?

Standard of Review

6

In

ew Brunswick Board Management) v.

Dunl·m11ir

2008} S.C.J. No. 9 (S.C.C.), the Supreme Court ofCanada

revisited the standard of review of such ndministrative decisions nnd concluded that there ought to be two standards of review,

being correctness and reasonableness .

7 Counsel for the Appcllunt relied on two decisions

of

the Ontario Court

of

Justice which decided that correctness was the

appropriate standard of review when determining appeals pursuant

to

section

81

of the Act.

1

8 However, both decisions predate Dunsmuir. Even more importantly, the facts in both case I nrc very different from those


6/62

Lancaster v. St. Catharlnes City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595

2of2

ONCJ

70,2012 CarswellOnt

1595, [2012) O.J.

.626-:211A.CW .S. 3d)S74

-

11 The Committee heard evidence and submissions from all in1crested parties before makmg its decision.

12

In

light

of

these facts,

the

Committee is, in my view, entitled to deference.

13

This is very important in my delcnnination of the uppropriutc slandard of review here.

14

Al p11rn

. 47 in Dunsmuir .¥upru the Supreme Court ofCannda elaborated on the standard of reasonableness suting that

Reasonableness is a deferential standard animated by the principle that underlies the development of the two previous

standards of reasonableness: certain questions thal come before adminislrativc lribunnls do not lend themselves to

one :.-pecific, particular result. Instead, they may give rise

IO

a number

of

possible, reasonable conclusions. Tnbunals

have a murgin of appreciation within the range of acceptable

and

rational solutions. A court conductmg a review for

reasonableness inquires into the qualities that make 3 decision reasonable, referring

bo1h

to the process

of

articulating

the reasons and to outcomes. In judicial review, reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification,

transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But II is also concerned with whether the decision foils

within a range

of possible, 11cccpt.ablc outcomes which are defensthle in respect of the f a c t ~ and low.

15 Applying this to the co.se before

me

, I find that the appropri3tc standard

of

review here 1s one

of

reasonableness .

In

that

regard I agree with the reasoning

of

Lane

1

in

Ly .as

v

Heaps

[2008]

0.J

.

No

. 4243 (Ont.

J

.

ReHsonable

Grounds

16

The

relevant provisions

of

sectton

81 of

the Act read as follows;

81 . I) An elector who is entitled to vote in an election and believes on reasonable grounds that a candidate has contravened

a provision

of

this Act relating lo election campaign finances

may

apply for a compliance audit

of

the candidate's election

campaign finances.

(4) Within I 0 days after receiving the application, the clerk of the municipality or the secretary of the local board, ns the

case

may

be, shall forward the application

to

the compliance audit committee established under section 81.1 and provide

n copy

of

the npplicntion to the counci l

or

local board.


7/62

ancaster

v.

SL Catharlnes

(City),

2012

ONCJ

70, 2012

CarswellOnt

1595

2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595, {2012 O.J. No. 626, 211 A.c.W-.S. (3d) 574 .

even iflhe appellant had what he considered reasonable grounds to ask for an audit, the Committee

h11 c;

considerably more

infonnation at their disposal. Having heard all the submissions and reviewed all the material before them, the Comminee

is in a bener position than the appellant

to

determine whether, in fact, "reasonable grounds" do exist lo proceed with an

audit. It

is

the role

of

the Committee lo weigh the c:videncc and 10 make determinations

of

what weight should be acconlcd

to the representations heforc it.

20 I find therefore that the test to be applied by the Committee was whether the Comminee believed on reasonable grounds

lhal a canthdatc had contr.ivencd a provision of the Act relating to election campaign finances.

21

As

to

the meaning to be given to the words "reasonable grounds", at para. 41 in Chapman supru Culver

J.

adopted

the sumdard

of

persuasion articulated by Hill

J.

with respect to the issuance

of

a search warrant

in

R.

v.

Sanchez

[

1994]

O.J

.

No. 2260 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

In

that decision, Hill

J.

stated at para. 28 that Nthc standard is one of credibly based probability".

Hill

J.

then went on to state in para . 29 that

Mere suspicion, conjecture, hypothesis or "fishing expeditions" fall short of the minimally acceptable standard from both

a common law and constitutional perspective, On the other hand, in addressing the requisite degree of certitude, it must be

recognized that reasonable grounds 1s not lo be equated with pruor beyond a rcusonuble doubt or a prima facic case. The

appropriate standard

of

reasonable

or

credibly-ba.o;ed probability envisions a practical, non-technical and commonsense

probability as to the existence of the facts ;ind inferences asserted. {Citations omitted.]

22

In lyras

supra Lane J.

!'CJlched

a similar conclusion stating at para. 25 that

In

my

view, where the statute requires "a belief on reasonable grounds," the jurisprudence applicable in other o n t e x t ~

indicates that the standard

to

be applied

is

that

of

an objective belief based on compelling and credible information which

raises the "reasonable probability" of a breach of the statute. The standard of 'a prima facic case" in either its pennissivc

or r ~ u m p t i v sense is too high a standard.

23 l agree.

The

Alleged Contraventions or the Act

24 The Appellant alleged that the vanous candidates were guilty

of

number

of

different contraventions

of

the Act I propose


8/62

Lancaster v.

S t

Catharlnes (City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnl 1595

2 i2 NCJ 70, 2012 Carswelldnt1595 , (2012] o J:

No

. . ••• • 26, 2f1

eswbhshcd that he had previously refunded money to another corporate contnbutor because he was aware then that it was from

an associated corporation.

3

Counsel for the Appellant argued that the camlidates contravened the Act simply by receiving campaign contributions

in excess of$750.00 from associated corporations.

32 I disagree.

33 Section 71(1)

of

the Act says that ''A contributor shall not make contributions exceeding a total

of

$750

00

to any one

candidate

in

an election".

34 Section 72

of

the Act says thnt

"For

the purposes

of

sections 66 to 82, corporations that arc associated with one another

under section

256 of

the Income Tax ct Canada) shall be deemed to be a single corporation".

35 A combination of those sections makes it 11 clear contravention of the Act by the associated corporations to contribute

more than $750.00 between them to the campaign

of

a s ingle candidate.

36 The obligation on the candidate is d ifferent however.

37 Section 69(1)(m)

of

the Act says:

69.

( )A

candidate shall

e n . ~ u r e

that.

(m) a contribution

of

money made

or

received in contravention

of

this Act is rclllmed to the contributor

as

soon as possible

after the

c didatc

becomes aware

of

the contrJvcntion.

38 The obligation

on

the candidate is simply to return a contribution

of

money made in contravention

of

the Act "as soon 11 s •

possible after the candidate becomes aware

of

the contravention". Ifhe docs that, the candidate is not contravening the Act.

39 Culver

J.

reached the same conclusion in Chapman, supra, where he stated at para. 40 that

The Appellant argues that a candidate who accepts contributions from individual contributors in excess

of$750

.

00

is in

violation of the Act. The Act makes it clear in section 7 (I) that a contributor cannot make any contributions in excess ofa

total

of

S750.

00

. There is no corresponding statement with that level

of

clarity

as

it relates to the obligation

of

a candidate

http:///reader/full/of$750.00http:///reader/full/of$750.00http:///reader/full/of$750.00http:///reader/full/of$750.00http:///reader/full/of$750.00http:///reader/full/of$750.00


9/62

Lancaster v. S Catharines City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595

2012

ONCJ7o.

2012 CarswellOnt fs9s. (201210.J. No. 626.

211 A.C.W.S.

3d} 574...

4 t

Mr.

Slack and Mr. Dorsey both listed c o n t r i b u t i o n ~ that had been made

by

corporations as well as contributions that

had

been made

by

individuals

in the

section

of

the

fonn

that

was

intended to contain only information regarding contributions

from

individuals. Both left blunk the section of the

fonn

intended to contain infonnation regarding contributions

from c o r p o r a t i o n ~

42

Both provided an explanation to the Committee

nnd

to me .

43

Mr. Stack stated that he had mistakenly included

all

contributions.

both

corporate and individual,

in

the same section. Ile

stated that the

fonn used

following this election was different

from

the

form

used following

the 2006

election. More

par1icu

lnrly,

the

2006 form

did not require him

lo

break down the contributors

in

the way that

the

20

I 0 form

did. He stated further that

he did become aware of the mistake before the filing deadline and that he attcmplcd 1 file a corrected document but he was

not permitted to

file

it.

44

Mr

. Dorsey

ulso

stated that

he

hed made a mistake. He apologized for this saying:

I feel terrible l>ccause

or

the over contribution thul I did not catch amJ was not aware of, and for using the bottom

halfof

page four to list

the

contributions insteadof the top halfofpage five.These innocent mistakes arc cmbarmssing, unpleasant,

trying, and troublesome and were non-intentional. I did not knowingly make the mistakes, ond was not inlcnding to do

something wrong to knowingly influence the outcome of the election.

6

45 What

um

I

to

make

of

these mistakes?

6 Counsel for the Appellant argued that these

arc

dear conlravcntions of the Act.

47

The Committee decided otherwise

48 I note the comments of

Wood I

at para.

12

in raid

v. Georgian Bay ( fownship),

[2011] O.J. No. 2818 (Ont. S.C.J.).

He said:

The Municipal Election Act governs the conduct of Municipal election campaigns. All counsel stressed end I agree that

one very important component of lhe Act is to control the election expenses of

the

candidates. The Act docs this by

limiting the amounts candidotcs can spend, providing penalties for overspending or improper spending, end requiring

audited Sltltements of receipts and disbursements available

to the

public for review

in

a timely fashion. The important


10/62

Lancaster

v.

SL

Catharines City), 2012 ONCJ

70,

2012

CarswellOnt

1595

2012 ONCJ

70

2012-CarswellOniT595, 2012]

6 J

No. 626, 211 A.C.W.S. 3d)

57 : ..

51 Mr. Stack spent S6,230.24. He listed nine contributors (three individuals and six corporations) who conlribulcd SI 00.00

or

more. These contributions Iota lied $5,450.00, including the S 1,500.00 that he later paid back.

Contrihu11ons

totalling

SI

00.00

•

r less accounted for a further S548.00 and

he

contributed $232.

24

ofhis own money.

52 Mr . Dorsey spent $7,389.22. Mr. Dorney's listofcontributon; reveals four corporate contribulors who contributed a total of

S1,700.00, including the $750.00 that he later paid

back.

He conlributed $5,689.22 of his own money

10

finance his campaign.

53 I set

oul

these figures

lo

emphasize that the information set out in the fonns filed by the c n d t d n t e ~ was neither extensive

nor particularly complicated. It should be readily apparent

to

anyone reviewing the

fonn

completed

by

Mr. Stack

thnt

he

had

included corporate contributors in the same section where

he

included his individual conlributors.

F:ailure to List President

or

Business Mnnnger

or

Cheque Signatory

54 Both Mr. Stack and Mr. Dorsey foiled to do this too. This mistake flows

nalUrally

from the previous one. The section for

individual contributors does not include

a

space requesting the names of

u

pn.-sident

or a business manager or a cheque signatory.

Mr. Siscoc also failed to

list the

name of a president or business manager for any

of

the three corporate contributors.

However,

Mr

.

Dun Rasetta is

listed as cheque signatory

for

two contributions

ond

his wife Mr.; Janice Rnscna

for the

lhird

56 Mr. Siscoe spent $6,976.57 during the election. He listed two individuals and three corporations

who

contributed SI 00.00

or more . The contributions by individuals totalled $275.00. The contributions

by

corp


11/62

Lancaster

v. St.

Catharlnes

(City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595

2012 ONCJ 70, 2012

CarswellOnl 1595, (2012)

O. J. NO

626, 211 A.

C.W

.

S {jd)

574

.

62 Mr. Harris informed the Committee that he had not retained any campaign signs since

the

signs he had used hod contained

the date nnd the yenr

of

the election. Mr. Stack infonncd the Commitlec that he had retained only 50 compnign signs (hoving n

value of

$200.00)

because the others were unsuilnble for future use end hud been discarded following the election.

63

The minutes

of

the meeting

of

the Committee make it clear thot at that meeting, "The Chair asked Ms. Lancaster if she

was satisfied that the inventory

of

signs was resolved. Ms. Lancaster concurred."

64

Counsel for the Appdlnnt advised me during his submissions that the Appellant

was

abandoning this ground

of

appeal.

Conclusion

65 1 find no reason to interfere in any way with the decision

of

the Committee.

66 The Appeal is dismissed.

67 Counsel may address the issue ofcosts, if they see fit. in court, by appointment.

Appeal dismissed

Footnotes

Chapman

11

Hamilton (City),

(2005]

O.J.

No.

1943

(Ont.

CJ.) per Culver L;

/lfastroguiscppc

11

.

Vaughan (City),

(2008) O.J.

No

,

5734 (Ont. CJ.) per

Fnvcct J.

2

Nanoimn (City) v Rascal Trucking

Ltd [2000] I S.C.R. 342 (S.C.C.), quoted

in Chapman, supru,

para. 27 .

3

ibid.

4

Affidavit

of Susan

Dodds

filed

by

Respondent Compliance Audit Committee,

pa.rn

.

S,

5 Ibid

.,

para. 6.

6 Affidovil ofBrian Dorsey, para. 7.

Ead of Document

Copyrigln 0 llionuon Reuters a n a ~ Limned or iis liccnsors (excluding o d i ~ i d u o l court documcnlll). All riKhis

reserved.


12/62


13/62

5


14/62

.

1

r

~

\ _•

0


15/62

Vezina v

Mississauga

Election Campaign

Finances

Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, ..

•

2o13

ONSC 2368,°2013Carswell0nt

5762,

10

M.P.L.R.

51h)

-- ·

·

2013 ONSC 2368

Ontario Superior

Court of Justice

Vezina

v.

Mississauga Election

Campaign

Finances Committee

2013 CarswcllOnt 5762, 2013 ONSC

2368

1

10

M.P.L.R. (5th) 311, 227 A.C.W.S.

(3d) 1030

In the Matter of an Application for a

Compliance Audit

of

Carolyn Parrish's Election Campaign Finances Pursuant

to

Section

81 of the

Municipal Elections

Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.32

Greg

Vezina

and

Mississauga Election Campaign Finances

Committee

of

the City

of

Mississauga and Carolyn Parrish

K. van

Rensburg

J

•Judgment: April

29,

2013

Docket: DC-12-0046-00

Counsel:

T.

Richardson,

M.

Atherton,

for

Appellant, Carolyn Parrish

G. Vezina. Respondent, for himself

C.

Loopstra, Q.C., for Respondent, Mississnugn Election Campaign Finances Committee, Ciry

of

Mississaugn

Subject: Public; Property

Headnote

Public

law - Elections -

Candidates - Expenses

Municipal elections - Standard of review on appeal from compliance audit committee - Candidate

in

municipal election

filed audited financial statements with municipality, pursuant to

s.

78 1)

of

Municipal Elections Act, 1996 - Elector

detected irregularities, notably in respect of

v11lue

of donated rental realty, in

:.'tatcments

- Elector brought s. 81

(I) Act

application for order compelling

c n d i d t ~

to submit to compliance audit. and in due course candidate's stalcments were


16/62

Vezina v. Mississauga E lection Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, ..

2013 ONS

2368. 2013 CarswelfOnt 5762,

10

l . R .

(5th) 311... - -

Appeals judge found arguable issues with respect

to

rental realty valuation - Appeal was accordingly allowed, committee

was ordered to appoint auditor and candidate appealed - Appeal allowed and decision

of

committee restored Appeals

judge properly held that standard

of

review was reasonableness and

that

committee acting

within

jurisdiction was owed

significant appellate

deference-

However, bycfTcctivcly substitu ti

ng

appeals judge's view

of

record fur that

of

committee,

appeals judge cned in

law by

in foct applying wrong standard ofreview, correctncss- Corrccl or not, commiucc's decision

was

within reasonable range

of

possible outcomes and appeal was accordingly properly allowed.

Table of Authorities

Cases considered

by

K.

v n

R e m · b u r ~ J.:

Dickerson v. Compliance Audit Committee o Pickering City) (December 21, 2 ), Doc. 2X11999 (Ont. C.J.)

considered

Fuhr v Perth South fownship) (2011 ),

89

M.P.L R. (4th)

139, 2011

CarswcllOnt 11095, 2011

ONCJ

413 (Onl.

C.J.) - considered

Jackson v. Vaughan City)

(2009), 2009

CarswellOnt

1490,

59

M.P.L.R. (4th)

55

Ont

S.C.J.) considered

Lancaster v. SI. Catharines City)

(2012), 2012

ONSC

5629, 2012

CarswcllOnt

12351. 3 M P.L.R.

(5th) 117 (Ont.

S.C.J .) - followed

lyras v. Heaps (2008), 2008 ONCJ 524, 2008 CarswcllOnt 6348, 51 M.P.L.R. (4th) 277 (Ont

CJ.)

- considered

New Brunswick Board ofManagement) v. Dunsmuir 2008), 372 N.R. I, 69 Admin.

L.R.

(4th) l, 69 lmm. L.R. (3d)

I, (sub nom.

Dunsmuir

v.

New

r u n . ~ w i c k [2008] I S.C.

R.

190, 844 A.P.R. I, (sub nom.

Dunsmuirv. New Bromwick)

2008 C.L.L.C. 220-020, D.T.E. 2008T-223, 329 N.B.R. (2d) 1, (sub nom. Du11smuir v. New Brut1swick) 170 L.A.C.

(4th) I,

(sub

nom.

Dunsmuir v.

ew

Bnmswick) 291

D.L.R (4th) 577, 2008

CarswellNB

124, 2008 CarswcllND 125,

2008

SCC

9,

64 C.C.E.L. (3d) I, (sub

nom.

Dunsmuir v. ew Brunswick) 95 L.C.R. 65 S.C.C.)- followed


17/62

Vezina v. Mississauga E lection Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368,

2013 ONSC 2368, 2013 CarswellOni.5762,

10 M.P.L.R.

(5th)

311

...

s. 78( I

-

referred

to

s.

81

I)

considered

s. 81

(3) -

considered

s. 81(5) - considcrcd

s.

81(6)

-

referred

to

s. 81(7) - considcrcd

s. 81

(9) -

referred to

s.

81(14) -

referred

to

s. 81 (15) - referred to

s.

81.1

[en. 2009, c. 33. Sched. 21, s. 8(44)) - considered

Public Inquiries Act. 2009 S.O. 2009, c. 33, Schcd. 6

Gcnernlly - referred

to

APPEAL by candidale in municipal election from judgment allowing elector's appeal from decision

of

Mississauga Election

Campaign Finances Committee declining

to

order compliance audit with respect to candidate's campaign finances .

K.

van Renshurg J :

In

September 2011, Carolyn

P31'rish ran

in a by-election

as

a candidate in

Ward

5 for Mississauga city council. As

required

bys.

78(1)

of

the

Mu11icipa/

Elections

Act

1996

S.O. 1996, c. 32, (the "MEA''

or

the ''Act''), she submitted to the

city clerk a financial statement and audilor's repon in lhe prescribed fonn (lhe "Financial Statement''). Greg Vezina applied

under s. 81(I of the MEA lo request a compliance audit

of

Ms Parrish's election campaign finances. The Mississauga Election


18/62

Vezina v Mississauga Election Campaign F inances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, ..

26f30NSC 2368, 2013

CarswellOnt 5762, 10

MP.

L.R. (5th) 311 ...

5

Once appointed, the auditor is required to promptly conduct an audit o the

c a n d i d a t e ~

election

camp1ugn

finances to

determine whether

he

or she has complied with

the

provisions

o

the MEA relating

lo

election campaign finances, and is required

to

prerarc a report outlining any apparent contnlvention by the candidate : MEA, s. 81(9). The auditor has the powers o a

commission under the

Public Inquiries Act

The auditor's report is received by the compliance audit committee, which then

considers

the

report and

may:

(a)

i

the report concludes that the candidate appears to have conlrJvened a provision

o the

Act

relating to election campaign finances, commence a legal proceedmg against

the

candidate

for the

apparent contravention; or

(b) i the report concludes that the candidate does

not

appear to have contravened

11

provision o the

Act

relating

to

election

campaign finances,

make

a finding

s to

whether there were reasonable grounds for the application ; s. 81(14).

6 Pursuant to

s.

81(3), the cost o

the

audit

is

paid by the city, however if the report indicates

that

!here was

no

apparent

contravention and

the

committee

finds

that there

were no

reasonable grounds

for

the

11pphcation,

the

council

is

entitled

to

recover the auditor's costs from the applicant:

s.

81(

15)

.

7 Mr. Vezina's application for a compliance audit raised three issues respecting Ms Parrish's campaign finances. First,

he

questioned the candidate's recorded expense ofS750

for

her campaign office space,

in

respect o which she had noted an

in

-kind

donation by

EMBEE

Properties Ltd. ("EMDEE").

Mr.

Vezina asserted that

the

value o the

rent

was

:;ubsl11nti111ly

higher than

$750, that

Ms

Parrish

had

contravened the MEA's requirement, as interpreted

by

Mr. Vezina, to value

the

rent "at market value",

and

that

EMBEE

had provided a donation

in

excess o the per-candidate contribution limit of $750 under s . 71(1) o the MEA.

8

Mr.

Vezina also

took

issue v.ith lhe accounting for signs

and

stakes used

in

Ms Parrish's campaign, asserting that' more

signs

and

stakes

had

been

used

than were disclosed in

the

Financial Statement. Finally,

Mr

. Vezma complained that

Ms

Parrish

hod not

properly completed the required statutory declaration

on the

Financial Statement. Although she signed the declaration,

the place for

her

nwne

wo o;

left blank.

9 The Committee,

at

a meeting on March 6, 2012, received evidence from

Mr.

Vezina

and Ms

Parnsh, and asked questions

of both parties, as well

as

a real estate broker who

gave

evidence in support

o

the apphcation.

0 The Commiuee deliberated and then provided its decision

us

follows:

Nu

compelling

and

credible information which raises reasonable probab1hty o breach of statute (MEA). Application for

compliance audu

is

denied for the above reason


19/62

Vezina v. Mlsslssaug;i Election Campaign Finances Committee

2013 ONSC 2368, ..

2013

ONSC2368

2013 Carswel lOnt 5762, 10

M.P.l.R.

(5th) 31 L -

that the maximum discount for short term rentnl

of

similar space would normally

be

50 . Mr Vezina noted that Ms Parrish

spent $44,409.75

out of

her $44,879.45 election campnign expense limit under s. 76(4)

of

the

MEA s set

by

the Mississauga

city clerk.

Mr.

Vezina argued that,

i f

Ms Parrish

had

valued

the

campaign office

space

at

market vnlue,

she

would have violated

the

expense

limit as well

as

the prohibition against corporate campaign donations exceeding $750.

15 Ms Parrish provided the following explanation respect ing

her

campaign office

i.-pucc

. At lhe time she began looking for

space there were only two vacancies in the south section

of

Ward

5. She

contacted Michael Baker

of

EMBEE to inquire about

temporary occupancy

of720

Bristol

Rd

.,

Unit

8, and was advised that the space

was

vacant pending oc

c11pa1ion

by

a submarine

sandwich frJnchise with which EMBEE had committed to a long-term lease. As the franchisee was not taking possession unul

after the election, EMBEE had no interim

use

for the premises.

Mr

.

Baker

agreed that Ms Parrish could use the premises ns

is for

her

campaign office unttl the by-election under the condittons that ga rbage from the previous tenant be removed from

the premises, that a million policy

of

liability insurance

be

taken out at Ms Parrish's expense,

and

that a payment be

ma


20/62

Vezina v. Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, •

2 0 1 3 0 N S C 2 3 s a : - - 2 0 1 : f c a r s w e l l 0 n t 5 7 6 2 , 1 0 M . P

( 5 t h ) 3 1 1

...

of Ms Parrish, agreed with this position. Mr. Vezina nsserted that there was no error

in

the

OCJ

judgment, He also argued !hat

the decision 10 direct a compliance audit

is

supportable because the proper standard

of

review by lhe OCJ

s

"correctness", and

not

"reasonableness" (so that Duncan

J.

was entitled to substitute his view for that

of

the Committee).

22

Jn his

reasons for judgment, Duncan J. identified "reasonableness" as the

sland1m.I

of

review

of

the decision

of

the

Committee. He noted that, "apart from questions

of

law, the appeal s cssentrnlly an examination

of

the reasonableness

of

the

decision made by the

Committee with

due deference shown to its statutory authority and expertise".

23 The weight of authority suggests that the standard of review of the decision of a compliance audit committee under s.

81(5)

of

the MEA is reasonableness. This was recognized by Quinn J. in

Lancaster v.

St

Catharines City),

2012

ONSC

5629

(Ont. S.C.J.), the only reported decision

of

the Superior Court m an appeal

of

an

OCJ

decision rcspcctmg the decision of a

compliance audit committee. In

Lyras

v.

Heaps,

(2008) O.J. No. 4243 (Ont. C.J .) at paras.

17

to 19, Lane

J.

considered carlil:r

decisions pre-dating amendments to the

MEA

and applying a "com:cmess" standard of review when

the

decisions were made

by city council

or

o

delego.ted

committee. She concluded that the composition

of

the committee, its narrow function to screen

applications for audits, and the procedure followed in that case, which included a public meeting with evidence and submissions

by the parties and questions by the committee, required deference by any coun reviewing the decision. As Duncan

J.

noted,

m ugrccing with this unalysis: "The change [in the legislation] h;is imbued the decisions made both with independence

from

potential political intlucncc and with expertise."

24 Mr. Vezina relied on two OCJ decisions made after the legislation had been amendetl and which continued

to

apply a

"correctness" standard

of

review:

Dickerson v. Compliance Audi t Committee

of

Pickering City)

[{December 21,

2011

), Doc.

2 11999 (Ont. C.J.)], (December 21, 2011, unreported) and

Fuhr

· Perth South fow11ship), (2011] O.J. No. 4251 (Ont.

CJ

.).

In

each case, the court noted that there was no infonnation

as

to

the specific expertise

of

the committee, and, in

Fuhr,

there

was only a minimal record

of

the proceedings before the committee.

In Dickersun,

Bellefontaine

J

stated that he preferred the

reasoning

of

the earlier decisions in any event.

25 In my view, Duncan I correctly identified the standard of review of

the

decision of the Committee

in

this case. In

circum.c;tances

where n compliance audit committee has relevant expertise, anti is independent

of

the political process, and

here the procedure before the committee involves the opportunity

for

each side

to

present evidence and to make submissions,

the decisions it is authorized to make under the MEA are entitled to deference, and should be reviewed

for

reasonableness.

As

Qumn J noted in

Lancaster,

at para.

58,

the appeal is in the nature

of

a judicial review.


21/62

Vezina v. Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368,

..

2 13 ONSC 2368, 2013 Carswe

Ont

5762,

1

M.P.L.R. 5th) 311 ...

·

-

29 Duncan

l .

may have been correct m

dc.c;cr

ibing the rent arrungcmcnt as bargain basement , however

in

my

new

he

overstated the requirements

of

the

MEA

provisions when

he

concluded that the message

of s.

66(3)

is

that there arc no freebies .

The

MEA

anticipates that municipal election candidates will receive goods and services

from

third parties, and docs not prohibit

bargains

or the

provision ofgoods or services without charge. It requires that all

good.c; nnd

services n:ci:ivcd

be

valued,

and

where supplied by a person

in the

business, the valuation must be

the

lowest amount the contributor charges

the

general public

in

the same market area for similar goods and services provided at or aboul the same time .

30 Section 66(3)

of

the MEA,

by itc;

reference to what the contributor would charge the gencml public

for

similar goods

or

services at or about the same

rime,

requires a consideration

of the

particulnr circumstnnccs in

which

the goods or services in

question

are

supplied. The

111format1on

provided by the candidate with respect to the agreement with EMBEE, the fact that

the

space

was

in

transition and nwniting occupnncy

by new

tenant.,

anti therefore surplus space to the landlord,

and

the

conditions

under which

Ms

Parrish was

in fact

offered

and

used the spnce

"as is" nnd

requiring clean-up

by

volunteer labour, were

all

relevant to what the Committee had to decide, although those circumstances may not hove been determinative.

31 Ms

Parrish's evidence did provide un answer, and it was for the Committee to evaluate all

of

the evidence before it,

including the information provided by the candidate, and the evidence olTereJ by

Mr.

Vezina

in

support

of

his

application

for

an audit,

to

decide whether there

was

a probable breach of the MEA,

nnd

whether nn nudit was warranted.

32 There was

no

evidence

that

the candidate or anyone

on

her behalf had paid

rent

that was not reported

on

the Financial

Statement, or that the transaction

was

other than arms-length. Ultimately, the question was whether the $750 inkind donation

receipt represented an nppropriate value for

the

u ~ e

of the

space supplied without charge

lo

the candidate

by

EMDEE.

The

evidence provided by

Mr.

Vezina focussed on market value for commercinl spncc for long-tcnn

ICHses,

as well as office expenses

for

otJ1er

candidates. While this was pertinent evidence because

it

provided a context

in

which

Ms

Parrish's

rent

arrangement

could

be

scrutinized,

the

commercial lease evidence was not determinative

of

the decision that had

to

be

made

under

s.

66(3)

33

Quinn J. in

Lancaster

concluded that, while the compliance audit committee

had

erred in concluding that there was no

breach

of

the

MEA

. its decision not to appoint

nn

auditor was nevertheless reasonable. The uncontradictcd

infonn11tion

received

by the committee was that the omissions in

the

candidnte's financial statement were unintentional

and

had

been

rectified.

To

have directed

an

nudit would have amounted to a ''speculative expedition 11nd ended up revealing what

was

already known :

para.

94

.

In Jackson v. auglran City},

[2009]

OJ

_

No

. I 057 (Ont. S.C.J.),

in

the context

of

review

of

a bylaw authorizing

the

prosecution

of

a candidate for breachesof the MEA campaign finance

provisionc;

following the report

of

an auditor, Lauwers


22/62

Vezina v. Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, ..

·

2 13 ONSC 2368. 2013 CarswellOnt

5762,

10

M.P.L .R.

5th) 311 ...

while they were wmtmg for their first

2011

sign ordcrlo urrive.

To

be used in

2011

, the

20

10 si

1,'lls

required the

"re" in

''re -elect

to be covered and the October

25

date to be cut off The value attributed to the signs from 2010 that wen: used in 2011 was

$1,858, the amount that was included in the Financial Statement., along with

$9,491

. I 7 for new signs and

S71

.

14

for

hardware

used to affix the signs to fences. Ms Parrish noted that her Financial Statement reported the value of the signs actually used.

38 With respect to stakes, Ms Parrish ststed that no new stakes were purchased for the 2011 election. ThtS was her mnth

election and she had stakes lefi over not only from the 20 I0 election, but from previous municipal and feder.tl elections. Seven

hundred stakes were used and reported as required in her Fmanc1nl StntcmenL Ms Parrish explained that there is little rclauonship

between the number of signs used and the number ofstakes required. Small signs come with wire stnnds, which do not require

stakes, and some signs are attached to fences. Ms Parrish stated that the value ofs1gns and stakes

u.'\ed

in the 2011 by·election

was uceurntely reported as $11,356.17.

39 There is no indication that the Committee disregarded any evidence relevant to thesecond complaint miscd in Mr Vczina's

application . Considering the infonnation Ms Parrish provided, it was reasonable for the Committee not to appoint an auditor.

40 The final concern was acknowledged by Mr. Vezina

to

be technical, and would not warrant in itself the appointment of

an auditor. Ms Pnm:;h noted that the failure to print her name

on

the declaration was an oversight by her accountant., and that

she had sworn the declaration in front of the city clerk, ns required. She signed the statutory declnralion, uhhough her name

was not printed in the space above her signature.

41

Finally,

in

response to the appeal,

Mr

. Vezina raised an additional point, that can

be

addressed briefly.

He

asserted that

the Committee, m decidmg whether there were rea.c;onnble grounds for an audit, ought to have considered only the infonnation

contained in bis application, without regard to the candidate's explanation. ln this regard, he relied again on the

Dic:k trson

case,

where Bellefontaine 1 concluded that the committee's function was limited

to

detennining whether credibly based reasonable

groundc; existed for the elector's application at the time it was made, and ns such it was wrong to consider materials provided •

by the candidate in response to the application.

42 Again, the weight of authority

is

to the contrary. In the Lancaster case, Quinn

J.

concluded that the role ofa compli11nce

audit committee is more than simply to detennine whether the elector believes on rcason.oble grounds that the candidate has

contravened the Act The committee musl consider all of the evidence, and the basis for the beliefof the elector, as amplified

at the hearing before the Comnuttee, detennincs whether reasonable grounds exist (at parn. 70).

http:///reader/full/feder.tlhttp:///reader/full/11,356.17http:///reader/full/feder.tlhttp:///reader/full/11,356.17


23/62

Vezina v Mississauga Elec tion Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368,

••

•

2 13-

NSC

2368, 2 13 CarswellOnt 5762 To

M.P:CR.

5th) 311 •

46 Accordingly the decision o the Committee is restored nd the application for a compliance audit o the clcction finances

o

Carolyn Parrish m the September

2011

Mississauga city by·clcction

is

dismissed.

47 Ifthe pru ttes are unable to agree on cosLc; I will receive brief written submissions as follows: from any party seeking cosLc;

within 30 days responding submissions within 20 days

o

receipt

o

the submissions seeking costs and

reply

submissions if

any within IO days

o

receipt

o

the responding submissions.

Appeal allowed

Footnotes

The

Committee.

in

responding to the appeal

to

this court argued

that

Duncllll

1

ought not

to

have ucccptcd affidavit evidence c c a u ~ e

that would traruifonn the appeal into u hcoring cle novo I do not intend to deal with the question o the proper scope

o

the record

before the OCJ in un llflpcal from a compliuncc audit committee decision except to note that the judge hearing the up(IClll

must

ha11c

discretion on this issue. 1111: affidavits in this case did not include new evidence but simply repeated

the

evidence that wa. I before

the

Committee.

In

such

c1rcums1nuccs,

the judge did

not

embark on

a

hearing

le nuvv

when he decided

10

receive

such

evidence

End orDocument Copyrighl 0 T h u m ~ u Rcuu:r.; Canada Limited ur its licaisors (cxcludmg

md1v1dual

coun docwncnts}. All r i g h t ~

r1:5crvcd


24/62


25/62

6


26/62

'

0

0


27/62

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

SEAN HARRISON

·AND-

THE TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL

BOARD

-AND

MICHAEL COTEAU

Before Justice Patrick Sheppard

Heard

on April 11 , 2008

Reasons for Judgment

Toronto Region

(Appellant)

(Respondent)

(Added Party)

Melissa A. Kehrer ....... .

.... ..

.. .. .... . .. ...

.....

. . .. ..

..

.

..

. . ... . .. .. .

......

..... . ...

..

for the Appellant


28/62

election campaign finances may apply for a compliance audit

of

the candidate s

election campaign finances.

Requirements

(2) The application shall be made to the clerk of the municipality or the secretary

of

the local board for which the candidate was nominated for office, within 90

days after the later of the filing date, the candidate s last supplementary filing

date,

if

any,

or

the end

of

the candidate s extension for fihng granted under

subsection 80 (6),

if n y ~

it shall be m writing and shall set

out

the reasons for the

electors belief.

Decision

(3) Within 30 days after receiving the application, the council or local board, as

the case may be, shall consider the application and decide whether it should be

granted or rejected

Delegation

o

committee

(3.1) A council or local board may, before voting day in an election, establish a

committee and delegate its powers and functions under subsection (3) alone or

under subsections (3), (4), (7), (10) and (11) with respect to applications received

under subsection (2) and the council or local board, as the case may

be,

shall pay

all costs in relation to the operation and activities

of

the committee.

•

owers and

limitations

(3.2) A committee established under subsection (3.1).


29/62

•

3

4)

f it is decided to grant the application under subsection (3), the appropriate

council or local board s h a l l

by

resolution, appoint

an

auditor to conduct a

compliance audit of the candidate's election campaign finances.

I. FACTUAL HISTORY:

It is not disputed that:

[ l] Prior to the November 13, 2006 municipal elections, Michael Coteau the added party)

was the sitting T.

D.S

.B. Trustee for

Don

Valley East, Ward and,

he

was actively engaged

in

trustee functions.

[2] Sean Harrison was running for Trustee against Michael Coteau

in

the municipal elections

held November 13/07. He lost by 1287 votes with Michael Coteau receiving 6629 votes to

5342

votes for Sean Harrison.

[3]

After an unsuccessful attempt (letter of November 18, 2006)

to

prevent Michael Coteau

from

assuming the trustee seat for

Ward

17

due

to the same alleged violations which are the

subject

of

this

a p p e a l ~

on May 17,

2007, Sean Harrison made an application to the

C AC

.,

(through the Director

of

Education), seeking a compliance audit of Michael Coteau's election

Campaign finances pursuant to

Scc

.

81

(1) of the Municipal Elections

Act.

[4]

The allegations of Sean Harrison can

be

summarized as follows:

(a) The IDSB made a contribution to Mr. Coteau's re-election campaign because Mr.

Coteau. briefly,

had

a web link

from

his T.D .S.B. site to his re-election web-site.

b)

The TDSB made a contribution to Mr. Cotcau

1

s re-election campaign because

IDSB printed and distributed a document entitled, September Trustee Update Budget

Consultation at the request

of

Michael Coteau.


30/62

4

members as the City

of

Toronto's C.A C. for the 2006 Municipal/School Board elections. The

members did not include any munic1pally elected persons. These individuals being

first

appointed by the council of the City

of

Toronto no viable attack on their independence can be

made.

[8]

Its members are described by the Toronto City Clerk in its Appointment

of

Individuals

to the 2 6 Elections C.A.C. as:

''Two

of

the recommended individuals are chartered accountants and one is

a

lawyer in

the municipal field. All three have extensive knowledge

of

the election campaign finance

provisions

of

the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 Mr. Colboume and

Mr

Love were

members

of

the Toronto Election Review Task Force and Ms. MacLean has served on

various committees of the Ontario Bar Association.

[9] The C.A.C. met to consider Sean Harrison's application. The C.A.C. met al 10:30 wn on

May 23, 2007 and considered Mr . Harrison's request for a compliance audit of

Mr

. Coteau's

finances. The proceedings

of

the C A.C were open to the public. The C.A.C. heard and

considered

the

following:

(a)

Mr Harrison's written submissions were made Exhibit l before the C.A.C. and

are before this court;

(b) Mr. Harrison's representative also made

oral

submissions to the C.A.C.;

(c) Mr. Coteau's written submissions were made Exhibit

2

before the C.A.C. and are

before this court;

(d) Mr. Coteau's counsel also made oral submissions to the C.A.C.

(10] The C.A.C. recessed. On its return, by motion of Virginia Maclean the C.A.C. rejected


31/62

•

successful run for elected office and therefore, no deferency was owed to their decision. In fact,

an issue of competitive electoral bias might exist m such situations.

This court finds that a far greater deferency is owed to the decision of this C.A.C. in the case at

bar because they were appointed by a non expert School Board and the City because of thcn

expertise. The applicant in this appeal does not challenge this fact

However, in this case, either under the correctness standard

or

a less demanding deferential

standard on the hard copy documents making up the Applicant's initial complaint, this appeal can

not succeed. The documents raised in

the

complaint simply do not support the complaint.

III ANALYSIS

O

THE FOUR COMPLAINTS

t must first be noted that Mr. Coteau was the sitting and presiding trustee for Ward 7 at the

time of each of the four elements of the complainant occurred.

Trustees of current T.D .S.B. remain in office throughout election periods and for some days

following by legislation.

The business

of

the school board continues throughout election periods. The students continue to

go

to

school. The school board meets and make decisions. Trustees' constituents and parents

have a right to be consulted and advised ofSchool Board business throughout election periods as

they are

at

other times during the trustee's term of office. n other words, the municipal world

docs not stop so as to permit the holding of statutorily set elecllons. Indeed. this makes sense

given the immediate nature of the responsibilities of elected municipal bodies.

With this back drop,

it

is

often said

that

the mumcipal electoral system favours incumbents

running for re-election. In large measure, this

is

due to name and activity recognition which falls

on anyone doing the duties

of

the office. Incumbents will say that this 'advantage' can cut

two

ways. For example,

if

operations or finances of the municipal bodies are going badly, then it is


32/62

6

Finally, within the TDSB website. space

s

provided to identify schools and incumbent trustees

by Ward. At least on Aug.29/07, the electronic site for Ward

17

above the school list and beside

the photo/name/telephone number and e-mail address o Mr. Coteau appeared the following:

"Please visit Michael's community website at www.michaelcoteau.com for more

information.''

This community website was clearly an election driven partisan website with content not

addressing legitimate TDSB/Ward/Schoolsffrustee business. t describes Michael Coteau as:

"Candidate for School Board Trustee, Don Valley East, Ward

17

and it carries the following

tag: "Authonzed by the Campaign to re-elect Michael Coteau." No issue was taken in the hearing

o

this appeal with the fact that immediately upon

Mr.

Harrison's complaint being made to the

TDSB concerning this link that the link to the 'community website' went down permanently. That

action was appropriate but can it by itself warrant the granting

o

a compliance audit o the

election campaign finances o Mr. Coteau. t is not an issue that this website w s established

entirely at the personal expense

o

Mr. Coteau. Although under TDSB policy, in the election

period, it was not appropriate that this partisan website was linked to the TDSB site, the link

w s

broken long before election day, quickly after the complaint and without real expense to the

TDSB. This element o the complaint

is

one in which the doctrine o de minimus should apply.

Therefore, there are no substantial merits to any

o

the four allegations making up the substance

o the complaint o Mr. Harrison. The Applicant has failed to raise, let alone establish, any

reasonable grounds for the application.

This appeal is dismissed and as requested, a date can be arranged with the Trial Co-ordinator for

the issue o costs to be addressed.

Released: June 19, 2008

http:///reader/full/www.michaelcoteau.comhttp:///reader/full/www.michaelcoteau.comhttp:///reader/full/www.michaelcoteau.comhttp:///reader/full/www.michaelcoteau.comhttp:///reader/full/www.michaelcoteau.comhttp:///reader/full/www.michaelcoteau.com


33/62

i


34/62

..; . ..

I •


35/62

•

•

IN THE MATTER OF

AN

APPLICATION BY MICH EL CRAIG

UNDER THE MUNICIP L ELECTIONS ACT l 996 (THE "ACT") TO THE

CITY

OF

TORONTO

CO:rvtPLIANCE

AUDIT COMMITTEE IN·RESPECT

OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

OF

MARK GRIMES,

CANDIDA

TE

FOR ELECTION

TO

TORONTO CITY COUNCIL, WARD 6 {THE

"CANDIDATE").

AFFIDAVIT

OF

MARK GRIMES

I MARK GRIMES, of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontnrio, MAKE OATH

AND SAY:

1.

I

was

the successful Candidate for City Councillor in Ward 6 (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) in the

• most recent municipal election

held on

October 27, 2014. As such I have knowledge ofthe matters

contained in this affidavit.

Where

my

knowledge is based on information

and

belief, I state the

source

of

my

belief and verily believe it

to be

true.


36/62

4. My successful 2014 campaign was managed by Mr. James MaJoney (''Mr. Maloney ), a

prominent local lawyer and personal friend for over 30 years. Mr. Maloney has managed all

of

my

successful campaigns. He has volunteered countless hours

of

his own time . o manage my

campaigns. Neither I nor my campaigns have ever paid Mr. Maloney for his time running any of

my campaigns, including that in 2014.

5

My main opponent in the 2014 municipal election was Mr. Russ Ford ( Mr. Ford ), who I

defeated by a margin ofapproximately 44% to approximately 34% ofvotes cast. The Applicant in

this matter, Mr. Michael Craig

( Mr. r a i g ~

or the Applicant''), was a financial supporter and

volunteer for Mr. Ford. Attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit is

Mr

Ford's audited Fonn 4,

which lists

Mr

. Craig as a contributor. Attached as Exhibit B to this Affidavit is a photograph of

Mr. Craig attending with Mr. Ford at a campaign event during the last election.

6. I believe that this Application is part

of

a campaign against me that Mr. Ford's allies have

•

waged since he lost the 2014 Municipal Election. Mr. Craig has also filed a complaint with the

City's Integrity Commissioner against me. To my knowledge, this complaint is pending.


37/62

have used Gullons to print large volumes o printed material in both the 2010 and 2006 Municipal

Elections. As far

s

I know, there is no familial

or

personal relationship between myself

or

any

o

my Campaign personnel and Gullons.

10. The Campaign filed copies o invoices to reflect my reported Form 4 expenses with the

City Clerk. Attached as Exhibit to this Affidavit are copies o each o the three relevant Gullons

invoices. Contrary to Mr. Craig's suggestion in the Application, each o these invoices was filed.

The Campaign paid these expenses and they were reported on my Form 4 under b r o c h u r e f l ~ e r

expenses.

11. The Campaign produced a number

o

different printed materials. Attached

s

Exhibit E to

this Affidavit is a chart breaking out which o the printed materials were associated with each

invoice rendered by Gullons.

12 Further, I note that there was an additional brochure entitled Shutting the Door on

Residential Development at Christies not mentioned by Mr. Craig in his Application. This was


38/62

campaigns or other work that they do. As you can see from the materials attached to the

Application, the designs were relatively similar and straightforward. At no time was any person

paid to provide graphic design services to the Campaign.

15

. I have reviewed the quotes

Mr.

Craig provided in his Application to suggest that I obtained

printing services below market value. In response, I note that Netprint & Ship and The Printing

House are located in Ward 6, while Gullons is located in Ward 28. Attached as xhibit G to this

Affidavit are Google maps demonstrating the locations

o

these printing houses, as well as a

Toronto Municipal Ward Map.

16.

The camera-ready proofs used in the brochures were done by James Heaslip

(4 Mr.

Heaslip ), a photographer. That expense ($560.00) is reflected in my Form 4 in the Advertising

Expenses category. Attached as

xhibit

to this Affidavit is a copy

o

the invoice from James

Heaslip Photography in that amount. This invoice was submitted to the City Clerk along with the

others.


39/62

Advertising Expenses

18. With respect to the online video costs raised byMr

.

Craig in the Application, the Campaign

did create and post a number of short YouTube videos. We retained the professional services of

Mr. Matthew Lochner

( Mr.

Loclmer ) to help create several

of

these videos. The cost for

Mr

.

Lochner's services is reflected in three invoices, which are attached to this Affidavit as

xhibit I.

19. In the Application, Mr. Craig alleges that Mr. Lochner and Mr Heaslip, the photographer

described above, are p ~ r s in the film and video production company Fifth Ground

Entertainment Inc. ('

4

FGE ) which is owned by Mr. Chris Szarka ( Mr. Szarka ). Mr. Craig

suggests that their professional association with

FG

indicates that services were improperly

reported (i.e. were paid for but provided at below market value).

20. In fact, it is my understanding that Mr. Lochner and Mr. Heaslip work independently

of

FGE. Mr. Szarka is a good friend and supporter. I have worked with him in the past on many

events in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, including the Lakeshore Film Festival.

We

discussed using a

Youtube channel for the campaign, at which point he recommended I hire

Mr.

Lochner as his rates


40/62

volunteers or family members. Many volunteers contributed by filming various events during the •

campaign and uploading them

on

YouTube. These

were

not professionally-produced videos.

23.

Mr Szarka also suggested that I hire a Humber College student to perform videography

work, as student fees would be within the Campaign's budget. took this advice in hiring

Mr Ken

MacLauchlin ( Mr. MacLauchlin ) to assist with the campaign voting day party. Attached as

Exhibit J to this Affidavit

is

a

copy o

this invoice.

24 With respect to the robocalls

made

by then-candidate John Tory ( Mr. Tory ) endorsing

my election, the campaign paid for the cost o these calls in their entirety. The cost was $0.05 per

call, with a minimum charge

o

$100.00. The calls were targeted at voters

who were

known

to

be

supporters o

Mr

. Tory, and as such this was a small robocall effort. The invoice for these services

is attached as Exhibit K to this Affidavit.

25 In his Application,

Mr

Craig alleges that my campaign under-reported expenses related to

truck and automobile costs.

He

alleges that a number

o

trucks, decorated with Grimes Campaign


41/62

Salary/Staffiog Expenses

28. With

respect to staffing expenses,

Mr.

Craig alleges that I paid or should have

paid my

campaign manager,

Mr.

Maloney,

and Ms.

Sheila Paxton ( Ms.

Pa'


42/62

in, such as hockey and lacrosse leagues, and in part through other community relationships, I have

been fortunate enough to build a large network

o

supporters willing to devote their time to my

campaign.

34. With respect to Mr. Craig's allegations regarding the Event Coordinators who helped to

organize fundraisers for

my

campaign, all fundraising expenses were reported and documented in

my Form 4 Two individuals were retained to assist with my campaign, each o whom was paid the

same flat fee per month

o

service leading up to fundraising events for the Campaign. These event

planners were necessary to plan and execute fundraising events important to the Campaign. Their

duties involved in organizing fundraisers are extensive, including booking the venues, advertising,

picking up cheques, arranging for decorations and food, organizing volunteers to be at the event,

coordinating payment and preparing and mailing contribution rebate forms to donors.

35. Attached as

Exhibit M

to this Affidavit is a copy o the invoices reflecting these expenses.

For the sake

o

the privacy

o

the individuals involved, the names and addresses

o

the individual

coordinators are redacted.


43/62

SWORN EFORE ME at the ity o

p i ~

i ~ i f

oi Fo

o

th

£

r

or

Taking ffidavits

or as may be)

.


44/62

.


45/62

A


46/62

0

0


47/62

This s Exhibit ..A referred to in the Affidavit o Mark Grimes

sworn /t e m ~ l 2015

l

~ - - - -


48/62

Mlnlstryd

Mtnclpal

Affaln

Financial Statement-Auditor's Report

.£;.>Ontario

andHouma

Fonn4

unicipal Elections Act 1998 (Section 78)

Instructions

All candidates must complete Boxes A

and

B.. Candidates who receive contributions or Incur expenses

beyond the

nomination fee must

complete

Boxes C, D, Schedule 1, and

Schedule

2 as

appropriate. Candidates

who

teeeive

c:ontnbutlons

or

Incur expenses

in

excess

of

10,000 must

eJso

a lache an AuditOl's Report.

AD

surplus funds (after

any

refund to

the

candldale

or

his

or

her spouse) shall be paid Immediately ever

to the

dertt

who was

responsible

ror

the

conduct

of the election.

YYYY

MM

DO

yyyy MM

O

For the campaign period from

tday

candidate filed nomination)

I

2014

I

03

I

17

I

to t

201

..

I

12

31

l' ll

Primary

filing

reftecting finances to December

31

(or

Slh day

after

voting

day

In a

by-election}

f:I Supplemental)' filing Including

i ~

after December 31 (or 45th day aftervoting day in a by-election)

IBox

A:

Name of Canatdata and Office

Candidate's

name as

shown

on the

ballot

last

Name

FOR

Name

of

office

for wtalc:h the

candidate sought eledlon

COUNCllLOR

Nameof

MunldpaJity

TORONTO

Given Name(s)

Russ

Ward name

or

no.

(if any)

6

0

~ p e ~ n d ~ ~ r~ m r t

m

e d : : b y

e f k ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

40,432.25

IEl

I did

not

accept any c:ootributions

or

Incur any expen5e5 other than

the

nomlnaUon fee.

Complete

Sm

A and

B

on y}

IBox B : Declaration

http:///reader/full/40,432.25http:///reader/full/40,432.25http:///reader/full/40,432.25http:///reader/full/40,432.25http:///reader/full/40,432.25http:///reader/full/40,432.25


49/62

IBox c:

Statement

of c a m ~ a l D

Income and Ex( nses

N·

e

of bank or

recognized lending Institution

ntborrowed

s

INCOME

TOlal

amount of

n

conbtbutions

(From line 1A In

Schedule

1)

39,621.33

RefUnd of nomination filing

fee +

s

Sign deposit

refund

s

Revenue from fund-raising events

not deemed

a

canlribution (From Part Ill

of

+

Schedule2)

1.254.00

Interest earned

by

campaign

bank account

+

s

7.96

Other (provide full details)

1.Proc:eeds from sale of campafs

office erinter

+

s 115.00

2.

+

3.

+

Tobi Campaign Income

(Do not include

loan)

=

40.9911.29

C1

EXPENSES

(Note: Incl ude lhe

value

of conbibutlons of goods and sefVic:es)

Expenses Subject to Spending

Umlt

Nomination fffing

fee

+

100 0C

lnvenlDry

from previous

campaign

used

int his

campaign (list details

In Table +

5 of Schedule

1)

Advertising

+

s

Brochureslftyers +

7,236.32

Signs

(induoing

sign deposH)

+

s

7,185.31

Meetngs

Hosted

+

582.83

Office expenses Incurred until t i n day

+

61435.04

Phone

and/or Internet

expenses Incurred

until

voting day

+

643.40

Salaries, benefits honorarta, professional

fees

Incurred

until

voting day

+

14,000.DO

k Charges

Incurred

until

voting

day

+ 39.32

erest charged on loan until voting day

+

1.

+

2. +

3.

+

s

Total

Expenses

aubject

to

apending Omit

=

s

36,222.22

C2

Expenses NotSubJect

to

Spending Umlt

Accounting

and

Audit

+

2,260.00

Costs

of funckalaing

eventsladivftles (list details

In

Part IV of Schedule

2) +

s

840.00

http:///reader/full/39,621.33http:///reader/full/1.254.00http:///reader/full/39,621.33http:///reader/full/1.254.00


50/62

Box D· Calculation ofSu lus

or

Deflclt

• Exce5s

deficlenc:y)

of Income

over

expenses

Income - Total

Expenses)

(C1-C4)

+

D1

Blgible deficit

carried forward

by the

cancfldate

from

the last election

Total

D1-D2)

- D2

- - ,.....____________

If thera fa a surplus,

deduct

any refund ofcandidale'a or spouse's

contrlbutions to

the campaign.

Surplus

(or

deficit) for the campaign

03

ff

line

D3 shows

a swplus, the amountmust

be

paid In trust. at the time

the1inandal statements are

filed, to

the muntcipal dert t

who

was

responsible

for the

conduct of the election.

Amount

of - paid

to municipat deric In the municipality

of

Toronto


51/62

u t e

1 -

Contributions

..fi

I·Summary

of Contributions

Contnbutionfromcandidate(include

the

value

cf

lnventmy listedInTable

5 +

652.20

Conlnbutlcnfromspouse

+

750.00

Total valueof contributionsnot

exceecfmg

100 per

contributor

• includeticketrevenue.cxmtributions

In

money,goodsand services

where

lhe lo1al

contribution

from

acontribuloris$100or ess(do

not

includecontributionsfromfromcandidate

or

spouse).

+

$ 10,384.13

Tolavalueof conlribulfons

exceeding

$100per

contribuCor

(from 16; ist

-------

details

In

Tables1-4)

• klcludeticketrevenue,contributionsInm6ney,goodsandservices

Wflere Ute

total contributionfrom aa>ntrlbutor

eicceeds

$100(do

not

lndude

conbibutionsfi'om fromcandidateerspouse.

+

27,835.00

Less: Contributionreturned

or

payableto lhecontributor

Contnl>utlon

paid or

payable

to lhe dert,

Includingcontributions

fromanonymoussources

exceeding

$10.

Total

Amount of

Contributions

(RecordIn

Box

C)

=

s

39,621.33

1A

Part fl •Uat

of Contributions from

EachSing

le

Conb1butortotaling Mon

than

$100

Table1: Monetarwconbfbutions

from

lndMduafs otherthan

candidate

ors..........e

Name Full

Addrus

Amounts

-

.

.

.

.

http:///reader/full/10,384.13http:///reader/full/27,835.00http:///reader/full/39,621.33http:///reader/full/10,384.13http:///reader/full/27,835.00http:///reader/full/39,621.33


52/62

Schedule

:

Part

If - List of

Contributors from Each Single Contnl>utor totalling

Mor than

100

Table : Monetary contributors from

lndMduals

other than candidate

or

s:ouse

I

Name

I

Address Amount

Adam Feldman 6 LakeShore Dr6 Toronto, ON, MBV m 210.00

Alan Broadbent

170

BloorSt W 804,Toronto ON, MSS 11 9 200.DO

Allan Valk 48 ThirteenthSt. Toronto, ON, MBV 3H4

300.00

Anna Janaslk 48 13th St.Toronto ON, M8V 3H4 300.00

Barbara Pidcodc 2676

u

Shore

Blvd

W Toronto ON, M8V 1G8 500.00

Brian Mackay 67 Jellicoe Ave, Toronto, ON, MSW

1WS 300.00

cary

Milner

S6 BordenSt. Toronto, ON, MSS 2MB 250.00

Catherine

Balley

6 Meaford Ave,Toronto ON, M8V 2HS 200.00

Char1es

Dillingham

1368 Ravine Dr, Mississauga, ON, l5J 3E7

22S.OO

Char1otte Ford

5229

Dundas StW 308 Toronto ON,

M98 61.9

500.00

Chris Marshan 61 Heman St . Toronto, ON, M8V

lX4

300.00

Dan Abrahams 299 Glendale Ave.Toronto

ON

M6P 4A6 200.00

David carson

18 5

Humberv.aleBlvd,

Toronto

ON, MSY 3R2 200.00

David Crombie

2181

Yonge St 501, Toronto ON, M4S 3H7

150.00

DavfdVeflekoop S4 EastboumeCres Toronto,ON, M8V 1W8 200.00

DebbieHardy 87A Alder Cres, Toro nto, ON, M8V 2H7 200.00

Deborah

Qulafn

4 Elsinore

Path

406,Toronto ON,

MBV

4G7 200.00

Dennis

Raphael

62

First

Ave

Toronto

ON

M4M

1W8

200.00

Douglas Kerr 112 George St, Toronto, ON, MSA 2MS 200.00

Duncan Farnan 59

Station

Rd, Toronto ON, M8V 2R2 200.00

El1zabeth Beader 8 Hills Hts. Toronto ON, MSY 1Z1 350.00

Eva Hourihan 1409 Applewood Rd, l s s l s s a u ~ ON,

l5E

2M1 700.00

Fatima FUlppl

96 Comay

Rd. Toronto, ON, M6M 212 200.00

Faye

Worth

SS

Bridesburg

Cr

206,

Toronto ON, M9R 2K7 200.00

Frank CUnnln£ham

13 0

cartton St 905 Toronto ON, MSA 4K3 200.00

George

Takach

Marine

Parade

Dr713 Toronto ON,

MRV 484

500.00

Glenys

Huws

49

Wheatfield

Rd,

Toronto

ON.

MBV

2PS 300.00

Graham Jones 16 Acom Ave. Toro nto, ON, M9B 3P8 300.00

~

Jones 16

Acom Ave, Toronto ON, M9B 3P8 300.00


53/62

Lorraine Telford

Maggi Redmonds

Margaret Ollder

Margaret

Clupa

Mario Galofaro

Melissa Nelson

Michael Craig

Michael Earle

Michael Hotrum

Michael Olivier

Michelle Soares-McCarthy

Mila

Mohammed

Netres Van loon

Pat

Evans

Patr1da Plant

Peter Shepherd

Pushkala Taracad

R. Scott James

Jtmdafl a ~

Renate

Kok

Rob

Howarth

Robert

Gumns

Rudolph Wiens

Ruth Grier

•

Sandra Van Ruymbeke

Shella Masters

St phanle Ford

Steve Nazar

TenyGrier

llmButler

W E Bamett

WalterY-1111

Wanda Jurashelc

42 Femwood

Park

Ave, Toronto,

ON, M4E 3G1

250.00

277 Booth

Ave,

Toronto,

ON, M4M

2M7 150.00

411 v.ilermo

Dr,

Toronto,

ON,

MSW

216

300.00

62 Fairfield Ave, Toronto.

ON, MSW 1R8

200 00

SB

Kenneth

Ave,

Toronto,

ON, M6P

lJ3

600.00

97

EJghtth

St., Toronto,

ON,

MSV

3CS 2SO OO

56

Sheth

St, Toronto,

ON,

MBV 3A2

300.00

54 Eleventh St, Toronto,

ON, M8V 3G4

300.00

16 Dartmouth Cres, Toronto, ON, M8V 1Xl 500.00

9 I ~ Rd, Toronto, ON,

M6H

22 8 750.00

83 Kennlnghall Cres, Mississauga,

ON,

LSN 2T8 300.00

202 l;llce

r o m e n d ~

Toronto,

ON, MSW 1AS

150.00

24 Humewood Gdns, Toronto, ON, M6C 1Gl 250.00

70 ThirtySixth St. Toronto,

ON, MBW

3L2

400.00

29 Rfth

st,.

Toronto, ON, MSV

m

300.00

77 Miles

Rd,

Toronto, ON, MSV 1V4

2SO OO

330 Bumhamthorpe Rd W 1601, Mississauga, ON, LSB

OEl

200.00

20 Niagara

St ~

Toronto,

ON, MSV 3L8

250.00

29 Elton

O'es,

Toronto,

ON, MSW 2X9

200.00

1 Market St, Toronto,

ON, MSE

OA2 200.00

14

Grfmthorpe

Rd,

Toronto,

ON,

M6C

1G3

300.DO

40 Twenty Second St, Toronto,

ON, MBV 3Ml

200 00

28 CUtler

Cres,

Toronto, ON,

MSW 2K5

300.00

74 ArcadianCtd,Ttironto,

ON, MBW

2Y9 500.00

401 Sunnyside

Ave,

Toronto,

ON,

M6R 2S2

200.00

1S Tenth St. Toronto,

ON,

MBV 3E7 200.00

12

Viewbank Rd, Toronto,

ON,

MlN

1E7

750.00

411 ValermoDr, Toronto, ON, M8W

2L7

300.00

74 Arcadian Cn:le,. Toronto,

ON,

MSW 2Y9 750.00

340

lhe

submission from brian kolenda on behalf of candidate mark grimes - part 3 (ea.supp.ea4.2.3)...

Documents