Compliance Audit Application by Ryo Nishibayashi for the Election Campaign Finances of Parthi Kandavel

3. The Applicant provided information to the Committee to support the Applicant's belief that the Respondent contravened provisions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 relating to election campaign finances. 4. The Applicant raised concerns relating to the Respondent's compliance with the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. In particular, these relate to: a. The Respondent received a discount from Canada Post for the cost of mailing campaign literature and this discount should have been included as an expense subject to the Respondent's general spending limit. b. The Respondent held two campaign events that were improperly classified as fundraising events and that expenditures associated with these events should have been included in the Respondent's general campaign expenses subject to the applicable limit. c. The Respondent received discounts related to one of the fundraisers that should have been recorded as a contribution and expense in his Financial Statement. d. The Respondent's campaign was missing invoices for over $8,000 in expenses. e. The Respondent failed to account for "additional unattributed literature and distribution". 5. The Respondent and their legal counsel were present at the hearing and provided written and oral submissions to the Committee. 6. The participation of the Applicant and Respondent in this proceeding was very helpful to the process and assisted in ensuring transparency and openness in understanding the Respondent's campaign finances. 7. The Committee made the following determinations in relation to each allegation made by the Applicant: a. The Committee does not support the Applicant's submission that Canada Post provided an undue or unfair advantage to the Respondent as compared to other similarly situated candidates. b. The Committee is satisfied with the evidence provided by the Respondent that the two events were promoted to respective attendees and held as fundraising events, and should not be subject to a campaign expense limit. c. The Committee is satisfied that the Respondent did not receive discounts related to the fundraiser that should have been recorded as a contribution and expense in the Financial Statement. d. The Committee is satisfied with the explanation provided by the Respondent that, apart from some missing receipts, which were acknowledged by the Respondent, substantially all supporting receipts were submitted at the time of filing the Financial Statement. Additionally, filing expense receipts with the Clerk's office is not a requirement of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. e. There is insufficient evidence that the Respondent was responsible for the "additional unattributed literature and distribution". 8. The Committee has discretion to determine whether to grant or reject an application. After consideration of all the evidence provided, the Committee concluded that there were no breaches of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Accordingly, a compliance audit is not warranted. 9. This application process has provided information and public scrutiny to the Respondent's finances and the Committee does not believe that an audit would further the public interest. 10. For the reasons stated above and in accordance with s. 88.33(7) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the Committee rejected the Compliance Audit Application of Ryo Nishibayashi for a compliance audit of the Election Campaign Finances of the Respondent, Parthi Kandavel. 11. It is important to emphasize that all candidates have a responsibility to familiarize themselves, understand and comply with the rules of the election regarding the preparation of Financial Statements and the categorization of the expenses.