Joe Samion - 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(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 February 13, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Joe Samion as a contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $2,500 contribution limit to the election campaign of Tony Luk. The report (February 13, 2024) from the City Clerk identified Joe Samion to have contributed $2,680. 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 Joe Samion. 6. Neither the Contributor nor the Candidate attended. Written submissions were provided by the Contributor. Written submissions from the Candidate were received by the Committee. The failure of the Contributor to provide information to the Committee and the nature of the alleged breaches raises concerns. The participation of the Contributor or Candidate 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. 7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor Joe Samion 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 $2,680 which exceeded the applicable limit of $2,500. 9. After considering the entirety of the circumstances, the Committee has discretion to determine whether to commence a proceeding even in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds that a breach has occurred. This has been recognized by the courts in Lancaster v. Compliance Audit Committee et al., 2012 ONSC 5629. In that case, after consideration of the evidence provided, the Committee concluded that there were breaches of the Act but exercised discretion not to proceed. 10. 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. The Candidate and their campaign staff should be aware of and comply with these rules. 11. Indeed, the Committee has a number of hearings arising from the Candidate's failure to adequately and appropriately follow his obligations under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. 12. In particular the Committee would like to remind the Candidate that s.88.9(3) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 imposes a maximum contribution limit of $2,500. For the purposes of this amount section 88.15(3) elaborates what are contributions. 88.15 (1) For the purposes of this Act, money, goods and services given to and accepted by a person for his or her election campaign, or given to and accepted by another person who is acting under the person's direction, are contributions. 2016, c. 15, s. 53 (1). (…) Contributions (3) Without restricting the generality of subsections (1) and (2), the following amounts are contributions: 1. An amount charged for admission to a fund-raising function. 2. If goods and services are sold for more than their market value at a fund-raising function, the difference between the amount paid and the market value. However, if the amount received for the goods or services is $25 or less, the amount is not a contribution. 3. If goods and services used in the person's election campaign or in relation to third party advertisements are purchased for less than their market value, the difference between the market value and the amount paid. 4. Any unpaid but guaranteed balance in respect of a loan under section 88.17. 2016, c. 15, s. 53 (3). 13. Despite the above, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the Contributor.