Compliance Audit Application by Kevin Wiener for the Election Campaign Finances of Marco Valle

3. The Applicant provided information to the Committee to support the Applicant's belief that the Respondent contravened provisions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 relating to election campaign finances. 4. The Applicant raised concerns relating to the Respondent's compliance with the Act. In particular these related to: a. That the Respondent did not file a financial statement by March 31, 2023 as required by the Municipal Elections Act; b. That the Respondent solicited donations, however without a financial statement, there is no public record to determine how much was raised or any donations over $100; and c. The costs of the billboard were not disclosed. 5. The Committee then provided the Respondent with the opportunity to respond. The Respondent spoke to the issues raised in the Application and indicated that extenuating factors impacted the Respondent's ability to meet the obligations in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. The Respondent expressed regret for these actions and indicated that they were prepared to file materials with the Clerk even though this will be after the required deadline in the legislation. The Committee recognizes that a candidate can seek to extend filing deadlines or extend their campaign in certain circumstances and that if the Respondent had done so, they might not have breached the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. 6. In this instance, the Respondent has already defaulted and the penalties in 88.23(2) have already been imposed. This includes a prohibition on the Respondent being eligible to be a candidate for municipal office until after the 2026 municipal election. These penalties are significant and given that the candidate has already received them, it is not in the public interest to require an audit. 7. After considering the entirety of the circumstances, the Committee has discretion to determine whether to grant or reject an application even in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds that a breach has occurred. This has been recognized by the courts in Lancaster v. Compliance Audit Committee et al., 2012 ONSC 5629. In that case, after consideration of the evidence provided, the Committee concluded that there were breaches of the Act. Due to the level of materiality of the breaches a compliance audit is not warranted as an audit would not provide any further clarity about the breaches. 8. For the reasons stated above and in accordance with s. 88.33(7) of the Act the Committee rejected the Compliance Audit Application.