0 4

0 0

0

0 Lancasterv. St. Catharines (City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012CarsweliOnt1595.(2012] O.J. No. 626, 211 A.C.W.S. (3d) 574 ...

20120NCJ70 • Ontario Court ofJustice Lancaster v. St. Catharines (City)

2012 CarswcllOnt 1595, 2012 ONCJ 70, [2012] 0 .J. No. 626, 211 AC.W.S. (3d) 574. 95 M.P.L.R. (4th) 113

In the Matter ofan Application for a Compliance Audit ofBrian Dorsey, Matthew Harris, Mathew Siscoe and Len Stack's Election Campaign Finances Pursuant to Section 81 ofthe Municipal ElectionsAct, 1996, S.O. 1996, C.32, Sched.

Eleanor Lancaster, Appellant and Compliance Audit Committee of the Corporation ofthe City of St. Catharines, Respondent and Matthew Harris, Mathew Siscoe, Len Stack, Brian Dorsey, Added Parties

D.A. Harris .J.

Heard: November 24, 2011 Judgment: February 9, 2012 Docket: None given.

Counsel: L. De Lisio, for Appellant, Eleanor Lancaster N. Auty, for Respondent, Compliance Au

Subject: Public; Property

Hcudnotc Public law - Elections - Candidates - Expenses Appellant applied to Compliance Audit Committee ofCity ofSt. Catharines for compliance audit ofcampaign finances of lhree candidates - Audit committee dismissed applicant's upplication - Appellant nppcalcd decision ofaudit committee - Appeal dismissed - Appropriate stnndard of review was reasonableness - Test to be applied by audit committee was whether committee believed on reasonable grounds that candidate had contravened provision of Municipal Elections Act, 1996 relnting to election campaign finances It was contravention ofAct by associaled corporations to contribulc more than $750 between them to campaign ofsingle c:mdid

Table of Authorities

C11scs considered by D.A. Harri:; J.:

Braid v. Georgian Bay (Township) (2011 ), 2011 ONSC 3618, 2011 CarswellOnt 4677, 83 M.P.L.R. (4th) 335 (Ont. S.CJ.) - considered

\V1• 11 ••:;Next CAHAO" Copynght C Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or Its !teens~ (e•dudrng indNldual coun documents) All rights reserved. Lancaster v. SL Cathartnes (City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 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.) - eon~idered • Lyras 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 ofManagement) 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 Brunswick) 2008 C.L L.C. 220-020, D.T.E. 2008T-223, 329 N.B.R. (2d) I, (sub nom. D11nsm11ir 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) 357, 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

s. 69(l)(m)- considered •

s. 71(1)-considercd

s. 72 considered

s 81 - considered

s. H1 ( 1) - considered.

s. 81(4) - considered

s. 81(5)- considered

s. 81 (6)- considered

s. 81 (7) - considered

APPEAL from decision of campaign audil committee dismissing opplicutton for compliance audit of candidates in municipal election.

D.A. Harris J.;

Wt',,tt 01\'JNext CAH-'1>11 Copyrigtil Cl Thomson Reuter.; canada U m1ted or Its hcensots (exdudlng nd1vidua court documents). flJ1nghls reserved. 2 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 ofSt Catharines (hcreim1fter referred to as the "Committee") pursuant to section Ill of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (the "Act'') for a compliance audit of the campaign finances ofcandidates 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 1s the appropriate standard for review on this appeal? Is the decision of the Committee entitled to deference such that a standard ofreasonableness should apply or should l undert11ke my own analysis of the issues and apply a correctness standard?

2) What 1s 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 New Brunswick (Board ofManagement) v. Dunl·m11ir, (2008} S.C.J. No. 9 (S.C.C.), the Supreme Court ofCanada revisited the standard ofreview ofsuch 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 ofJustice 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 here. More precisely, the decisions appealed from in both Chapman and Mas1rog11iseppc were made by rhe City Council rather than by a Compliance Audit Committee. Culver J. and Favrct J. both held that City Council was not entitled to any deference. The 2 members of City Council Juul no special expertise. Rather, "municipal councillors arc elected to further Bpolitical platfonn" and "as opposed to ndministrnt1vc tribunnls, council decisions arc more often by· products of the local political milieu llian a considered nttempt to follow legal or institutional precedent" 3 •

9 ·me Act was amended in 2009 in order lo take these decisions away from municipal councils and 10 have them decided instead by Complinnce Audit Committees. The decision apr::aled from in this case was made by a Compliance Audit Committee. The mcmbcfl>hip of this Committee is such tpac., collectively, it clearly docs possess the necessary expertise to c.lccidc the initial applicalion end is free from political influence. The materials put before me reveal that one member ofthe Committee

is [a] Professional Engineer with experience in accounting, legal and audit activities as a result of being President of a Charitable Organization and consulting company. The second member has a B.Comm. degree and experience with audit Hnd compliance experience in the insurance industry. The third has a B.A. and is a Certified General Accounlanl with experience in the audit division of the Canada Revenue Agency. 4

10 Those materials go on to say that the Committee members "received an cducntional and training session presented by 5 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing" .

~'i " ~ ti .w•Next CAN"°" Copyright C> Thomson Rculcrs Canada Um1tcd or Its l1censors (eiciuding i11d111odua1 court documents). All niillls resttl"ollld. 3 Lancaster v. St. Catharlnes (City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595 2of2 ONCJ 70,2012 CarswellOnt 1595, [2012) O.J. No.626-:211A.CW.S. (3d)S74.... ·- ­

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

12 In light ofthese facts, the Committee is, in my view, entitled to deference.

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

14 Al p11rn . 47 in Dunsmuir, .¥upru, the Supreme Court ofCannda elaborated on the standard ofreasonableness 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 ofjustification, 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 ofthe fact~ and low.

15 Applying this to the co.se before me, I find that the appropri3tc standard ofreview here 1s one ofreasonableness. In that regard I agree with the reasoning of Lane 1. in Ly,.as v Heaps, [2008] 0.J. No. 4243 (Ont. CJ).

ReHsonable Grounds

16 The relevant provisions ofsectton 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 ofthis Act relating lo election campaign finances may apply for a compliance audit ofthe candidate's election campaign finances. • (4) Within I 0 days after receiving the application, the clerk ofthe municipality or the secretary ofthe 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 ofthe npplicntion to the council or local board.

(5) Within 30 days after receiving the applicalion, the committee shall consider the application and decide whether it should be granted or rejected.

((•) The decision of the committee may be appealed to the Onturio Court ofJustice within 15 days after the decision is made and the court may mnke any decision the committee could have made.

(7) lfthc committee decides under subsection (5) to grant the application, it shall appoint an auditor 10 conduct a compliance audit ofthe candidate's election campaign finances.

17 Counsel for the Appellant argued that the test to be applied by the Committee and by me is whether lhc elector, in this case the Appellant, "believes on reasonable grounds that a candidate has contravened o. provision of this Act relating to election campaign finances".

18 Counsel for the Respondent and counsel for the Added Parties argued thal this subjective tcsl applies only to the commencement of this process 11nd that the test 10 be applied by the Committee was whether the Comm1ttcc believed on reasonable grounds that a candidate had contravened a provision ofthe Act relating to election campaign finances.

19 I agree with the latter argument. The Committee was clearly in a better position to make the necessary detennination ofwhether reasonable grounds eitist. The Committee could be expected to be more objcclive th1m the Appellant. In addition, as Lane J stated al para. 23 in l yras, supra,

W~!> tl rt WNellt CAW>DA Copyright Cl Thomson Reuters Canada limlled or Its llcensorr. {exdud ng 1ncl1111du11I coul'I documents). Alt rights raservad. 4 Lancaster 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 ofthe Committee lo weigh the c:videncc and 10 make determinations ofwhat 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 ofpersuasion 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 ofcertitude, 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 context~ indicates that the standard to be applied is that ofan objective belief based on compelling and credible information which raises the "reasonable probability" ofa breach of the statute. The standard of ''a prima facic case" in either its pennissivc or pr~umptivc 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 11 number ofdifferent contraventions ofthe Act I propose to deal with these by type ofcontravention rather than by candidate.

Contributions from Associated Compunics

25 The Appellant alleged that all four candidates received contributions exceeding S750.00 from nssociatetl corporations. All four candidates agreed that this happened.

26 Associated corporations Lakewood Beach Properties Limited imd York Bancroft Corp. each contributed $750.00 to the campaign of Mr. Dorsey.

27 Associated corporations York Bancroft Corp. and Copper Cliff Propcnies Inc. each contributed $750.00 to the campaign ofMr. Hurris

28 Associaled corporations York Bancroft Corp. and Copper Cliff Properties Inc. and Port Dalhousie Management Corp. contributed S500.00, S500.00 and $750.00, respectively, to the campaign of Mr. Siscoe.

29 Associated corporations York Bancroft Corp. and Lakewood Beach Properties Inc. and Port Dalhousie Management Corp. each contributed $750.00 to the campaign of Mr. Stack.

30 lnformation rut before the Committee established that when they became aware of this situation each of the candidates had refunded the money that had been contributed to the campaign in contravention ofthe Act. The Affidavit from Mr. Dorsey

W 1•>ll,1wNext CANADA C4ilyngnt ()Thomson Rl!Ulers QiJllld.il ~ 1m1lcd o • 1b hccnsors (urduding individual court documenlsj. All nghls reserved. S Lancaster v. St Catharlnes (City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnl 1595 20i20NCJ 70, 2012 Carswelldnt1595, (2012] oJ:-No. .626, 2f1 A.C . W.S . ~(3d,_,'""") s74=-,-••-• • ­ ---­ eswbhshcd that he had previously refunded money to another corporate contnbutor because he was aware then that it was from an associated corporation.

31 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 ofthe Act says thnt "For the purposes ofsections 66 to 82, corporations that arc associated with one another under section 256 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) shall be deemed to be a single corporation".

35 A combination ofthose sections makes it 11 clear contravention of the Act by the associated corporations to contribute more than $750.00 between them to the campaign ofa single candidate.

36 The obligation on the candidate is different however.

37 Section 69(1)(m) of the Act says:

69. (!)A candidate shall en.~ure that.

(m) a contribution ofmoney made or received in contravention ofthis Act is rclllmed to the contributor as soon as possible after the c1111didatc becomes aware of the contrJvcntion.

38 The obligation on the candidate is simply to return a contribution of money made in contravention ofthe Act "as soon 11.s • possible after the candidate becomes aware ofthe 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 ofthe Act. The Act makes it clear in section 71 (I) that a contributor cannot make any contributions in excess ofa total ofS750.00. There is no corresponding statement with that level ofclarity as it relates to the obligation ofa candidate not to accept such donations. The Appellant argues that section 69(1 }(m) which refers to "a c9,ntribution of money made or received in contravention of this Act'' creates an obligation on the candidate not to accept donations in total worth more than $750.00 from any one contributor. With respect, I disagree. IfParliament wished to create an obligation not to accept contributions ofmore than $750.00 it had the clear opponunity to do so. It would not, in my view, be appropriate to torture the wording of section 69(1)(m) to create an obligation which is not clearly present. Section 69(l)(m) only requires a candidate to return to the contributor any contribution exceeding a total of$750.00, or any other contribution received in contravention ofthe Act as soon 11s possible

40 Had the Committee based its decision solely on the information set out in the Financial Statements and Auditors Reports tiled by the four candidates, there might well have been a basis to believe on rcason11blc grounds that the candidates had contmvcncd a provision of this Act relating to election camp11ign finance~. The Committee however heard and accepted the uncontradic1ed evidence to the effect that each candidate had returned the excess money contributed in contravention of the Act as soon as possible after the candidate had become aware of the contravention. In those circumstances, the only reasonable conclus1on that the Committee could have reached was that there were not reasonable grounds to believe that the candidates had contravened the Act.

Contributions Listed Erroneously Under Contrlbutions from Individuals as Opposed to Contributions from Corporations

W!!~ t!1i.•1 Neitt CAHAl>I. Ccpyrighl C Thomson Reuten1 CaMCla L mlled or Its licensors (exdudlng lnd1v1dual court documents). All rights raservaCI. G Lancaster v. SL Catharines (City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595 2012ONCJ7o. 2012 CarswellOnt fs9s. (201210.J. No. 626. 211 A.C.W.S. (3d} 574...

4 t Mr. Slack and Mr. Dorsey both listed contribution.~ that had been made by corporations as well as contributions that had been made by individuals in the section ofthe 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 corporation.~.

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 10 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 half of page four to list the contributions instead ofthe top half ofpage 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?

46 Counsel for the Appellant argued that these arc dear conlravcntions ofthe Act.

47 The Committee decided otherwise .

48 I note the comments of Wood I. at para. 12 in Braid 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 public policy behind these provisions is the levelling of the playing field to prevent 11 candidate backed by deep pockets from out.spending his or her opponents and thus potentially skewing the re.crults ofthe election.

49 He then went on to say in porns. 28 and 29 that

28 In my opinion this dichotomy between a stnct linhility for complete failure to file and a more lenient approach where the document is tiled but incorrect in some way, is entirely consistent with the aims of the Act. Failure to file leaves the public no ability to examine the expenses of a candidate. Such a failure leaves the interested person whether rival candidate, or member of the public, with no starting poinl from which to begin an examination. It strikes at the very heart of the Act's purpose.

29 Filing a document that is Oawed in some way is quite a different proposition. In contractual language there has been substantial compliance. Even a flawed linancittl statement provides a starting point for an examination of the candidate's expenses. The direction to the Coun in subsection 92(6), that the draconian penalty of forfeiture does not apply where a candidate has made a mistake while acting in good faith, is a recognition that mistakes happen and that the will of the electorate should not be frustrated by the removal from office of the successful candidate in such circumstances. • 50 In this election, the spending limit for each of the four candidates was more than $19,000.00 . 'lle5tl .i ~~ Nellt CANAD11 Copynghl O Thomson Reulars Canada Limited or Its licensors (exdudlng individual court documcnls). All n!lhls resel'\led. 7 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) 574-:-..

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 or 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 list ofcontributon; 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 ofhis 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 candtdnte~ 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 ofu pn.-sident or a business manager or a cheque signatory.

55 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<.m1tions totalled Sl,750.00, including the $1,000.00 that he later paid back. Contributions totalling $I 00.00 or less accounted for a further S867.00 and he contributed $4,084.57 of his own money.

57 In the interest ofcompleteness, Ipoint out that Mr. Harris i;pcnt SS,341.74. He listed six individuals ond seven corporations who contributed Sl00.00 or more. The contributions by individuals tot.ailed $1,500.00. The contributions by corporations tolllllcd $3, 150.00, including the S750.00 that he Inter paid bock. Contributions totalling S 100.00 or less accounted for a further $25.00 and he contributed S3,766.74 ofhis own money to finance his campaign.

58 Logic tells me that one reoson for the requirement that a candidate must include an address for each corporation and the name of each cheque signatory and the name of either the president or the business manager for each corporation is to make it easier for anyone reviewing the form to detect corporations that arc likely associated. In the case ofMr. Siscoc it was very evident from the infonnution he provided that all three corporations were ll.SSociated since all three corporations had the some address and nil three signatories had the same family name. In addition, the decision ofthe Commiltee made It clear that they were satisfied that Mr. Siscoe's fo1lurc to provide the name of either the corporate president or the business manager was unin1cntional and that he was not trying to conceal anything.

59 The decision of the Committee also made it clear that the Committee accepted thnt the failure on the part of Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Stack to list their corporate contributors in the part of the fonn designated for that pwpo!le and to provide further infonnation as lo the cheque signatory and either the company prcsidenl or business manager was unintentional and that neither candidate was trying to conceal anythin!,!.

60 I find no reason to interfere with the decision of lhe Committee that the above mistakes by Mr. Stack and Mr. Dorsey and Mr Siscoe did not constitute acontravention ofthe Act by any ofthem.

Failure to Record VHlue of Inventory of Campaign Materials Retsalncd

61 Mr. Hams did not record any inventory of campaib'll materials retained following the election as required pursuant to the Act. Mr. Stack showed only S200.0U in inventory of campaign materials retained. 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 ofthe meeting of the Committee make it clear thot at that meeting, "The Chair asked Ms. Lancaster ifshe was satisfied that the inventory ofsigns was resolved. Ms. Lancaster concurred."

64 Counsel for the Appdlnnt advised me during his submissions that the Appellant was abandoning this ground ofappeal.

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, ifthey 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 ofSusan Dodds filed by Respondent Compliance Audit Committee, pa.rn. S, 5 Ibid., para. 6. • 6 Affidovil ofBrian Dorsey, para. 7.

Ead ofDocument Copyrigln 0 llionuon Reuters Cana~ Limned or iis liccnsors (excluding iodi~iduol court documcnlll). All riKhis reserved.

~ V~!;tlawNext CAHA!IA Copyright O Thomson Reulers Canada Umiled or Is Ucensats (exdud1ng Individual eaun documents). NI nght5 rcsel'lod. 9

5 0

0 ======------' .

1" r1 1 r ,.~ \: ..-_• 0

0

0 Vezina v. Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, ... 2o13 ONSC 2368,°2013Carswell0nt 5762, 10 M.P.L.R. (51h) 3~------··--­

2013 ONSC 2368 • Ontario Superior Court of Justice Vezina v. Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee

2013 CarswcllOnt 5762, 2013 ONSC 23681 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 ofthe 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 ofreview 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 candidat~ to submit to compliance audit. and in due course candidate's stalcments were submitted to Election Campaign Finances Committee, which included inter alia three certified accountantc; - Committee found no evidence of any Act violation by candidate on face of record and declined to appoint compliance 11uditor Elector appcalcd - Appculsjudgc held that standard ofrc:view was reasonableness and lhat committee was expert tribunal acting within jurisdiction - Appeals judge found arguable issues with respect to rent.Ill realty valuation - Appeal was accordingly allowed, committee was ordered to appoint auditor nnd 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, by effectively substituting appeals judge's view of record for lhllt ofcommiuce, appeals judge erred in law by in fact applying wrong standard of review, correctness Co1Tec1 or not, committee's decision was within reasonnble range of possible outcomes and appeal wn.-; nccordingly properly allowed.

Administrative law - Standard of review - Reasonableness - ReasunahlcnHs simpliciter

Municipal election candidate compliance audit comnuttec - Cundidate in municipal election tiled audited financial statements with municipality, pursuant to s. 78(l) of Municipal Elections Act, 1996 - Elector detected irregulanties, notably in respect of value of douarcd renlal realty, in statements - Elector brought s. 81 (I) Act application for order compelling candularc to submit to compliance audit, and in due course candidate's Slalemcnts were submittec.l to Election Campaign Finances Committee, which included inter alia three certified accountants - Committee found no evidence of any Act violation by candidate on face ofrecord and declined to appoint compliance auditor - Elector appealed - Appeals judge held that standard ofreview was reasonableness and that committee was expert tnbunal acting within jurisdiction

'.'/.•~ UilW Next CANAOA Copyright 0 Thomson Reuters Canad;i 1.Jmrtcd or 115 llecn50<$ (excluding indiv1du;il court documents) All nghlS l1!SefVOd Vezina v. Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, ... 2013 ONSC 2368. 2013 CarswelfOnt 5762, 10 M~P -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, by cfTcctivcly substituting appeals judge's view ofrecord fur that ofcommittee, appealsjudge cned in law by in foct applying wrong standard ofreview, correctncss- Corrccl or not, commiucc's decision was within reasonable range ofpossible outcomes and appeal was accordingly properly allowed.

Table of Authorities

Cases considered by K. van Rem·bur~ J.:

Dickerson v. Compliance Audit Committee of Pickering (City) (December 21, 21111 ), Doc. 2X 11999 (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 Brun.~wick) [2008] I S.C.R. 190, 844 A.P.R. I, (sub nom. Dunsmuir v. 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. New 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. New Brunswick) 95 L.C.R. 65 (S.C.C.)- followed

Statutes considered:

Mu111c1pal Elections A,·1. 1996, S.0. 1996, c. 32, Scheu. Generally - referred to

s. 66( I ) - considered

s. 66(2) - considered

s. 66(2) ~ I 1iii - referred to

s. 66(2) ~ 2 1 1 - rcfcm:d to

s. 66(3) considered

s. 66(3)(u) - considered

s. 71 (I ) - considered

s. 76(4) - considered

Westl,iwNext' c:.t.NADA Cop~Jl9hl e Thomson Rooiers C:mada Um~ed or its licensors (e~cludlng lnd1v1dual IXlUrt documents) All nghts rcscMid 1 Vezina v. Mississauga Election 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 ofMs Parrish's election campaign finances. The Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee (the "Committee") refused the request, nnd Mr. Vezina appealed successfully lo the Ontario Court of Justice (the "OCJ"). Ms Parrish appe3ls to this court from the decil>ion of Duncan J., directing a compliance audit of her campaib>n finances.

2 Section 81(1) ofthe MEA provides lhat "an elector who is entitled to vole in an election and believe:> on reasonable grounds that a candidate has contravened a provision of [the) Act relating to election campaign finances may apply for a compliance audit oftbc candidate's election campaign finances". The application is required to be mode to the city clerk, and is forwarded to acommittee established under s. 81.1 of the Act.

3 Section 81.1 of the MEA requires that the compliance nudit commitlcc (referred to by lhc City of Mississauga as lhc "election campaign finances committee") not include members of council, city employees or officers, or candidates from the election in question. As such, the legislation represents a departure from 1he provisions in force prior to its amendment in 2009, which required the city council lo decide an audit application, or lo dclcgalc its powers to do so lo a committee. According to City of Mississauga tenns of reference, the election campaign finances commlltce is required lo have five \'Oling members, with at least one member holding a recognized accounting designation. The Committee in this case included one certified management accountant, and two certified general accountants.

4 Section 81 (5) of the MEA provides lhnt, "within 30 days after receiving the application, the committee shall consider lhc application and decide whether it should be granted or rejected". Under s. 81(7), if the committee decides to grant the applica1ion. it shall appoint an auditor 10 conduct n compliance nud1t of the cand1dn1c's election campaign firumccs.

WestlawNext. CANADA Copynghl e ThomS011 Reuters Canada Umote!I or il!I locensors (exdu

5 Once appointed, the auditor is required to promptly conduct an audit of the candidate'~ election camp1ugn finances to determine whether he or she has complied with the provisions ofthe 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 of 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) ifthe report concludes that the candidate appears to have conlrJvened a provision of the Act relating to election campaign finances, commence a legal proceedmg against the candidate for the apparent contravention; or (b) if the report concludes that the candidate does not appear to have contravened 11 provision of the Act relating to election campaign finances, make a finding 11s to whether there were reasonable grounds for the application; s. 81(14).

6 Pursuant to s. 81(3), the cost of 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 ofwhich she had noted an in-kind donation by EMBEE Properties Ltd. ("EMDEE"). Mr. Vezina asserted that the value of 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 ofthe per-candidate contribution limit of $750 under s. 71(1) ofthe 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 of the apphcation. I 0 The Commiuee deliberated and then provided its decision us follows: • Nu compelling and credible information which raises reasonable probab1hty of breach of statute (MEA). Application for compliance audu is denied for the above reason

11 Mr. Vezin:i appealed the Committec'i> decision to the OCJ under s. 81 (6) of the MEA. That section does not speak to the standard of review, but simply states lltut "the court may make any dec1i;ion the committee could have made."

12 The appeal was heard on May 22, 2012. The evidence before the OCJ was the record ofproccedmgs, consisting of minutes of the meeting before the Comm1Uee, documents received by the Commillce and marked as exhibits, as well as the affidavits ofGreg Vczin:i and Carolyn Parrish. The affidavits, which set out what occum:d before the Committee and repeated the evidence the parties bad supplied to the Committee, were accepted by the coun in the absence of a verbatim trnnscript of the proceedings. 1

I 3 In his reasons for judgment dated June 19, 2012, Duncan J. addressed only Mr. Vezinn's complaint about Ms Pamsh's rent expenses. As a compliance audit was warrdntcd as 11 result of his dctenninalion of that issue, it was unnecessary to deal with the second and third points raised in the application and considered by the Committee

14 The relevant evidence on the rent issue both before the Committee and the OCJ wa.<; as follows Ms Parrish had dcch1rcd a rent expense for her campaign hendquancrs of S750 in total for the two month campaign period. Mr. Vezina submitted that this amount on its fucc was extremely low for commercial space in that area. In his evidence he compared Ms Parrish's stated office expenses, including rent, to those of other candidates from the 2011 by-election and the 2010 election. He also compared what candidates in a similar area had indicated for "rent, heat and light"' on their dcclarauons in respect of federal election • c11mp11igns A licensed realtor testified about the market value for long term leases of commercial real estate in the area, and

W•:'ittld\'1NeJCt. CAHADA Copyright IC> Thom!IOn Reu\en Canada Um1led or its lic:ensors (exdud1ng 1nd;v1dual court documents) All 111Jllt5 reserved

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 11s set by the Mississauga city clerk. Mr. Vezina argued that, ifMs 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 respecting 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 ofEMBEE to inquire about temporary occupancy of720 Bristol Rd., Unit 8, and was advised that the space was vacant pending occ11pa1ion 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 garbage from the previous tenant be removed from the premises, that a SS million policy ofliability insurance be taken out at Ms Parrish's expense, and that a payment be ma

16 With the assistance orunpaid volunteers, truckloads ofgarbage were removed and damages to the premises were repaired, such thnt the space wus made suitable for use a.c; a campaign office on m about the last week orJuly 2011, and was occupied for six and a half weeks ending September 19, 201 I. The insurance was obtnmed nt n cost orS756, and S220.35 was paid to Enbridge. These payments, as well as a receipt for an "in kind" donation of $750 by EMDEE. were recorded in the Financial Statement. Ms Parrish provided copies ofthe expense records and a summary spreadsheet to the Committee.

17 In his reasons for judgment Duncan J. noted that the Committee must have accepted Ms Parrish's explanation on the rent issue. The judge however considered such explanation lo be "no answer'' to the requirements ofs. 66(3 )(a) ofthe M EA.

18 The relevant provisions are sections66(1 ), (2) and (3 ). Section 66( l) provides that "money, goods and services given to and accepted by ... a person for his or her election campaign ;ire contributions." Section 66(2) prm•idcs rules for dctennining whether an amount is a contribution, including that, where goods and services used in a person's election campaign arc purchased for less than their market value, Ilic difference between the amount paid and market value is a contribution: s. 66(2)1.iii, and thnt • the value ofservices provided by voluntary unpaid labour is not a contribution: s. 66(2)2.i. 19 Section 66(3)(a) provides as follows:

Value ofgoods und services

66. (3) The value ofgoods and services provided as a contribution is,

(a) if the contributor is in the business of supplying these goods and services, the lowest ;imount the contributor charges the general public in the same market area for similar goods and services provided at orabout the same time.

20 The essence of Mr. Vezina's complaint was that Ms Parrish's campaign otlicc spnce had not been valued at its "fair market value" in her Financial Statement. In his reasons for judgment on the appeal, Duncan J. noted that, "the MEA provides that lhe goods and services provided by way of contribution arc to be evaluated at fair market value (lhough that phra.~c is not used)". He concluded that the explanation offered by Ms Parrish Jill not utldrcss the requirement ofs. 66(3) ofthe MEA "and its requirement for valuation at fair market value", and thnt her evidence provided "no answer to it". He noted that "the message of that section is that when it comes to election expenses, there arc no freebies and there are no bargains". Finally, he stated:

I stress that my conclusion is based on the evidence presented. I am making no finding that there has been a violation of the Act or any wrongdoing by the Respondent Parrish - only that there were sufficient reasonable grounds presented by

the Applicant that were unanswered 011 the evidence prcscmcd by the Respondent.

21 In the appeal to this coun, Ms Parrish assened that Duncan J. em:d in bis application ofthe standard ofreview, ultimately substituting his own view for that or the Commiucc, and in any event emng in his interpretation of s. 66(3) as requiring an a.c;sessment of"fnir market value" oflhe rent. The Committee, which wns a respondent lo the appeal, but supported the position

'lit'':.ti rt1·1Next CANADA Copyright O Thomson Reukm; Can.ida limited or Its lk:ensors (e1cl11ding lncliVidual court 11 ocumen15) All nghts reserved. Vezina v. Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, ••. 20130NSC23sa:--201:fcarswell0nt5762,10M.P . L ~R . (5th)311 ... ------­ 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 ofreview by lhe OCJ 1s "correctness", and not "reasonableness" (so that Duncan J. was entitled to substitute his view for that ofthe 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 1s 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) ofthe 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 ofreview when the decisions were made by city council or o delego.ted committee. She concluded that the composition ofthe 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 Audit Committee ofPickering (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 ofthe 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 • where 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 ofa judicial review.

26 In New Brunswick (Board ofManagement) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] S.C J. No. 9 (S.C.C.), the reasonableness standard of review was described at para. 47 as follows:

Reasonableness is a deferential standard animated by the principle lhat underlies the de\'elopmcnt of the two prcvmus standards of reasonableness: certain questions that come before administrative tribunals do not lend themselves to one specific, particular result. Instead, they may give rise to n number of possible, reasonable conclusions. Tribunals have a margin of appreciation within the range of acceptable and rational solutions. A court conducting a re\liew for rCllsonublencss inquires into the qualities that make a decision reasonable, referring both to the process of arueulating the reasons and to outcomes. In judicial review, reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence ofjustification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether lhe decision falls within a range ofpossible, acceptable outcomes which arc defensible m respect of the factc; and lo.w.

27 TI1e qucsllon on appeal to the OCJ, accordingly, was whether the Committee's decision fell "within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect oftl1e facts and the Jaw".

28 I have concluded that the OCJ judge etTCd in hts application of the ~reasonablenec;s" standard m this case, based on his interpretation of the requirements of s. 66(3), as not including a consideration ofthe particular circumstances in which the cnmraign office was made available, and as such in rejecting Ms Parrish's explanation as providing "no answer". • V~'• • ; ti1w 1Next. CAHAOA Copyright O Thomson Reuters Canada Llmtted or ~s tic8n&nn; (exdud1n9 :n

29 Duncan l . may have been correct m dc.c;cribing the rent arrungcmcnt as "bargain basement", however in my new he overstated the requirements ofthe MEA provisions when he concluded that the message ofs. 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 11 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 ofthe 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. Vauglran (City}, [2009] OJ_No. I 057 (Ont. S.C.J.), in the context of11 review ofa bylaw authorizing the prosecution of a candidate for breaches of the MEA campaign finance provisionc; following the report of an auditor, Lauwers J. observed in obiter, thnt there was minimal discretion in the council's decision on whether to appoint an auditor, and that an auditor mu.~t be appointed if the applicntion shows reasonable grounds to believe that the ME.A has been violated: para. 5L That case predated the amendments to the McA, and denlt with the decision ofa city council, and not a specialized committee in considering an application for an audit.

34 In the present case, it is unnecessary to detennine whether it would have been reasonable for the Committee to have refused an audit ifa breach of the MEA was made out. The Committee's conclusion was that there was no reasonable probability of a breach of the MEA. a decision which in my view was reasonable.

35 Accordingly, I have concluded that, in respect of the campaign office space issue, it was within the range of reasonable outcomes for the Committee to have accepted Ms Parrish's explanation, to conclude that there had not been an apparent violation ofthe MEA, and to refuse 10 appoint an auditor.

3(1 Wilh respect to the second concern n1iscd in Mr. Vezina's application, he asserted that Ms Parrish had not presented any proof or accounting of her actual sign usage, and that she admitted that her garage was full of signs and stakes and that accounting accurately for them all was a challenge.

37 In response, Ms Parrish emphasized that she was a veteran of some nine elections. Following the 2010 election she had 347 large signs and 915 small signs left over, as declared in her 2010 financial statement. Some undnmnged signs had been stored in her garage, of which volunteers were able to modify 150 small sibrns and 50 large signs for use in the 2011 campaign

•.'lfl'i.I l r1wNext CANADA Copyright 0 Tnomson Reuters Can::ida Limited or Its lk:ensors (excluding ir\divrdU3! court crocuments>-All "l!hl$ 'esen.ed. 7 Vezina v. Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, ... 2013 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 si1,'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 I 0 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 the second complaint miscd in Mr V czina'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:k1trson 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 belief of the elector, as amplified at the hearing before the Comnuttee, detennincs whether reasonable grounds exist" (at parn. 70).

43 In the present case, Duncan J. referred to the decision m the Lancaster case, and stated at para. 13:

... the legislative scheme requires that the applicant have reasonable grounds for his belief that the Act has been contravened. The Committee must consider the application. However tJ1e AcL is silent as to the precise issue lo be considered; does it consider only the validity of the applicant's belief based on the grounds he hns presented? Ifthat were llO, its function would be very shallow indeed. In my view, the question for the Committee is not whether the npphcant, on tJ1c basis ofthe evidence he pruscnls, has or bud reasonable grounds for his belief that the Act had been infringed; the question is whether the Committee, on the basis of the applicant's evidence 10gether with any additional evidence believes on reasonable grounds that there had been a violation ...

44 I agree with Duncan J. on this issue. The function of a compliance audit committee is to consider an application for the appointment ofan auditor in the context of the infonnatiun that is provided by the applicant, as well as information that is provided by the candidate in response to the npplicnuon. The Committee held a meeting and gave the parties the opportunity to put forward their respective positions, so that it could make an informed decision whether to appoint on auditor.

45 While l agree with Duncan l's slJltements ofthe applicable test and standard ofreview, I have concluded for the reasons se out above that he ought not to have interfered witl1 the decisiun under appeal, which fell within a range of reasonable decisions available on the evidence that was before the Committee.

WesllnwNeJt.t,CAltACA Copyright Cl Thomson Raulors Canada Um11ed or llS 11cens111'$ (elldud1ng 1ndlvldual court documents), All nghls reservod. 11 Vezina v. Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, •••

2013-0NSC 2368, 2013 CarswellOnt 5762,To M.P:CR. (5th) 311 u• ------­

46 Accordingly, the decision of the Committee is restored 11nd the application for a compliance audit ofthe clcction finances • of Carolyn Parrish m the September 2011 Mississauga city by·clcction is dismissed. 47 If the 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 of receipt of the submissions seeking costs, and reply submissions, if any, within IO days ofreceipt of 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 bccau.~e that would traruifonn the appeal into u hcoring cle novo. I do not intend to deal with the question of the proper scope of 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 cle nuvv, when he decided 10 receive such evidence

End or Document Copyrighl 0 Thum~u11 Rcuu:r.; Canada Limited ur its licaisors (cxcludmg md1v1dual coun docwncnts}. All right~ r1:5crvcd

Westl;w1Next, CANADA Copyright (I Thomso11 Reulers Catlllda Limited or 11s lic:ensors (e•dudiOIJ individU

. .

0 6

0 ' '

0

0

0 Toronto Region

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

SEAN HARRISON

(Appellant)

·AND­

THE TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

(Respondent)

-AND­

MICHAEL COTEAU

(Added Party)

Before Justice Patrick Sheppard Heard on April 11 , 2008 Reasons for Judgment

Melissa A. Kehrer ...... for the Appellant Christine Lonsdale ...... for the Respondent Jack Siegel...... for the Added Party

P. SHEPPARD, JUSTICE

This is an appeal from a decision of the Compliance Audit Committee (the C.A.C.) of the Toronto District School Board (the T.D.S.B.) (the Respondent) made on May 23,2007 rejecting Sean Harrison's (Appellant) application for a compliance audit pursuant to Section 81 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

The legislative framework ofthis appeal is found in Sec. 81 (1) through ( 4) ofthat Act:

Compliance audit

81. (1) An elector who is entitled to vote in an election and believes on rensonable grounds that a candidate has contravened a provision of this Act relating to 2

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 any~ 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 Co 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. • Powers and limitations

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

{a) shall exercise the powers and duties delegated to it under that subsection with respect to all applications received under subsection (2) in relation to the election for which it is established; and

{b) shall not include employees or officers of the municipality or local board. as.the case may be, or members ofthe council or local board, as the case may be.

Appeal

(3.3) The decision of the council or local board under subsection (3) and of a committee under subsection (3) pursuant to a delegation under subsection (3.1) may be appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice within 15 days after the decision is made and the court may make any decision th.e council, local board or committee could have made.

Appointment of auditor 3

(4) If it is decided to grant the application under subsection (3), the appropriate council or local board shall ~ by resolution, appoint an auditor to conduct a compliance audit ofthe 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 17 ~ 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 appeal~ 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) ofthe 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. Cotcau1s re-election campaign because IDSB printed and distributed a document entitled, 11 September Trustee Update Budget Consultation" at the request of Michael Coteau.

(c) The TDSB made a contribution to Mr. Cotcau's re-election campaign because Mr. Coteau used the Toronto District School Board's email to promote his October Ward Council Meeting.

(d) The TDSB made a contribution to Mr. Coteau's re-election campaign because TDSB printed and distributed a document entitled, "2006/2007 Budget Report" on Toronto District School Board letterhead at the request of Michael Coteau,

(5] The T.D.S.B. would not have been entitled to make a contribution to the election campaign ofMr. Coteau under the Municipal Elections Act.

[6] The existence of these documents/sites is not disputed, nor the fact Mr. Coteau did not report any such contributions in his financial statement required by Section 78 of the Municipal Elections Act

[7] The TDSB had established a C.A.C. to fulfill its Sec.81 functions for the 2006 municipal elections by motion at its meeting ofSeptember 20, 2006. The C.A.C. was composed of the same 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 2006 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 ofthe 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 Mr. Harrison's application for an audit of Mr. Coteau's financial statements.

[11] The Committee issued no reasons for their decision.

[12] The C.A.C.'s decision was appealed to this court by amended Notice of Appeal dated March 12, 2008.

0 STAND ARD OF REVIEW

This is an appeal on a question of fact and law in which the delegating elected bodies both Toronto City Council and T.D.S.B. created a body whose members were appointed specifically for their expertise. Therefore, it is argued that this court, on appeal, ought to apply a standard of review reflecting deference to the expertise of this body. This importantly distinguishes this appeal from those before my colleagues Culver and Duncan in Chapman v City of Hamilton 2005 ONCJ 158 and Savage v. Niagara Falls l6 M.P.L.R (4th) 252 where the appeals under the same section were from decisions of the elected City Councils. My colleagues found, and l agree, that the elected councillors possessed no real expertise, other than that gained from a 5

successful run for elected office and therefore, no deferency was owed to their decision. In fact, • an issue ofcompetitive 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 OF THE FOUR COMPLAINTS

It must first be noted that Mr. Coteau was the sitting and presiding trustee for Ward 17 at the time ofeach ofthe four elements ofthe 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. In 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 ofthe responsibilities ofelected 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 the high profile elected incumbent to that body that the voters will hold responsible and pumsh at the election.

Mr. Harrison was attempting to unseat an incumbent, Mr. Coteau. This court finds that each of the 4 cornmumcations - 3 printed and 1 electronic - appear to have been produced in the ordinary course of a school board elected representative's responsibilities. None of the four pieces speak to why the trustee should be re-elected and certainly not to why Mr. Harrison should not be elected. Mr. Harrison is mentioned no where in the four communications.

On review, the closest Mr. Coteau comes to an electorally partisan message in these items is the following closing lines ofhis "September Trustee Update: Budget Consultation" where he states:

"Thank you for your continued support and interest m our children's future. As always, I am pleased to be here to help support our children, staff and community in whatever ways I can."

Any self promotion read into these words is entirely referred to trustee duties in office and therefore, not meat for a valid complaint. 6

Finally, within the TDSB website. space 1s 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 ofMr. 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. It 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 of 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 of a compliance audit of the election campaign finances of Mr. Coteau. It is not an issue that this website was established entirely at the personal expense of 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 was broken long before election day, quickly after the complaint and without real expense to the TDSB. This element of the complaint is one in which the doctrine ofde minimus should apply.

Therefore, there are no substantial merits to any of the four allegations making up the substance of the complaint of 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 ofcosts to be addressed.

Released: June 19, 2008

Signed: Justice Patrick Sheppard

• . .

0 i I •

..;,. .. 0

0

0 •

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MICHAEL CRAIG UNDER THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT, l 996 (THE "ACT") TO THE • CITY OF TORONTO CO:rvtPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE IN·RESPECT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF MARK GRIMES, CANDIDATE 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 ofmy belief and verily believe it to be true.

2. I have reviewed the Application and swear this affidavit in response to certain matters

raised therein.

Background

3. l was first elected as City Councillor for Ward 6 in 2003 and have won every re-campaign

since that time. All of my campaigns have relied heavily on volunteers, including many members

of my family and their extended networks of friends and business associates throughout Ward 6.

My team and I are experienced campaigners who are well versed in running successful campaigns.

I am generally familiar with the laws and regulations governing municipal finance. In my J2 years

in municipal politics, I have never faced a Compliance Audit. 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 ofmy successful campaigns. He has volunteered countless hours of his own time .to 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. Craig~' 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.

7. Below, I offer some important evidence which refutes Mr. Craig's baseless allegations.

Campaign Literature Expenses

8. For my 2014 Municipal Election campaign (the "Campaign"), I reported $7,293.51 m expenses related to brochures and flyers. These expenses are reflected in my audited Form 4, which is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit C.

9. The brochures commissioned by the Campaign were provided by Gullons Printing

("Gullons"), which is a third-party commercial printing centre. I understand that my campaigns have used Gullons to print large volumes of printed material in both the 2010 and 2006 Municipal

Elections. As far as I know, there is no familial or personal relationship between myself or any of

my Campaign personnel and Gullons.

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

City Clerk. Attached as Exhibit D to this Affidavit are copies ofeach ofthe three relevant Gullons

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

The Campaign paid these expenses and they were reported on my Form 4 under brochure/fl~er

expenses.

11. The Campaign produced a number ofdifferent printed materials. Attached as Exhibit E to

this Affidavit is a chart breaking out which of 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

included in the Gullons invoices and is detailed in the breakdown. Attached as Exhibit F to this

Affidavit is a copy ofthis brochure.

13. Based on discussions with my campaign personnel, I understand that Gullons does not

actually print most material that they sell. Instead, l understand that they sub-contract work to large

volume printers which are not otherwise available to members of the public for small-scale print

runs. They have no design team, no retail operation, and do none oftheir own editing.

14. All of the design and layout of my campaign's brochures were done by campaign

volunteers, who have gained experience in using the relevant computer software from past 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 Exhibit G to this

Affidavit are Google maps demonstrating the locations of 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 Exhibit ff to this Affidavit is a copy of the invoice from James

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

17. With respect to the distribution ofthese materials, I did not declare any distribution-related expenses because the campaign did not incur any. It is true that my campaign distributed a

substantial amount of literature, but the distribution of campaign materials was done entirely by

volunteers. This was possible for us because of the large volunteer network I described above.

Although it is hard to know the exact figure, I estimate that over 250 volunteers were engaged with

the campaign in one way or another. I attribute most ofmy success in the 2014 Municipal Election

to the unpaid efforts of dedicated and hardworking citizens. • Advertising Expenses

18. With respect to the online video costs raised by Mr. 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 Exhibit I.

19. In the Application, Mr. Craig alleges that Mr. Lochner and Mr. Heaslip, the photographer described above, are p~ers in the film and video production company Fifth Ground

Entertainment Inc. ('4FGE") which is owned by Mr. Chris Szarka ("Mr. Szarka"). Mr. Craig suggests that their professional association with FGE 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 would be lower than if we hired FGE. At no time did the Campaign pay FGE for any content

produced for the Campaign.

21. The videos produced by Mr. Lochner, which featured me, were shot almost entirely on one day on locations within a short distance ofone another in Ward 6. They were completed with little

or no editing, voiceovers, sound-mixing or many of the other post-production costs referred to in

Mr. Craig's Application.

22. In any event, Mr. Lochner was employed lo produce only a small portion ofthe videos on the Campaign website. The vast majority of these videos were shot on the cellphone cameras of 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. I 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 ofthis invoice.

24. With respect to the "robocalls" made by then-candidate John Tory ("Mr. Tory") endorsing my election, the campaign paid for the cost ofthese calls in their entirety. The cost was $0.05 per call, with a minimum charge of$100.00. The calls were targeted at voters who were known to be supporters ofMr. 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 oftrucks, decorated with Grimes Campaign signs, drove along main streets of Ward 6, flashing their lights.

26. No such expenses were reported because my campaign did not solicit or pay for the use of any vehicles for advertising during the campaign. Ifany individuals drove vehicles in the fashion described by Mr. Craig, they did so on their own initiative and were not solicited or paid to do so by the Campaign.

27. No gas receipts are reflected in the Campaign's expenses because no gas receipts were submitted to the Campaign, by volunteers or otherwise. 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'

volunteer.

29. As noted above, Mr. Maloney has managed all four of my successful campaigns. I

understand that he has assisted in various roles on other campaigns for over 20 years. At the time

he assisted on my latest campaign, Mr. Maloney was himself the City Councillor for Ward 5,

having been appointed to that role in June 2014. He did not seek re-election that fall.

30. Again, at no point was Mr. Maloney paid by my Campaign for his services. Mr. Maloney

has never been paid for his time as my campaign manager during any of my last four campaigns . • 31. Similarly, at no time was Ms. Paxton paid for the time she spent on the Campaign. 32. In response to Mr. Craig's general comment that a campaign cannot run exclusively on

volunteers, I disagree. Given the campaign spending limits, having an effective volunteer network

in place is essential to winning campaigns. In fact, the majority of successful city councillor

campaigns in the 2014 election hnd zero salary expenses. Attached as Exhibit L to this Affidavit is

a spreadsheet summarizing the salary expenses of the 44 successful 2014 City Councillor

campaigns.

33. Furthennore, as stated above, my successful campaigns have always been the product of

substantial community and family support. My wife and I have large immediate families, most of

whom live in the Ward. I am one of three siblings and have five children of my own, all of whom • volunteer significant time to the campaigns. In part through events my children have participated in, such as hockey and lacrosse leagues, and in part through other community relationships, I have been fortunate enough to build a large network of 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 ofwhom was paid the same flat fee per month ofservice 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 ofthe invoices reflecting these expenses. • For the sake of the privacy ofthe individuals involved, the names and addresses ofthe individual coordinators are redacted.

36. Attached at Exhibit N is a chart summarizing the costs and expenses of the top ten

successful candidates' fuodraisers. As is clear, our fundraising expenses were consistent with the

average expenditures ofother campaigns.

Income Recognition/Loans

37. I have no reason to believe that the Campaign incurred any additional expenses beyond

those reported in the Form 4. Mr. Craig's allegation that my Campaign must have spent over

$100,000 is inaccurate and untrue. I did not Joan the Campaign any money and, to my knowledge,

it did not have any source of funds beyond those disclosed on my Form 4. SWORN BEFORE ME at the City of Tpi:~ i~Cif,oi%Fo on the £z r or Taking Affidavits (or as may be) . . A 0

0

() 0

0

0 This is Exhibit .. A" referred to in the Affidavit of Mark Grimes sworn Se~ptem~l, 2015 /"' I . l; ?"~---- Mlnlstryd Mtnclpal Affaln andHouma Financial Statement-Auditor's Report .£;.>Ontario Fonn4 Municipal 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 Incurexpenses 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 ofthe election.

YYYY MM DO yyyy MM OD

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 aftervoting day In a by-election} f:I Supplemental)' filing Including fi~ 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 Given Name(s) FORD Russ Name of office for wtalc:h the candidate sought eledlon Ward name or no. (if any) COUNCllLOR 6 Name of MunldpaJity

TORONTO ~S~pe~nd~~-g~R~mrt-:-:-m-su-ed'""'":"':by~drefk~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~0 40,432.25

IEl I did not accept any c:ootributions or Incur any expen5e5 other than the nomlnaUon fee. (Complete SmA and B only} IBox B : Declaration

l, Russ Ford, a cancfldate In the munlclpality ofToronto, hereby declare to1he best of my knowledge and belief that these financial statements and atfached supporting schedufes are true and correct.

Declared befOre (der1C or commissioner) .,the City oE on (yyyylmmtdd) }

9503P (20 t 311 t) Q Queen's Pnnter lrom Ontano. 2013 Paget of 8 IBox c: Statementof cam~alD!! Income and Ex(!!nses N· e ofbank or recognized lending Institution ntborrowed s INCOME TOlal amount of an conbtbutions (From line 1AIn Schedule 1) .. $ 39,621.33 RefUnd ofnomination 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 ofcampafs!! office erinter + s 115.00 2. + $ 3. + $ Tobi Campaign Income (Do not include loan) = $ 40.9911.29 C1 EXPENSES (Note: Include lhe value ofconbibutlons ofgoods and sefVic:es) Expenses Subjectto Spending Umlt Nomination fffing fee + $ 100.0C lnvenlDry from previous campaign used int his campaign (list details In Table + $ 5 ofSchedule 1) Advertising + s Brochureslftyers + $ 7,236.32 Signs (induoing sign deposH) + s 7,185.31 Meetngs Hosted + $ 582.83 Office expenses Incurred until ~ting 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 untilvoting 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 andAudit + $ 2,260.00 Costsof funckalaing eventsladivftles (list details In Part IV ofSchedule 2) + s 840.00 Voting dayparty/appredatlon notices + s 850.00 Office mcpenses incurred after voting day + s 285.28 Phone and/or Internet expenses lnamed aftervoting day + $ 26.40 Salaries, benefits, honoraria, professional fees Incurred after voting day. + $ Bank Charges Incurred aftervoting day + $ 14.95 Interest charged on loan aftervoting day + $ Elcpenses related tD recount + $ Expenses related to controverted election + $ Expenses related to compliance atJdll + s Expenses related to candidate's di&ablTity (provide full detaDs) 1. + s z. + $ 3. + $ Other (provide full details) 1.Merchant Banking Contnbutlon Processing Fee's + s 49944 2. + $ 3. + $ Total EJrpenses not subject to spending limit .. $ 4,776.D7 C3 Total Campaign EJl:pensn (C2) + (C3) = $ 40,998.29 C4

3P (2013111) Page2 cfB Box D· Calculation ofSu lus or Deflclt

• Exce5s (deficlenc:y) ofIncome over expenses (Income - Total Expenses) (C1-C4) + $ D1

Blgible deficit carried forward by the cancfldate from the last election ---$,....._ $ ______D2 Total (D1-D2) Ifthera 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 amount must be paid In trust. at the time the 1inandal statements are filed, to the muntcipal dertt who was responsible for the conduct of the election.

Amount of$- paid to municipat deric In the municipality ofToronto

9503P (201311 t} Page 3or8 ~dute 1 - Contributions :: '.. firt I ·Summary ofContributions Contnbution from candidate (include the value cf lnventmy listed In Table 5) + $ 652.20 Conlnbutlcn from spouse + ------$ 750.00 Total value ofcontributions not exceecfmg $100 per contributor ------­ • include ticket revenue. cxmtributions In money, goods and services where lhe lo1al contribution from a contribulor is $100 or less (do not include contributions from from candidate or spouse). + $ 10,384.13 TolaI value of conlribulfons exceeding $100 per contribuCor (from nn 16; list ------­ details In Tables 1-4) • klclude ticket revenue, contributions In m6ney, goods and services Wflere Ute total contribution from a a>ntrlbutor eicceeds $100 (do not lndude conbibutions fi'om from candidate er spouse. + $ 27,835.00 Less: Contribution returned or payable to lhe contributor $ Contnl>utlon paid or payable to lhe dert, Including contributions from anonymous sources exceeding $10. $ Total Amount of Contributions (Record In Box C) = s 39,621.33 1A

Part fl • Uat ofContributions from Each Single Conb1butor totaling Mon than $100 Table 1: Monetarw conbfbutions from lndMduafs otherthan candidate ors...... e Name Full Addrus Amounts - ...... - . . - .

Additional lnfonnatlon is fisted on separate supplementaly attachment Tatar Xl.836.00

9503P (2013/t 1) Page4 of8 Schedule 1: Part If - List ofContributors from Each Single Contnl>utor totalling Mor than $100 Table 1: Monetary contributors from lndMduals other than candidate or s:ouse I Name I Address Amount Adam Feldman 6 Lake Shore Dr 6, Toronto, ON, MBV m 210.00 Alan Broadbent 170 BloorStW 804, Toronto, ON, MSS 11'9 200.DO Allan Valk 48Thirteenth St. Toronto, ON, MBV 3H4 300.00 Anna Janaslk 48 13thSt.Toronto, ON, M8V 3H4 300.00 Barbara Pidcodc 2676 ukeShore Blvd W,Toronto, ON, M8V 1G8 500.00 Brian Mackay 67Jellicoe Ave, Toronto, ON, MSW 1WS 300.00 cary Milner S6 Borden St. 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 61HemanSt.Toronto, ON, M8V lX4 300.00 Dan Abrahams 299 Glendale Ave. Toronto, ON, M6P 4A6 200.00 David carson 185Humberv.ale Blvd, 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 Debbie Hardy 87A Alder Cres, Toronto, 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 GeorgeSt, Toronto, ON, MSA 2MS 200.00 Duncan Farnan 59Station Rd, Toronto, ON, M8V 2R2 200.00 El1zabeth Beader 8 Hills Hts. Toronto, ON, MSY 1Z1 350.00 Eva Hourihan 1409 Applewood Rd, Mlsslssau~ ON, l5E 2M1 700.00 Fatima FUlppl 96Comay Rd. Toronto, ON, M6M 212 200.00 Faye Worth SS Bridesburg Cr206, Toronto, ON, M9R 2K7 200.00 Frank CUnnln£ham 130cartton St905,Toronto, ON, MSA 4K3 200.00 George Takach S Marine Parade Dr 713, Toronto, ON, MRV 484 500.00 Glenys Huws 49Wheatfield Rd,Toronto, ON. MBV 2PS 300.00 GrahamJones 16Acom Ave. Toronto, ON, M9B 3P8 300.00 l~e Jones 16AcomAve, Toronto, ON, M9B 3P8 300.00 lvone Branco 3 Mendota Rd 34,Toronto, ON, MST 1ES 200.00 Jan Vanderwal 41 S~rtorAve.Toronto, ON, M8V 2J1 750.00 Jane2efdfer 1 Benvenuto Pl702.Toronto, ON, M4V 2U 200.00 Jasmin Earle S4 EleventhSt,Toronto, ON, MBV 3G4 300.00 Jem Caln 131Sixteenth St, Toronto, ON, M8V3J9 500.00 Jim DlodatJ 46 Oakfield Dr, Toronto, ON, M8Y 1NB 750.00 JoAnne Doyle 197Golfwood Dr, Hamilton, ON, 1.9C 7C6 500.00 Jocelyn Beddes 1211 Partwest Pl 9, Mlsslssaup, ON, LSE 3J3 300.00 John Gibson 401 Sunnyside Ave, Toronto,ON, M6R 2S2 200.00 John Hulchanski 43 Glenwood Ave, Toronto, ON, M6P 3C7 150.00 JohnSewen 76A Hilton Ave, Ton>nlo, ON,, MSR3E7 300.00 Julia Barnett 191TwelfthSt4,Toronto, ON, MBV 4E2 300.00 KanmPhelps 1375Stephenson Dr42. Bur1ington, ON, l7S 2M4 300.00 ICeddone Dias 221 Cuncanwoods Dr, Toronto, ON, M9l 2ES 300.00 Keith Pownall 3391 BloorStW 605,Toronto, ON, MBX 1G3 750.00 LaurenceJohnston 53 Bevdale Rd, Toronto, ON, M2R 1l8 200.DO UanneMarr 38Stadium Rd 628, Toronto, ON, MSV 3P4 300.00 Uanne Regendanz S6SixthSt.Toronto,ON,M8V3A2 500.00 UndaGraham 35 Fourth St. Toronto, ON, MBV 2Y2 200.00 UzRykert 76A Hilton Ave, Toronto, ON, MSR 3E7 300.00 Lorraine Duff 921ShawSt.Toronto, ON, M6G 3M5 200.00 Lorraine Telford 42 Femwood Park Ave, Toronto, ON, M4E 3G1 250.00 Maggi Redmonds 277 Booth Ave, Toronto, ON, M4M 2M7 150.00 Margaret Ollder 411 v.ilermo Dr, Toronto, ON, MSW 216 300.00 Margaret Clupa 62 Fairfield Ave, Toronto. ON, MSW 1R8 200.00 Mario Galofaro SB Kenneth Ave, Toronto, ON, M6P lJ3 600.00 Melissa Nelson 97 EJghtth St., Toronto, ON, MSV 3CS 2SO.OO Michael Craig 56 Sheth St, Toronto, ON, MBV 3A2 300.00 Michael Earle 54 Eleventh St, Toronto, ON, M8V 3G4 300.00 Michael Hotrum 16 Dartmouth Cres, Toronto, ON, M8V 1Xl 500.00 Michael Olivier "9 I~ Rd, Toronto, ON, M6H 22.8 750.00 Michelle Soares-McCarthy 83 Kennlnghall Cres, Mississauga, ON, LSN 2T8 300.00 Mila Mohammed 202 l;llce Promenad~ Toronto, ON, MSW 1AS 150.00 Netres Van loon 24 Humewood Gdns, Toronto, ON, M6C 1Gl 250.00 Pat Evans 70 Thirty Sixth St. Toronto, ON, MBW 3L2 400.00 Patr1da Plant 29 Rfth st,. Toronto, ON, MSV m 300.00 Peter Shepherd 77 Miles Rd, Toronto, ON, MSV 1V4 2SO.OO Pushkala Taracad 330 Bumhamthorpe Rd W 1601, Mississauga, ON, LSB OEl 200.00 R. Scott James 20 Niagara St 40~Toronto, ON, MSV 3L8 250.00 Jtmdafl Ha~ 29 Elton O'es, Toronto, ON, MSW 2X9 200.00 Renate Kok 1 Market St, Toronto, ON, MSE OA2 200.00 Rob Howarth 14 Grfmthorpe Rd, Toronto, ON, M6C 1G3 300.DO Robert Gumns 40Twenty Second St, Toronto, ON, MBV 3Ml 200.00 Rudolph Wiens 28 CUtler Cres, Toronto, ON, MSW 2K5 300.00 Ruth Grier 74 Arcadian Ctd,Ttironto, ON, MBW 2Y9 500.00 Sandra Van Ruymbeke 401 Sunnyside Ave, Toronto, ON, M6R 2S2 200.00 Shella Masters 1S Tenth St. Toronto, ON, MBV 3E7 200.00 St!!phanle Ford 12 Viewbank Rd, Toronto, ON, MlN 1E7 750.00 Steve Nazar 411 Valermo Dr, Toronto, ON, M8W 2L7 300.00 • TenyGrier 74 Arcadian Cn:le,. Toronto, ON, MSW 2Y9 750.00 llmButler 340 lhe East Mall 802. Toronto, ON, M9B 326 200.00 W.E.Bamett 6 Medalist Rd, Toronto, ON, M2P 1Y4 200.00 WalterY-1111 59 Fenn Ave. Toronto, ON, M2L1M9 500.0D Wanda Jurashelc 59 22nd St, Toronto, ON, MBV 3M2 300.00 Wendy Goodine 71 Thirty Seventh St, Toronto, ON, MSW 3L7 200.00 Wendy Pinder 2269 Lake Share Blvd W 709, Toronto, ON, MBV 3X6 300.00 Wllllam Slndalr 190 Manitoba st801, Toronto, ON, M8Y 3Y8 250.00 William Thomas 12 Vlewbank Rd,Toronto, ON, M1N 1E7 700.00 27,835.00 Table 2: Morurtarv contri. butfons from cotDOrati ans or OIW Name (Legal and Carrying on Address Presidentor Authorized Amount$ Business As) Business Manager Representative I . - ' - . .

6 .

I I I -

- ~ Add"rtional Information Is listed on separaie supplementary attacflment Total .

Table 3; Contributione In goods oreervlce9 from lndlvldua1s otherthan candidate orspouse Not. must also be ntcOrded as• lnBoxC Goods orSemces Values

Melissa Nelson '11 E'ighUh Street. Toronto, ON, M8V 3C5 logo, sign and I-shirt artwork design. 250.00

[:J Ad

9503P (2013111) Page Sota .-1'.:lble 4: Conbibutions In nood 1 orservices from c...~ ··ons orunions lffote:must also be recorded as eXDt mses In BoxCl President or Authorized Value$ cr oof Corporation I Full Addntss ~and Canying on Buslnl!A Manager RapresentaUve Business As) I . I

I I I . . - - - .

$ ­ Cl Adcfitional Information Is listed on separate supplementary attachment Total - ~...-...ml Part11 Contributions (Add Totals from Tables 1-4t (Record In PartI -Summary) $ 28,085.0C 1B

art Ill - Inventory Tabla 5: Inventory of Campaign Goods and Material• from Pfevlous Campaign used In this Campaign (Not&: value must be rKOrded H a conbibutlon from the candldste and as an upense)

Description Date Acquired Supplier Cement Market Quantity Total Value$ lwwlmmlddl Value$ ------. ------. ------

Additional lnformaUon Is listed on separate supplemen1ary attachment Total -

9503P (201311 t I Page6ot8 Schedule 2 - Fundralslng Events and Actlvltf" .. Fundralalng EvenUActMty Complebl a separateschedule for eacheventoractivity held.

[] AddlUonal schedute{s) attached

Desaiption orfundraising evenVactivity Maple Syrup Resele Fundralsing Act!vfty Date of even1/activity (yyyyhnm/dd) 20141 03/ 17 (this scttvtty occurred througflout campaiun period)

Part 1- llcket Revenue Admission charge (per person) (ff lhere are a range ofticket prices, attach complete breakdown of all ticket sales) + ...;$:;;...... ____ 2A Number of tickets sold X ZB Total TicketRevenue (2A x ZB) (lnclud1t Jn Schedule 1) =$

Partti - OtherRewnue Deemed A Contrfbutfon (Provide FuD details (e g., revenue from goods said In exceaa of fair market value))

1. + $ 2. + s 3. + $ 4. + $ 5. + $ Total Part aRevenue (Include InSchedule 1) - $ PartIll - Other Revenue Not Deemed A Contribution 0 (Provide Full details (e.g., contrlbutlons of $10.00 or less; martet value ofgoods or aalVices sold))

1.Proceeds from Syrup sales + $ 1,254.00 2. + $ 3. + $ '4. + s 5. + $

Total PartIll Revenue (lnelude In Box C) e $ 1.254.00

Partrv - Expenses Related to Fundratslng event oractfvfty (pn>vlde detalla) 1.Purchase ofsyrup fer resale + $ 840.00 2. + $ 3. + $ 4. + $ 5. + $ 8. + $ 7. + $ 8. + $ Total Part IV Expenses (include In BaxC) c $ 840.00

G503P (201311 t) Page 7 rH8 'Auditor's Report og.d= Act,1996(Sedlon7~ A candidate who has received conbibuttons or lnamed expenses In excess of$10,000 must attach en auditor's report. Pnlfnaional Designation of Auditor CP CA Cha lin & Co. Chartered Accountants Munlapalrty

l.Jcence No. IF"ustName Bargman l1-18290 Addnma SUOJUnll No. IS1rcet No. IStreet Name 710 1110 Finch Avenue West ~I Town Provmce PostalCode Toronto IOntario IM3J2T2 Telephone No. (met an=a code) Fait No. EmiliAddrau 416-667-7060 1416-663-3746 [email protected] The report must be done in aa:ordance With generally accepted aucflllng standards and must • set out the scope ofexamination • provide an opinion as to the completeness and accuracyofthe financial statement and ~ether It Is free ofmaterial misstaemenL

~Report Is attached

Personal Information, if any, coDected on thsl form fs obtained under authority of sections 78 and 95 ofthe Municipal Elections Act. 1996. Under section 88 of the Municipal Sections Act, 1996 (and despite anything In the Municipal Froadam oflnfonnatian and Protection ofPrivacy Act) documents and materials filed with or prepared l1f the clerk or any other election official under the MunicipalSections Act. 1996 are public records and, until their destruction, may be Inspected by any person at the clerk's office at a time when the office is open. Campaign financial statement shan aslo be made available by the clerk In an electronic format free of charge upon request

9503P 12013111) Page 8of 8 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS" REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 78 OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT, 1996

To: ULU S. WATKISS, Cferk. CityofToronto

We have audited the accompanying finandal statement (Fonn 4) ofRuss Ford, candidate, for the campaign period from from 3 / 17 / 2014 to 12131 I 2014 relating to the election held on October 27, 2014, and Box C: Statement of campaign Period Income and Expenses for the period and Box O: Calculation of Surplus or Deficit of Detennrnation of Surplus or deficit and Disposition of Surplus. The financial Information has been prepared by Russ Ford, the candidate, based on the financial reporting provisions of Section 69(1) of of the Municipal Elections Ad.. 1996.

Candidate's Rnponslbffity fOr the Ffnancial Statement The candidate is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of this financial statement in accordance with the financial reporting provisions of Section 69(1) of the Municipal Elections Ad. 1996 and for such Internal central as the candidate detemllnes is necessary to enable the preparation of the financial statement that Is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditors• Responslbmty Our responsibifity is to express an opinion on this financial statement based on our audit We ccnducted our audit In accordance wtth canaaran generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we mmply with ethJcat requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statement is free from material misstatement An audit involves perfonning procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and aisclosure in the financial statement The procedures selected depend on the auditors' judgment. lndudlng the assessment ofthe rfskS of material misstatement ofthe financial statement, whether due to fraud orerror. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal ccntrol relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement In order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not fer the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's Internal ccntrcl. An audit also Includes eva!uating the appropriateness ofaocounting principles used and the reasonableness ofaccounting estimates made by management. as wen as evaluating the overall • presentation of the financial statement We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained Is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our quaified audit opinion.

Basis for Qualified Opinion Due to the inherent nature ofthe transactions ofelectoral campaigns ofthis type, the completeness of the various categories of Income and expenses is not susceptible lo satisfactory audit verification. Accordingly, our verificatJon Of income and expenses was Dmlted to the amount recorded In the records of Russ Ford and we were not able lo detennlne whether any adjustments might be necessary to lnccme, expenses and period surplus/deficit for the period from3I17/2014lo12/ 31 /2014.

Qualified Opinion In our opinion, except for the possible effects of Ute matter described In the Basis for QuaUfled Opinion paragraph, this financial statement presents falr1y, in an material respects, the lnccme and expenses cf Russ Ford fer the campaign period from 3/17 / 2014to12 / 31/2014 in accordance with the financial reporting provisions of Section 69(1) of the Municipal Electfons Act, 1996.

Basis ofAccounting Wsthout modtfytng our opinion, we draw attention to the fact that lhe financial statement Is prepared to assist the cancfidate to meet the requirements ofthe Municipal Elections Ar;t, as a result, the financial statement may not be suitable for another purpose.

s~Chaplin & Co. Chaftl'idrii-~ Accountants Licensed Public Accountants Toronto, Ontario • I •

0 8 . .

0

0

0 This is Exhibit "B" referred to in the Affidavit of Mark Grimes • swomS;?f'[L<--­ ii ~~;;~~;~;i~~~~~";; ~~~friends canvassing during the summer. 10 minutes left! #ward6 #topoli ,./ -

\ .., i ._)

• •