Charles Hazell - A Contributor in the 2023 By-Election for Mayor Who Appears to Have Contravened Contribution Limits under Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996

  3. Section 88.9(3) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 states that the maximum total contribution that a contributor may make to a candidate for the office of Mayor in the City of Toronto is $2,500. 4. The report dated September 10, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Charles Hazell as a Contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $2,500 contribution limit to the election campaign of Mitzie Hunter (the "Candidate"). The report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk identified Charles Hazell to have contributed $2,700.00.   5. The auditor, BDO Canada LLP, explained their report, attached as Attachment 1 to the report from the City Clerk, dated September 10, 2024, setting out the audit process and the findings with respect to Charles Hazell.   6. The Contributor, Charles Hazell, did not attend and did not provide a written submission. The Candidate provided a written submission, where the Candidate explained that the alleged overage that caused the contravention of the contribution limit was due to the Candidate's error. The Candidate provided information that the team made an effort to ensure no overcontributions were made, but since the same addresses were not used for the Contributor, the overcontribution went unnoticed. 7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor Charles Hazell for the contravention of Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   8. There was a contravention of the contribution limit because the individual made a contribution of $2,700.00 which exceeded the applicable limit of $2,500 due to the Candidate's error.   9. The Committee is not bound to commence proceedings in the face of a breach or contravention of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. The Committee is entitled to look at all of the circumstances to determine whether legal proceedings should be commenced. This has been recognized by the courts in Lancaster v. Compliance Audit Committee et al., 2012 ONSC 5629. 10. In accordance with s. 88.22(2) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, it is the candidate's obligation to ensure that each contributor is informed of the total maximum of $2,500. In the Committee's view, the responsibility rests with the candidate to fully understand their legal obligations with respect to the receipt of contributions and contribution limits. When a candidate chooses to seek office, they accept that they must understand and comply with the rules including campaign finance rules. A candidate should seek professional or legal advice in order to ensure that they meet their obligations in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   11. Consequently, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the Contributor.