Hasina Jamal - A contributor in the 2022 Municipal Election who appears to have contravened Contribution Limits under Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996

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 for the office of Councillor in the City of Toronto is $1,200. 4. The report dated February 13, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Hasina Jamal as a contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $1,200 contribution limit to the election campaign of Shaker Jamal. The report (February 13, 2024) from the City Clerk identified Hasina Jamal to have contributed $1,226. 5. The auditor, BDO Canada LLP, explained their February 12, 2024, report attached as Attachment 1 to the report (February 13, 2024) from the City Clerk, setting out the audit process and the findings with respect to Hasina Jamal. 6. The candidate and contributor attended via web portal and provided written information to the Committee. The contributor and candidate explained that the alleged overage that caused the contravention of the contribution limit was due to human error. An original $26 test contribution was made when the Candidate's website first launched, around 4 months later the contributor then made another contribution of $1,200. 7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor Hasina Jamal for the contravention of Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. 8. There was an apparent contravention of the contribution limit because the contributor made a contribution of $1,226 which exceeded the applicable limit of $1,200 due to human error. This appears to have been an inadvertent overcontribution due to two separate donations made by the contributor with the first being a test contribution. The contributor is remorseful. 9. The Committee is also aware of the absurdity or "de minimus" principle recognized by the Court (for example: Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 SCR 1031). In short, it is the view of the Committee that the legislature did not intend to attach penal consequences to extremely minor breaches, done inadvertently, and that doing so would be inflexibly severe. 10. Consequently, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the contributor.