Rahman Russell - 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.     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. 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.   4. The report dated November 20, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Rahman Russell as a contributor who appeared to have exceeded the $1,200 contribution limit to the election campaign of Malika Ghous (the "Candidate"). The report (November 20, 2024) from the auditor, BDO Canada LLP, identified Rahman Russell (the "Contributor") to have contributed $2,240 in the form of a fundraising event held on November 15, 2023.    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 the Contributor.     6. The Contributor submitted a written statement along with payment documentation explaining that he and his spouse covered all expenses for the November 15, 2023 fundraising event. The Contributor explained that they take pride in giving back to their community and supporting causes that are important to them. However, the written submission did not address or justify the alleged overage that led to the contravention of the contribution limit. 7. The Contributor also attended virtually and provided an oral submission. The Contributor explained that his desire was to help the Candidate. The Contributor expressed that it was not his intent to exceed the contribution limits. He expressed remorse and his desire to rectify the situation. 8. The Candidate attended virtually and provided an oral submission. The Candidate explained that the Contributor and his spouse generously helped with her campaign. She stated that she believes this was an honest mistake and expressed her remorse. The Candidate previously ran for elected office. 9. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against the Contributor for the contravention of Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.     10. There was a contravention of the contribution limit because the Contributor exceeded the contribution limit. However, it appears that the contravention was not intentional. 11. The Candidate had previously run for office, and this is the second time. Accordingly, the Candidate should have been better informed about the process. 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. The Contributor explained that the contribution had been made between his spouse and himself. Had the accounting been more accurate, the overall contribution would have been allocated between the Contributor and his spouse and would not have been an over-contribution. 12. 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.    13. 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.  14. Consequently, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the Contributor.