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.

 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.. Mr. Duchesne indicated that there is no case law on this matter to his knowledge. The following motion was then moved by Member Bédard.

Motion No. ECAC 2 / 2 Moved by Member C. Bédard BE IT RESOLVED that the Election Compliance Audit Committee reject the application for a compliance audit of the election campaign finances of Candidate Shad Qadri, Stittsville Ward.

CARRIED

ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 7 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015

3. APPLICATION FOR A COMPLIANCE AUDIT OF THE 2014 ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCES OF CANDIDATE MARK TAYLOR, BAY WARD

ACS2015-CMR-CCB-0087 CITY WIDE

Prior to the start of the item, The Committee took a 15 minutes recess.

Committee received the following correspondence, held on file with the City Clerk, 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;  Submission from Candidate Mark Taylor, received on July 7, 2015. The Committee heard from the following delegations: Mr. Patrick Ready, Applicant, indicated this application was similar to the one against Candidate Qadri with regard to the revised financial statement. Also, he stated his reasonable belief that the 2010 filing reports no deficit and that the candidate should not be entitled to carry over a deficit to 2014. Mr. Ready added that he contacted the Candidate through twitter about these allegations but did not receive a reply. Mr. Wallace asked the applicant if he has any personal interest concerning any of the Candidates he has filed an application against. The member also asked the applicant if he ran in the last election campaign. Mr. Ready replied that his only personal connection is with Candidate Brockington who he ran against for School Board trustee, 9 years ago. Mr. Ready explained that the basis for his applications is from media reports of illegal donations by corporations, donations made over the limits listed in the Municipal Elections Act, and his desire to raise the issue of there not being any responsibility with the Candidate with respect to these donations. Upon reviewing the financial statements of the Candidates he noticed other issues with the financial statements that he has raised in his applications. Mr. David Hill, Perley-Robertson, Hill and McDougall LLP, Candidate legal counsel, indicated that he provided a submission to the Committee. ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 8 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015

Mr. Joël Dubois, Perley-Robertson, Hill and McDougal LLP, Candidate legal counsel, spoke to the issue of the deficit from the 2010 campaign. The letter from the campaign auditor did have a deficit in the 2010 campaign. A review of the 2010 campaign statement there were $31,197.10 in debits and $25,976 in credits not counting the $5,121.10 that Mr. Taylor advanced to fund the deficit of his campaign and to pay campaign debts. The Act allowed carrying forward the deficit to be applied to the 2014 campaign surplus. As the 2010 deficit exceeded the 2014 surplus, Mr. Taylor was still left with a campaign deficit in 2014. Member Russell mentioned that in 2010 there were two statements which clearly stated the error, which is a liability for the candidate. Member Russell has difficulty with the length time it took to correct the absence of deficit filed in 2010. Mr. Hill pointed out that the Act does not specify where figures are to be shown on the financial statement. The Act requires the candidate to fund the deficit and pay surpluses. Mr. Hill also mentioned that the Act does not provide guidance on how to complete the form. Member Vézina indicated that while looking at all three forms, the 2010 statement, 2010 revised statement, and 2014 statement there was a disconnect and asked where the $4,000 came from in the previous election campaign. Mr. Hill responded that the $4,049.69 indicates assets left after the 2010 campaign. Member Russell asked if there was any existing case law that is similar to this issue. Mr. Duchesne replied that there is none to his knowledge. During the discussion of the next item “Application for a compliance audit of the 2014 Election campaign finances of Candidate Stephen Blais, Cumberland Ward” Mr. Duchesne replied to a question with respect to the Lancaster v. City of St. Catharines compliance audit as it relates to the application against Candidate Taylor, which he said in paragraph 89, a significant error or omission in completion of Form 4 will amount to a contravention in the Municipal Elections Act. Member Russell commented that the financial statements are official documents and that the presentation of the statements show inconsistencies. ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 9 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015

The following motion was then presented by Member Russell.

Motion No ECAC 2 / 3 Moved by Member L. Russell BE IT RESOLVED that the Election Compliance Audit Committee grant the application for a compliance audit of the election campaign finances of Candidate Mark Taylor, Bay Ward.

CARRIED, on a division of 4 YEAS and 1 NAYS, as follows:

YEAS (4): Members J.P. Kingsley, L. Russell, J. Vézina and D. Wallace.

NAYS (1): Member C. Bédard.

4. APPLICATION FOR A COMPLIANCE AUDIT OF THE 2014 ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCES OF CANDIDATE STEPHEN BLAIS, CUMBERLAND WARD

ACS2015-CMR-CCB-0088 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 Stephen Blais, Cumberland Ward, be granted or rejected.

The Committee heard from the following delegations: Mr. Patrick Ready, Applicant, spoke about the donation from Gilmac Partnership #5 and the responsibility of the Candidate to be made aware of non-compliant donations during the election campaign. Mr. Ready indicated that he did not have the opportunity to review the Candidate’s submission. Mr. Stephen Blais, Candidate, began by clarifying his association with the Applicant by indicating that for the 2014 election of Public School Board trustee, he had endorsed the Applicant’s opponent, Mr. Keith Penny. Mr. Blais indicated that the contribution of $750 from Gilmac Partnership #5 was accepted earlier during the campaign, in good faith. Mr. Blais explains that Gilmac Partnership #5 is associated with Mattamy Homes, and five other candidates accepted the same donation. Mr. Blais asked Mattamy Homes via e-mail to validate that Gilmac Partnership #5 was a corporation, which they indicated that it was. Mr. Blais did a Corporate record search and could not find any information. Mr. Blais then called Mattamy Homes and they provided a letter dated June 29, 2015, which indicates that Gilmac Partnership #5 is a general partnership. On the side of caution, Mr. Blais returned the donation. On the matter of the donation from Graham Bird, Mr. Blais indicated that when his campaign went to deposit the cheque the bank returned it due to insufficient funds. Mr. Bird then provided a donation from his organization, G. Bird Holdings Inc.. On the matter of the donation from André Rollin and the donation from 561572 Ontario Ltd., which had the same address, Mr. Blais deemed the donations as being associated and returned one of the donations. Member Vézina asked how the donation was returned to Mr. Rollin. Mr. Blais replied that it was in the form of a money order from the campaign. Mr. François Landry, Vincent, Dagenais Gibson, LLP, Legal Counsel for the candidate, added that case law Lancaster v. City of St. Catharines, says that keeping non-valid contributions would be illegal. In that case, offside contributions, when candidate becomes aware, must be returned. The Chair asked the Committee’s legal Counsel to provide comments on the Lancaster v. City of St. Catharines case as it relates to the Application of Candidate Blais, he had nothing to add. Member Vézina indicated the clear understanding that acceptance of contributions is not an offense tied to knowing and returning the contribution. Mr. Duchesne replied that as stated in the Municipal Elections Act, sections 69(1)(m) and (n) indicates the potential for three separate contraventions of the Act with respect to the return or non- return of contributions which have been made in contravention of the Act, including associated businesses with same address, and when the candidate becomes aware that those contributions are in contravention of the Municipal Elections Act, they should be returned as soon as possible after the candidate is aware of the contravening ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 11 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015 contribution. If the contributions were not returned quickly enough considered in the circumstances, that could also be the grounds for contravention of the Act. Member Vézina asked about the relation of paying back the contribution when knowing it is illegal. Mr. Duchesne replied that the Act says that the contribution must be returned as soon as possible after the Candidate is aware of the contravention. Member Wallace commented that the information on the financial statement was correct and the Member is satisfied with the fact that the candidate took proper steps once reasonable grounds of acceptability presented themselves. The following motion was then presented by Member Wallace.

Motion No ECAC 2 / 4 Moved by Member D. Wallace BE IT RESOLVED that the Election Compliance Audit Committee reject the application for a compliance audit of the election campaign finances of Candidate Stephen Blais, Cumberland Ward.

CARRIED

Following the item the Committee took a one hour recess.

5. APPLICATION FOR A COMPLIANCE AUDIT OF THE 2014 ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCES OF CANDIDATE ELI EL-CHANTIRY, WEST CARLETON-MARCH WARD

ACS2015-CMR-CCB-0089 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 Eli El-Chantiry, West Carleton-March Wardm be granted or rejected.

:  Written submission from Mr. Patrick Ready, Applicant, prepared on July 4, 2015;  Submission from Candidate Eli El-Chantiry, received on July 6, 2015. The Committee heard from the following delegations: Mr. Patrick Ready, Applicant, spoke about the $100 filing fee refund to the Candidate. Mr. Ready also spoke about a donation from Tartan Homes that was received on September 8, 2014 and returned on January 31, 2015 and the significant time it took to return the donation. Mr. Ready then spoke about the reuse of campaign signs from previous elections and mentioned that their value was not properly listed in the financial statement. Mr. Ready indicated that the value of the signs, if properly recorded, could put the candidate over the spending limit. Mr. Eli El-Chantiry, Candidate, told the Committee that he made a decision at the start of the campaign to not accept donations from corporations. At the end of the campaign, those cheques were returned with a thank you letter. Member Wallace asked for confirmation that the cheques were held until the end of campaign without depositing them. Mr. El-Chantiry replied that was correct, they would come in at different times, and once the campaign was over, they were sent back with a thank you letter. Ms. Annie Stuart, Chief Financial Officer of the Candidate, confirmed that the cheques were held and not deposited to the campaign account. The donations from LLP were never cashed. Since they were not deposited, no receipts were sent. In regards to the signs, the total cost for the signs in 2010 was $936. For the 2010 filing, that value was recorded as an asset on the balance sheet and in 2014 the value was filed as an expense. She added that the cost for signs had gone up for the 2014 campaign compared to 2010. For the $100 filing fee, it was paid by the candidate and was refunded to the Candidate Member Wallace asked where the value for the 2014 signs came from. Ms. Stuart replied it came from bills from the vendor. Member Vézina asked why the 2006 and 2010 sign inventory was not valued at $4.00 per sign. Ms. Stuart replied that the previous campaign signs were not provided a value. Ms. Vézina asked the Committee’s legal counsel if, that for goods and services, previous inventory recorded at current commercial value. Mr. Duchesne replied that for previous inventory, the replacement cost would be their value. Ms. Vézina followed up by asking what the replacement value is. Mr. Duchesne replied that there is no direction in case law. It would be an open question of what would you pay. Mr. Duchesne added that he cannot suggest a value. ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 13 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015

Member Vézina asked how many of the previous campaign signs were used in 2014. Ms. Stuart replied that there was minimal use, which is why the campaign bought so many new ones in 2014. Member Russell was satisfied with the information provided by the Candidate in regards to the returned donations. The Member asked about the deposit of personal donations, if they were done during the campaign period. Ms. Stuart said that they were not deposited as soon as they were received, but the deposits were done periodically over the course of the campaign. Member Russell then asked about the $100 filing fee. Ms. Stuart explained that the Candidate had paid the fee himself and had been reimbursed . Member Vézina asked City Staff if the City refunds the filing fee if conditions are met. Ms. Catherine Bergeron, Manager, Elections replied that yes that the filing fee is reimbursed to the candidate if conditions are met, which include being elected. Member Russell asked why the filing fee was not shown as revenue since the candidate was elected and the City reimburses the filing fee. Mr. El-Chantiry does recall getting a cheque from the City, which came after the campaign period. He added there was a communication breakdown between himself and his campaign staff. Mr. Wayne Thomas, delegation for the Candidate, spoke to the signs issue. Mr. Thomas indicated that there are a number of signs in the inventory that go back to the 2006 campaign. He added that they were kept in storage, however the majority of the signs had faded over time, a large number were damaged and these damaged signs were not usable. Chair Kingsley asked how many signs from the 2006 and 2010 campaign were used in the 2014 election campaign. Mr. Thomas replied approximately 300. Chair Kingsley asked what the value was given for those signs. Mr. Thomas replied that they were valued at $1.60 per sign for total value of approximately $500. Member Vézina moved the following motion: Motion No. ECAC 2 / 5 Moved by Member J. Vézina BE IT RESOLVED that the Election Compliance Audit Committee grant the application for a compliance audit of the election campaign finances of Candidate Eli El-Chantiry, West Carleton-March Ward. Member Russell asked if the Committee is satisfied that the issue of returned donations does not merit an audit but the filing fee and value for the signs do, and stated that the audit should focus on those items. ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 14 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015

Chair Kingsley asked the Committee counsel if that was possible. Mr. Duchesne replied that if an audit is ordered, it would cover everything; the Committee is not able to limit the scope of the audit. Member Vézina commented that the value of the signs is important as depending if there is inaccuracies it may put the candidate over the spending limit. Ms. Stuart added that the valuation of the 300 signs is low due to depreciation and the expense was already claimed. Mr. El-Chantiry added to the sign issue, he mentions that there is no clear direction with regards to depreciation. He was never told that the value would be the same. Why would he then keep the old signs. He wanted to use the old signs as it would be better for the environment, however they were too faded and damaged. Chair Kingsley asked the candidate who provided the direction to his filing. Mr. El- Chantiry said it was from his auditor. The Candidate mentioned that he was here earlier but had to leave. Member Russell asked if the auditor could help provide an explanation. The Candidate said that he could. Chair Kingsley asked when the decision would have to be made for this application. Mr. Duchesne said a decision would have to be made by July 23rd. Motion No. ECAC 2 / 6 Moved by Member Lloyd Russell That The Application for a Compliance Audit of the 2014 Election Campaign finances of Candidate Eli El-Chanitry, West-Carleton March be Adjourned to the call of the Chair. Chair Kingsley asked the Committee if there was any support for the motion. Since there was none, the motion was LOST.

Motion No. ECAC 2 / 5 Moved by Member J. Vézina BE IT RESOLVED that the Election Compliance Audit Committee grant the application for a compliance audit of the election campaign finances of Candidate Eli El-Chantiry, West Carleton-March Ward.

CARRIED, on a division of 4 YEAS and 1 NAYS, as follows:

YEAS (4): Members J.P. Kingsley, J. Vézina, D. Wallace and C. Bédard.

NAYS (1): Member L. Russell. ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 15 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015

6. APPLICATION FOR A COMPLIANCE AUDIT OF THE 2014 ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCES OF CANDIDATE MATHIEU FLEURY, RIDEAU- VANIER WARD

ACS2015-CMR-CCB-0090 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 Mathieu Fleury, Rideau-Vanier 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 22, 2015: :  Written submission from Mr. Patrick Ready, Applicant, prepared on July 4, 2015  Submission from Candidate Mathieu Fleury, received on July 8, 2015 The Committee heard from the following delegations: Mr. Patrick Ready, Applicant, said that the application he submitted was based on the information that was available to him at the time of his application. He contacted the Candidate through Twitter and the Candidate responded and answered his questions. Based on that, the Applicant was now satisfied that he had no reasonable grounds and wished to withdraw the application. Member Wallace commented that he would like to hear from the Candidate on the allegations that are made against him as the application is before the Committee. Mr. Duchesne added that the Municipal Elections Act does not contemplate the ability to withdraw an application, the applications can either be accepted or rejected. Mr. Mathieu Fleury, Candidate spoke to the contribution from École Secondaire Publique De La Salle and provided the argument that the school makes its rooms available to the community for use. He had the same equal opportunity as the other candidates to access the room under the criteria established by the school. The Candidate indicated that his campaign had repeatedly requested an invoice for the use of the room in the school. His campaign received an invoice from the principal, which indicated that the room rental and related services were free of charge. Because the ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 16 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015 value of goods and services were required for reporting purposes his campaign recorded its value at $750. Mr. Stéphane Émard-Chabot, Candidate legal counsel, spoke to the contribution to École Secondaire Publique De La Salle and provided a document from the school board, Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario, which outlines the prices for community organizations to use rooms within the school. The Candidate thought that a value should be record for the use of the room in the school therefore he recorded the value as $750. For precautionary reasons the Candidate contacted the school and submitted a certified cheque of $750 for the use of the room. On the issue of expenses not subject to spending limit with the value of $403.15 and $518.90. These values were listed under “Expenses related to candidate’s disability” and should have been listed under “Other”. The values were recorded but not in the correct location. On the issue of the 2010 signs, there were no 2010 campaign signs used during the 2014 election campaign. Mr. Émard-Chabot referred to the Lancaster v. City of St. Catharines decision and paragraph 89, which talks about a significant error relating to Candidate Fleury issue, which is a simple mistake of recording the values in the wrong location. Mr. Émard-Chabot also quoted the Jackson v. City of Vaughn, paragraph 53, which speaks to minimal discretion on minor breaches. Member Russell asked if any other candidate could have used the school. Candidate Fleury replied that the school said that the rooms were available to all the candidates. Mr. Duchesne commented that the value for the use of the school should not be $0 as per Section 66(3)(b) of the Municipal Elections Act where the value should reflect the goods and services charges to the general public. Mr. Duchesne for clarification also provided the full quote from the Jackson v. City of Vaughan case, where the minimal discretion speaks to missing postal codes.

Motion No. ECAC 2 / 7 Moved by Member D. Wallace BE IT RESOLVED that the Election Compliance Audit Committee reject the application for a compliance audit of the election campaign finances of Candidate Mathieu Fleury, Rideau-Vanier Ward.

CARRIED

ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 17 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015

OTHER BUSINESS

NEXT ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING

Chair Kingsley asked the Committee Members when they would be available to meet next week to continue the discussion on the Application for a compliance audit for Candidate Brockington. The Committee agreed to meet again on Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. Chair Kingsley asked staff to advise both the Candidate and the Applicant.

ADDITIONAL ITEM

AMENDMENTS TO THE ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE RULES OF PROCEDURE

Motion No. ECAC 2 / 8 Moved by Member D. Wallace That the Rules of Procedure be suspended, pursuant to Subsection 3(2), to consider the following motion: CARRIED WHEREAS Section 2(2) of the Election Compliance Audit Committee’s Rules of Procedure provide that the City Clerk may reject an Application for various reasons; and WHEREAS the Election Compliance Audit Committee’s independent legal counsel has advised that under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (the “Act”), only the Committee has the power and jurisdiction to determine whether an Application meets the requirements of the Act; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Election Compliance Audit Committee’s Rules of Procedure be amended by replacing Section 2(2) ELECTION COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE 18 MINUTES 2 FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2015

with the following: Where a written application is submitted to the City Clerk that does not use the prescribed form and/or is not accompanied by a declaration that has been sworn/affirmed, as described in Subsection 2(1) herein, or where the application is received, in whole or in part, after the deadlines prescribed by Subsection 81(3) of the Municipal Elections Act, the City Clerk shall forward the application to the Election Compliance Audit Committee and include the following information in the transmission memo: a) Whether the elector is identified on the Application; b) Whether or not the declaration of the elector contained in the form is completed and signed; c) Whether the Application is in the prescribed form; and d) Whether the Application was filed after the deadline set out in the Municipal Elections Act for filing an Application.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 2:16 p.m.

______Coordonnateur du comité Président