Mohammad Ziaul Haque - A contributor in the 2023 Councillor Ward 20, Scarborough Southwest By-Election who appears to have contravened Contribution Limits under Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996

Section 88.34(2) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 requires the City Clerk to prepare a report identifying each contributor to a candidate for office on a council who appears to have contravened any of the contribution limits under section 88.9. Further, 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.    3. Section 88.9(1) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 states that the maximum total contribution that a contributor may make to a candidate in an election is $1,200.    4. The report dated November 20, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Mohammad Ziaul Haque as a Contributor who appeared to have exceeded the $1,200 contribution limit to the election campaign of Alamgir Hussain (the "Candidate"). The report (November 20, 2024) from the auditor, BDO Canada LLP, identified Mohammad Ziaul Haque to have contributed $1,250.    5. The auditor, BDO Canada LLP, explained their report, attached as Attachment 1 to the report from the City Clerk, dated November 20, 2024, setting out the audit process and the findings with respect to Mohammad Ziaul Haque (the "Contributor").     6. The Contributor did not attend nor provide written submissions. The participation of the Contributor in this proceeding would have been very helpful to the process and would have assisted in ensuring transparency and openness in understanding the circumstances of the apparent contravention. Indeed, the Contributor could have provided answers to questions raised by the Committee, and which remain unanswered.     7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee decided not to commence a legal proceeding against the Contributor for the contravention of Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.     8. There was a contravention of the contribution limit because the Contributor exceeded the contribution limit, however due to its minimal amount, it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the Contributor. 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. In accordance with Section 88.22(1)(r)(i) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, it is the candidate's obligation to ensure that each contributor is informed of the total maximum of $1,200 to any one candidate in an election. 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.