Election Compliance Audit Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Election Compliance Audit Committee Friday, 10 July 2015 Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West 9:30 a.m. Minutes 2 Note: 1. Please note that these Minutes are to be considered DRAFT until confirmed by Committee. 2. Underlining indicates a new or amended recommendation approved by Committee. Present Chair J.P. Kingsley Vice-Chair D. Wallace Members: C. Bédard, L. Russell, J. Vézina Others B. Duchesne, Committee Legal Counsel R. O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor L. Donnelly, Deputy City Clerk C. Bergeron, Manager, Elections J. Monfils, Committee Coordinator ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 2 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015 DECLARATION OF INTEREST No declarations of interest were received. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Minutes 1 - April 17, 2015 CONFIRMED CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK AND SOLICITOR 1. APPLICATION FOR A COMPLIANCE AUDIT OF THE 2014 ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCES OF CANDIDATE RILEY BROCKINGTON, RIVER WARD ACS2015-CMR-CCB-0085 CITY WIDE REPORT RECOMMENDATION That the Election Compliance Audit Committee consider whether the application for a compliance audit of the election campaign finances for the 2014 Municipal Election campaign of Candidate Riley Brockington, River Ward, be granted or rejected. Committee received the following correspondence, held on file with the City Clerk in addition to the application for compliance audit made by Mr. Patrick Ready and received by the City Clerk on June 15, 2015: Written submission from Mr. Patrick Ready, Applicant, prepared on July 4, 2015; Affidavit of Candidate Riley Brockington sworn on July 9, 2015 and the exhibits attached thereto, received on July 9, 2015, from Mr. William Hunter, Vice & ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 3 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015 Hunter LLP, on behalf of Candidate Riley Brockington, The Committee heard from the following delegations: Mr. Patrick Ready, Applicant who indicated that he has nothing additional to add to his written submission to the Committee and rested on his application and additional submitted written materials. Mr. William Hunter, Vice & Hunter LLP, Candidate’s Legal Counsel who spoke to the submission he provided to the Committee. On the donation to Riverstone Oakpark LP Mr. Hunter explained there was a print error with the name of the organization on the cheque. The cheque indicates the organization is an LP (Limited Partnership), where it should indicate that it is a corporation. The second item raised by Mr. Hunter involved the donations from Linden Development Inc. and 1823174 Ontario Inc., he indicated that the Candidate did not know whether the corporations were associated. It was submitted that that Mr. Aggarwal, President of Linden Developments Inc., indicated in telephone conversations with Candidate Brockington that the corporations are not associated. With consent from the Committee, Mr. Hunter was allowed an additional 5 minutes to present the case on behalf of the candidate. With regard to post-campaign expenses and the campaign deficit, Mr. Hunter indicted that the points the Applicant has made on this matter are speculative. The Candidate had filed a Form 6 to extend the Campaign period. Mr. Hunter highlighted tab D from the Candidate’s submission, expenses reimbursed from the campaign account and tab E on surplus and deficit and explained that a deficit is allowed to be carried over to the next campaign. Member Russell asked the delegation, in regards to the Riverstone Oakpark donation, to see the hard evidence. Mr. Hunter indicated that he is not able to provide it at this time but he can ask the President of the Riverstone Oakpark to produce it. Member Russell then asked about receiving proof that the two organizations, Linden Development Inc. and 1823174 Ontario Inc., are not associated. Mr. Hunter indicated that “associated” is not in the Act and would require an opinion from an income tax lawyer. Member Russell added that the issue is questionable enough to grant an audit. Mr. Hunter replied that he could get an Affidavit from Mr. Aggarwal, Owner of Linden Development Inc. Mr. Benoit Duchesne, Committee Legal Counsel, added that there is a definition of “associated organizations” in the Municipal Elections Act and added that a corporate search of public records should provide enough information on whether or not these organizations are associated, to see if one of the organizations is controlling the other. Mr. Hunter requested a moment to speak with his client, the Candidate, concerning options, before the committee makes its decision. ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 4 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015 Chair Kingsley decided to recess the meeting for 10 minutes at the request of the Legal Counsel for the Candidate. Upon resuming the meeting, Mr. Hunter addressed the Committee and indicated that the best way to prove that the two organizations are not associated would be to provide an Affidavit from Mr. Aggarwal, as a Corporate Search does not show shareholders. Chair Kingsley asked when the Affidavit could be provided. Mr. Hunter replied that he does not know at this time, and that he will contact Mr. Aggarwal as soon as possible. Chair Kingsley reminded the Committee and the Candidate that as per the Municipal Elections Act, the Committee must make a decision by July 17, 2015. Member Wallace moved the following motion: Motion No. ECAC 2 / 1 Moved by Member Douglas Wallace BE IT RESOLVED That the Application for a compliance audit of the 2014 election campaign finances of Candidate Riley Brockington, River Ward, be adjourned to the call of the Chair. CARRIED 2. APPLICATION FOR A COMPLIANCE AUDIT OF THE 2014 ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCES OF CANDIDATE SHAD QADRI, STITTSVILLE WARD ACS2015-CMR-CCB-0086 CITY WIDE REPORT RECOMMENDATION That the Election Compliance Audit Committee consider whether the application for a compliance audit of the election campaign finances for the 2014 Municipal Election campaign of Candidate Shad Qadri, Stittsville Ward, be granted or rejected. Committee received the following correspondence, held on file with the City Clerk, in addition to the application for compliance audit made by Mr. Patrick Ready and received by the City Clerk on June 15, 2015: : ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 5 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015 Written submission from Mr. Patrick Ready, Applicant, prepared on July 4, 2015 Submission from Mr. Kyle Van Schie, Soloway Wright LLP, on behalf of Candidate Shad Qadri, received on July 7, 2015 The Committee heard from the following delegations: Mr. Patrick Ready, Applicant, mentioned that in the original filing, it shows that the Candidate had refunded himself or his spouse $6,620, leaving the campaign with a deficit. Candidate Qadri submitted a letter to the elections office indicating that his original financial statement was incorrect in which he appears to have confirmed that he has violated section 92(5)(a) of the Municipal Elections Act, which states that it is an offence to file a document under section 78 that is incorrect. Mr. Kevin Vroom, BDO Canada LLP, on behalf of the Candidate spoke to the legal opinion provided by Mr. Kyle Van Schie, which was submitted to the Committee. Mr. Vroom acknowledged there was a clerical, mathematical error in the original financial statement, Form 4. The Candidate had contacted him about the error and he issued a revised financial statement, Form 4 to the City. The error can be found on page 3 and should read that the surplus refunded to Candidate or spouse is $89.19. Member Wallace asked the delegation how much time it took to make the correction. Mr. Vroom replied that he was made aware of the error on June 17, 2015 and filled a revised financial statement on June 18, 2015. Member Russell asked why the error was not caught at the initial filling. Mr. Vroom replied that it was a mathematical error. Member Vézina asked about the submission of the Applicant, that corporate cheques were returned and not noted in the financial statement. Mr. Vroom replied the cheques were not deposited to the Campaign account and they were returned to the contributor. Member Vézina asked that if the donation was valid why was it returned. Mr. Vroom replied that Candidate Qadri did not want to accept them. Member Vézina asked Legal Counsel about the framework for contributions. Mr. Duchesne explained that there is no requirement to accept contributions. There are limitations for eligibility of contributions. The Act outlines the duties for contributions received, which include sending a receipt once the contribution is received. Member Vézina asked about the difference between the receipt and acceptance of a contribution. Mr. Duchesne indicated that there were no court decisions on this matter. The Municipal Elections Act lists the Candidate’s duties, section 66 details what a contribution is and section 69 explains receipting and depositing requirements as well as record keeping obligations, but the Act does not define either receipt or acceptance, and does not set out a time frame in which a contribution must be receipted and deposited into a campaign account ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 6 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015 Member Vézina asked the delegation if receipts were issued for the returned contributions. Mr. Vroom replied that no receipts were issued for those contributions. Mr. Vroom added that if the contributions were accepted there would have been a greater refund issued the Candidate. He also noted that the Candidate did not feel comfortable accepting those contributions. Member Russell asked about the revised financial statement and what the Act says about filling them. Mr. Duchesne explained that there were no provisions in the Act to file an amended statement. Mr. Duchesne cited the Court of Appeals case which upheld the Jackson v. the City of Vaughan case on the matter of transparency and accountability in municipal election financing. There is no power to correct or revise the financial statements in the Act Member Russell asked if there was case law about the issue of presentation of the revised financial statement, the contributions returned, the refund to the Candidate, and the inability to refund what does not exist.