Compliance Audit Committee
The full agenda, as filed
All 9 items in the clerk’s order. Each carries the city’s own words: the staff recommendation, what the body decided, and its status. Nothing below is written by us.
EA11.1amended
The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 requires the City Clerk to review all contributions reported in financial statements submitted by candidates and registered third party advertisers in the 2023 by-election for mayor and to prepare a separate report for each contributor who appears to have exceeded any of the contribution limits. The City Clerk retained an external auditor, BDO Canada LLP, through a competitive procurement process to review all candidates and registered third party advertisers' financial statements and to report on each apparent over-contribution. This report transmits a report from the external auditor to the Compliance Audit Committee for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2023 by-election for mayor and identified Paul Ferris as a contributor who appears to have exceeded the contribution limits in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Within 30 days of receiving this report, the Compliance Audit Committee is required to decide whether to: (1) commence legal proceedings against the contributor for an apparent contravention; or (2) not to commence legal proceedings against the contributor. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision.
The Compliance Audit Committee:   Has decided not to commence legal proceedings against Paul Ferris (the "Contributor"). 1. The Compliance Audit Committee (the "Committee") met on September 25, 2024, to hear Item EA11.1 - Paul Ferris - A contributor in the 2023 By-Election for Mayor who appears to have Contravened Contribution Limits under Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   2. 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(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 September 10, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Paul Ferris as a Contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $5,000 contribution limit to the election campaign of Brad Bradford, Ana Bailao, and Josh Matlow ("the Candidates"). The report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk identified Paul Ferris to have contributed $6,000.00.   5. The auditor, BDO Canada LLP, explained their report, attached as Attachment 1 to the report from the City Clerk, dated September 10, 2024, setting out the audit process and the findings with respect to Paul Ferris.   6. The Contributor, Paul Ferris, appeared in-person, and provided an oral submission to the Committee. The Contributor explained that the alleged overage that caused the contravention of the contribution limit was due to being unaware that the post-election fundraising event, which gave rise to the overcontribution, would be included in the contribution limit. The Contributor does not recall receiving or being provided with communication from the fundraiser or candidate regarding the maximum contribution limit.   7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor Paul Ferris 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 $6,000.00 which exceeded the applicable limit of $5,000 due to lack of information. The Contributor, from their submission, appears to be remorseful.   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 look at 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 s. 88.22(1)(r)(ii) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, it is the candidate's obligation to ensure that each contributor is informed of the total maximum of $5,000. 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. It is especially important for candidates to ensure their communication with potential contributors in the post voting day period clearly indicates that donations made in this period count for the purposes of limits under the Act.   11. Consequently, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the Contributor.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Clerk recommends that: 1. The Compliance Audit Committee consider the auditor's report from BDO Canada LLP, attached as Attachment 1 to this report, and determine whether to commence a legal proceeding against Paul Ferris for an apparent over-contribution.
EA11.2amended
The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 requires the City Clerk to review all contributions reported in financial statements submitted by candidates and registered third party advertisers in the 2023 by-election for mayor and to prepare a separate report for each contributor who appears to have exceeded any of the contribution limits. The City Clerk retained an external auditor, BDO Canada LLP, through a competitive procurement process, to review all candidates and registered third party advertisers' financial statements and to report on each apparent over-contribution. This report transmits a report from the external auditor to the Compliance Audit Committee for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2023 by-election for mayor and identified Chris Galifi and Cristina Galifi as having a similar name at the same address. If they are the same contributor, they appear to have exceeded the contribution limits in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Within 30 days of receiving this report, the Compliance Audit Committee is required to decide whether to: (1) commence legal proceedings against the contributor for an apparent contravention; or (2) not to commence legal proceedings against the contributor. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision.
The Compliance Audit Committee:   Has decided not to commence legal proceedings against Chris Galifi and Cristina Galifi. 1. The Compliance Audit Committee met on September 25, 2024, to hear Item EA11.2 - Chris Galifi and Cristina Galifi - A contributor in the 2023 By-Election for Mayor who appears to have Contravened Contribution Limits under Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   2. 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(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 September 10, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Chris Galifi and Cristina Galifi as a contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $2,500 contribution limit to the election campaign of Mark Saunders. Specifically, the report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk identified two contributions of $2,500, from individuals with similar names - Chris Galifi and Cristina Galifi - and with the same address. Accordingly, it appeared that a contributor had made a donation of $5,000 to the election campaign of Mark Saunders.   5. The auditor, BDO Canada LLP, in their report, attached as Attachment 1 to the report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk, set out the audit process and the findings with respect to Chris Galifi and Cristina Galifi.   6. The contributor, Chris Galifi and Cristina Galifi provided written evidence that the contributions were from two different individuals. Their lawyer, Jeffrey Kroeker, appeared online. There was additional written information submitted which corroborated the Contributors' submission. Their lawyer provided a submission that included the contributors' driver's licences that verified that the contributions were made by two distinct individuals who reside together as husband and wife.   7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor Chris Galifi and Cristina Galifi for the contravention of Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   8. There was no contribution over the contribution limit and therefore no findings of a violation under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. The contribution attributed to "Chris Galifi" was made by Christopher Galifi also known as Chris Galifi (husband) and the contribution attributed to "Cristina Galifi" was made by Cristina Galifi (wife).
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Clerk recommends that: 1. The Compliance Audit Committee consider the auditor's report from BDO Canada LLP, attached as Attachment 1 to this report, and determine whether to commence a legal proceeding against the contributor for an apparent over-contribution.
EA11.3amended
The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 requires the City Clerk to review all contributions reported in financial statements submitted by candidates and registered third party advertisers in the 2023 by-election for mayor and to prepare a separate report for each contributor who appears to have exceeded any of the contribution limits. The City Clerk retained an external auditor, BDO Canada LLP, through a competitive procurement process to review all candidates and registered third party advertisers' financial statements and to report on each apparent over-contribution. This report transmits a report from the external auditor to the Compliance Audit Committee for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2023 by-election for mayor and identified Noah Geist at two separate addresses. If they are the same contributor, they appear to have exceeded the contribution limits in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Within 30 days of receiving this report, the Compliance Audit Committee is required to decide whether to: (1) commence legal proceedings against the contributor for an apparent contravention; or (2) not to commence legal proceedings against the contributor. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision.
The Compliance Audit Committee:   Has decided not to commence legal proceedings against Noah Geist (the "Contributor"). 1. The Compliance Audit Committee (the "Committee") met on September 25, 2024, to hear Item EA11.3 - Noah Geist - A contributor in the 2023 By-Election for Mayor who appears to have Contravened Contribution Limits under Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   2. 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(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 September 10, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Noah Geist as a Contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $2,500 contribution limit to the election campaign of Josh Matlow ("the Candidate"). The report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk identified Noah Geist to have contributed $3,500.00.   5. The auditor, BDO Canada LLP, explained their report, attached as Attachment 1 to the report from the City Clerk, dated September 10, 2024, setting out the audit process and the findings with respect to Noah Geist.   6. The Contributor, Noah Geist, appeared in-person, and provided oral submission to the Committee. The Contributor explained that the alleged overage that caused the contravention of the contribution limit was due to being unaware that the post-election fundraising event, which gave rise to the overcontribution, would be included in the contribution limit. The Contributor does not recall receiving or being provided with communication from the fundraiser or candidate after the election regarding the maximum contribution limit. 7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor Noah Geist 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 $3,500.00 which exceeded the applicable limit of $2,500 due to lack of information. The Contributor, from their submission, appears to be remorseful.   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 look at 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 s. 88.22(2) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, it is the candidate's obligation to ensure that each contributor is informed of the total maximum of $2,500. 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. It is especially important for candidates to ensure their communication with potential contributors in the post voting day period clearly indicates that donations made in this period count for the purposes of limits under the Act.   11. Consequently, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the contributor.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Clerk recommends that: 1. The Compliance Audit Committee consider the auditor's report from BDO Canada LLP, attached as Attachment 1 to this report, and determine whether to commence a legal proceeding against Noah Geist for an apparent over-contribution.
EA11.4amended
The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 requires the City Clerk to review all contributions reported in financial statements submitted by candidates and registered third party advertisers in the 2023 by-election for mayor and to prepare a separate report for each contributor who appears to have exceeded any of the contribution limits. The City Clerk retained an external auditor, BDO Canada LLP, through a competitive procurement process to review all candidates and registered third party advertisers' financial statements and to report on each apparent over-contribution. This report transmits a report from the external auditor to the Compliance Audit Committee for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2023 by-election for mayor and identified Hashem Ghadaki at two separate addresses. If they are the same contributor, they appear to have exceeded the contribution limits in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Within 30 days of receiving this report, the Compliance Audit Committee is required to decide whether to: (1) commence legal proceedings against the contributor for an apparent contravention; or (2) not to commence legal proceedings against the contributor. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision.
The Compliance Audit Committee:   Has decided not to commence legal proceedings against Hashem Ghadaki (the "Contributor"). 1. The Compliance Audit Committee (the "Committee") met on September 25, 2024, to hear Item EA11.4 - Hashem Ghadaki - A contributor in the 2023 By-Election for Mayor who appears to have Contravened Contribution Limits under Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   2. 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(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 September 10, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Hashem Ghadaki as a Contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $5,000 contribution limit to the election campaign of Ana Bailao, Anthony Perruzza, and Mark Saunders ("the Candidates"). The report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk identified Hashem Ghadaki to have contributed $6,250.00.   5. The auditor, BDO Canada LLP, explained their report, attached as Attachment 1 to the report from the City Clerk, dated September 10, 2024, setting out the audit process and the findings with respect to Hashem Ghadaki.   6. Neither the Contributor nor the Candidates attended. No written submissions were provided. The failure of the Contributor to provide information to the Committee and the nature of the alleged breach raises concerns. The participation of the Contributor or Candidates 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 has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor Hashem Ghadaki 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 $6,250.00 which exceeded the applicable limit of $5,000. There is no additional information before the Committee to assist in coming to a decision. However, it appears that the final contribution made to a Candidate which exceeded the contribution limit was made after the date of the election, potentially indicating the Contributor may not have been aware that contributions made in this period count toward contribution limits under the Act. 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. Consequently, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the Contributor.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Clerk recommends that: 1. The Compliance Audit Committee consider the auditor's report from BDO Canada LLP, attached as Attachment 1 to this report, and determine whether to commence a legal proceeding against Hashem Ghadaki for an apparent over-contribution.
EA11.5amended
The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 requires the City Clerk to review all contributions reported in financial statements submitted by candidates and registered third party advertisers in the 2023 by-election for mayor and to prepare a separate report for each contributor who appears to have exceeded any of the contribution limits. The City Clerk retained an external auditor, BDO Canada LLP, through a competitive procurement process, to review all candidates and registered third party advertisers' financial statements and to report on each apparent over-contribution. This report transmits a report from the external auditor to the Compliance Audit Committee for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2023 by-election for mayor and identified David Green and David Y Green as having a similar name at the same address. If they are the same contributor, they appear to have exceeded the contribution limits in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Within 30 days of receiving this report, the Compliance Audit Committee is required to decide whether to: (1) commence legal proceedings against the contributor for an apparent contravention; or (2) not to commence legal proceedings against the contributor. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision.
The Compliance Audit Committee:   Has decided not to commence legal proceedings against David Green and David Y Green. 1. The Compliance Audit Committee met on September 25, 2024, to hear Item EA11.5 - David Green and David Y Green - A contributor in the 2023 By-Election for Mayor who appears to have Contravened Contribution Limits under Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   2. 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(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 September 10, 2024, from the City Clerk identified David Green and David Y Green (the "Contributor") as a contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $5,000 contribution limit to the election campaign of Ana Bailao, Josh Matlow, and Olivia Chow. Specifically, the report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk identified three contributions of $2,500, from individuals with similar names - David Green and David Y Green - and with the same address. Accordingly, it appeared that a contributor had made a donation of $7,500 to the election campaign of Ana Bailao, Josh Matlow, and Olivia Chow.   5. The auditor, BDO Canada LLP, explained their report, attached as Attachment 1 to the report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk, setting out the audit process and the findings with respect to David Green and David Y Green.   6. The contributor, David Green and David Y Green, did not appear in person. The agent, Jeffrey Kroeker, appeared for the Contributor and provided oral submission to the Committee. It has been confirmed that David Green and David Y Green are the same individual. Mr. Green's agent explained that the alleged overage that caused the contravention of the contribution limit was due to the Contributor being unaware of the aggregate contribution limit of $5,000. 7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against single contributor David Green (and David Y Green) for the contravention of Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   8. 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. 9. In accordance with s. 88.22(1)(r)(ii) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, it is the candidate's obligation to ensure that each contributor is informed of the total maximum of $5,000. In the Committee's view, the responsibility rests with the candidate(s) 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. 10. Consequently, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the Contributor.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Clerk recommends that: 1. The Compliance Audit Committee consider the auditor's report from BDO Canada LLP, attached as Attachment 1 to this report, and determine whether to commence a legal proceeding against the contributor for an apparent over-contribution.
EA11.6amended
The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 requires the City Clerk to review all contributions reported in financial statements submitted by candidates and registered third party advertisers in the 2023 by-election for mayor and to prepare a separate report for each contributor who appears to have exceeded any of the contribution limits. The City Clerk retained an external auditor, BDO Canada LLP, through a competitive procurement process to review all candidates and registered third party advertisers' financial statements and to report on each apparent over-contribution. This report transmits a report from the external auditor to the Compliance Audit Committee for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2023 by-election for mayor and identified Charles Hazell at two separate addresses. If they are the same contributor, they appear to have exceeded the contribution limits in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Within 30 days of receiving this report, the Compliance Audit Committee is required to decide whether to: (1) commence legal proceedings against the contributor for an apparent contravention; or (2) not to commence legal proceedings against the contributor. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision.
The Compliance Audit Committee:   Has decided not to commence legal proceedings against Charles Hazell (the "Contributor"). 1. The Compliance Audit Committee (the "Committee") met on September 25, 2024, to hear Item EA11.6 - Charles Hazell - A contributor in the 2023 By-Election for Mayor who appears to have Contravened Contribution Limits under Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   2. 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(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 September 10, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Charles Hazell as a Contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $2,500 contribution limit to the election campaign of Mitzie Hunter (the "Candidate"). The report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk identified Charles Hazell to have contributed $2,700.00.   5. The auditor, BDO Canada LLP, explained their report, attached as Attachment 1 to the report from the City Clerk, dated September 10, 2024, setting out the audit process and the findings with respect to Charles Hazell.   6. The Contributor, Charles Hazell, did not attend and did not provide a written submission. The Candidate provided a written submission, where the Candidate explained that the alleged overage that caused the contravention of the contribution limit was due to the Candidate's error. The Candidate provided information that the team made an effort to ensure no overcontributions were made, but since the same addresses were not used for the Contributor, the overcontribution went unnoticed. 7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor Charles Hazell 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 $2,700.00 which exceeded the applicable limit of $2,500 due to the Candidate's error.   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 look at 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 s. 88.22(2) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, it is the candidate's obligation to ensure that each contributor is informed of the total maximum of $2,500. 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.   11. Consequently, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the Contributor.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Clerk recommends that: 1. The Compliance Audit Committee consider the auditor's report from BDO Canada LLP, attached as Attachment 1 to this report, and determine whether to commence a legal proceeding against Charles Hazell for an apparent over-contribution.
EA11.7amended
The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 requires the City Clerk to review all contributions reported in financial statements submitted by candidates and registered third party advertisers in the 2023 by-election for mayor and to prepare a separate report for each contributor who appears to have exceeded any of the contribution limits. The City Clerk retained an external auditor, BDO Canada LLP, through a competitive procurement process, to review all candidates and registered third party advertisers' financial statements and to report on each apparent over-contribution. This report transmits a report from the external auditor to the Compliance Audit Committee for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2023 by-election for mayor and identified C Kim and N Kim as having a similar name at the same address. If they are the same contributor, they appear to have exceeded the contribution limits in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Within 30 days of receiving this report, the Compliance Audit Committee is required to decide whether to: (1) commence legal proceedings against the contributor for an apparent contravention; or (2) not to commence legal proceedings against the contributor. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision.
The Compliance Audit Committee:   Has decided not to commence legal proceedings against C Kim and N Kim. 1. The Compliance Audit Committee (the "Committee") met on September 25, 2024, to hear Item EA11.7 - C Kim and N Kim - A contributor in the 2023 By-Election for Mayor who appears to have Contravened Contribution Limits under Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   2. 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(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 September 10, 2024, from the City Clerk identified C Kim and N Kim (the "Contributor(s)") as a contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $2,500 contribution limit to the election campaign of Josh Matlow (the "Candidate"). Specifically, the report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk identified two contributions of $2,500, from individuals with similar names - C Kim and N Kim - and with the same address. Accordingly, it appeared that a contributor had made a donation of $5,000 to the election campaign of Josh Matlow.   5. The auditor, BDO Canada LLP, explained in their report, attached as Attachment 1 to the report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk, setting out the audit process and the findings with respect to C Kim and N Kim.   6. Neither the Contributor(s) nor the Candidate attended. No written submissions were provided. The failure of the Contributor(s) to provide information to the Committee and the nature of the alleged breach raises concerns. The participation of the Contributor(s) 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. Indeed, the Contributor(s) could have provided answers to questions raised by the Committee, and which remain unanswered.   7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor(s) C Kim and N Kim for the contravention of Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   8. The Committee is of the view that there is a lack of information to support that the individuals - C Kim and N Kim - are the same person. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support that there was a contravention of the contribution limit of $2,500 per candidate. 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. Consequently, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the Contributor(s).
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Clerk recommends that: 1. The Compliance Audit Committee consider the auditor's report from BDO Canada LLP, attached as Attachment 1 to this report, and determine whether to commence a legal proceeding against the contributor for an apparent over-contribution.
EA11.8amended
The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 requires the City Clerk to review all contributions reported in financial statements submitted by candidates and registered third party advertisers in the 2023 by-election for mayor and to prepare a separate report for each contributor who appears to have exceeded any of the contribution limits. The City Clerk retained an external auditor, BDO Canada LLP, through a competitive procurement process, to review all candidates and registered third party advertisers' financial statements and to report on each apparent over-contribution. This report transmits a report from the external auditor to the Compliance Audit Committee for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2023 by-election for mayor and identified Jon Love and Jon E Love as having a similar name at the same address. If they are the same contributor, they appear to have exceeded the contribution limits in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Within 30 days of receiving this report, the Compliance Audit Committee is required to decide whether to: (1) commence legal proceedings against the contributor for an apparent contravention; or (2) not to commence legal proceedings against the contributor. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision.
The Compliance Audit Committee:   Has decided not to commence legal proceedings against Jon Love and Jon E Love. 1. The Compliance Audit Committee (the "Committee") met on September 25, 2024, to hear Item EA11.8 - Jon Love and Jon E Love - A contributor in the 2023 By-Election for Mayor who appears to have Contravened Contribution Limits under Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   2. 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(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 September 10, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Jon Love and Jon E Love (the "Contributor") as a contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $5,000 contribution limit to the election campaign of Brad Bradford, Mark Saunders, Anthony Furey, Ana Bailao, and Josh Matlow. Specifically, the report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk identified four contributions of $1,000 and one contribution of $2,000, from individuals with similar names - Jon Love and Jon E Love - and with the same address. Accordingly, it appeared that a contributor had made a donation of $6,000 to the election campaign of Brad Bradford, Mark Saunders, Anthony Furey, Ana Bailao, and Josh Matlow ("Candidates").   5. The auditor, BDO Canada LLP, explained in their report, attached as Attachment 1 to the report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk, setting out the audit process and the findings with respect to Jon Love and Jon E Love.   6. The Contributor, Jon Love and Jon E Love, did not appear in-person. An agent, David Vernon, appeared for the Contributor and provided oral submission to the Committee. It has been confirmed that Jon Love and Jon E Love are the same individual. The agent explained that the alleged overage that caused the contravention of the contribution limit was due to being unaware that the post-election contribution, which gave rise to the overcontribution, would be included in the contribution limit. The agent confirmed that, based on his review of the email communication soliciting contributions and to the best of his knowledge, the Contributor had not been provided with communication from the Candidates after the election regarding the maximum contribution limit. 7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against single contributor Jon Love (and Jon E Love) for the contravention of Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   8. 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. 9. In accordance with s. 88.22(1)(r)(ii) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, it is the candidate's obligation to ensure that each contributor is informed of the total maximum of $5,000. In the Committee's view, the responsibility rests with the candidate(s) 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. It is especially important for candidates to ensure their communication with potential contributors in the post voting day period clearly indicates that donations made in this period count for the purposes of contribution limits under the Act. 10. Consequently, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the Contributor.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Clerk recommends that: 1. The Compliance Audit Committee consider the auditor's report from BDO Canada LLP, attached as Attachment 1 to this report, and determine whether to commence a legal proceeding against the contributor for an apparent over-contribution.
EA11.9amended
The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 requires the City Clerk to review all contributions reported in financial statements submitted by candidates and registered third party advertisers in the 2023 by-election for mayor and to prepare a separate report for each contributor who appears to have exceeded any of the contribution limits. The City Clerk retained an external auditor, BDO Canada LLP, through a competitive procurement process to review all candidates and registered third party advertisers' financial statements and to report on each apparent over-contribution. This report transmits a report from the external auditor to the Compliance Audit Committee for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2023 by-election for mayor and identified Colleen Peddie as a contributor who appears to have exceeded the contribution limits in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Within 30 days of receiving this report, the Compliance Audit Committee is required to decide whether to: (1) commence legal proceedings against the contributor for an apparent contravention; or (2) not to commence legal proceedings against the contributor. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision.
The Compliance Audit Committee:   Has decided not to commence legal proceedings against Colleen Peddie (the "Contributor"). 1. The Compliance Audit Committee (the "Committee") met on September 25, 2024, to hear Item EA11.9 - Colleen Peddie - A contributor in the 2023 By-Election for Mayor who appears to have Contravened Contribution Limits under Section 88.9 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.   2. 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(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 September 10, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Colleen Peddie as a Contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $5,000 contribution limit to the election campaign of Josh Matlow, Chloe Brown, and Olivia Chow ("the Candidates"). The report (September 10, 2024) from the City Clerk identified Colleen Peddie to have contributed $5,500.   5. The auditor, BDO Canada LLP, explained their report, attached as Attachment 1 to the report from the City Clerk, dated September 10, 2024, setting out the audit process and the findings with respect to Colleen Peddie.   6. The Contributor, Colleen Peddie did not appear but did provide a written submission, where the Contributor explained that the alleged overage that caused the contravention of the contribution limit was due to human error. The Contributor was asked for a second contribution to the election campaign of candidate, Josh Matlow. The Contributor mistakenly believed a total of $3,900 had been contributed when asked for a second contribution.   7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor Colleen Peddie 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 $5,500, which exceeded the applicable limit of $5,000 due to human error.   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. Consequently, the Committee has determined it is not in the public interest to commence a proceeding against the Contributor.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Clerk recommends that: 1. The Compliance Audit Committee consider the auditor's report from BDO Canada LLP, attached as Attachment 1 to this report, and determine whether to commence a legal proceeding against Colleen Peddie for an apparent over-contribution.