Colleen Peddie - 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(4) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 states that the maximum total contribution that a contributor may make to multiple candidates for office on the same council or local board is $5,000. 4. The report dated September 10, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Colleen Peddie as a Contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $5,000 contribution limit to the election campaign of Josh Matlow, Chloe Brown, and Olivia Chow ("the Candidates"). The report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk identified Colleen Peddie to have contributed $5,500.   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 Colleen Peddie.   6. The Contributor, Colleen Peddie did not appear but did provide a written submission, where the Contributor explained that the alleged overage that caused the contravention of the contribution limit was due to human error. The Contributor was asked for a second contribution to the election campaign of candidate, Josh Matlow. The Contributor mistakenly believed a total of $3,900 had been contributed when asked for a second contribution.   7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor Colleen Peddie 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 $5,500, which exceeded the applicable limit of $5,000 due to human 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 consider 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. Consequently, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the Contributor.