Compliance Audit Committee
The full agenda, as filed
All 7 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.
EA7.1amended
This report transmits the external auditor's report for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2022 municipal election and identified Chen Chen 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 for an apparent contravention. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision. 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 2022 municipal election 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.
The Compliance Audit Committee: Has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against Chen Chen. 1. The Compliance Audit Committee met on March 5, 2024, to hear Item EA7.1 - Chen Chen - A contributor in the 2022 Municipal Election 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 February 13, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Chen Chen 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 Chen Chen 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 Chen Chen. 6. The contributor, Chen Chen, appeared via the web portal, and provided information to the Committee. The Contributor explained that they were unaware of the contribution limits and was following the information provided by the Candidate. The Committee also received written submissions from the Contributor and the Candidate. 7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor Chen Chen 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. 11. The Contributor's evidence is that the Candidate provided the information to the Contributor via the phone about the contribution and its use in his campaign. The Committee raises concerns about the nature of this communication in that it appears to be the basis for the over-contribution. In the future these sorts of errors could give rise to applications against, and potential prosecution of, the Candidate. 12. 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 Chen Chen for an apparent over-contribution.
EA7.2amended
This report transmits the external auditor's report for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2022 municipal election and identified Betty Shaoyi Laimo 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 for an apparent contravention. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision. 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 2022 municipal election 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.
The Compliance Audit Committee: Has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against Betty Shaoyi Laimo. 1. The Compliance Audit Committee met on March 5, 2024, to hear Item EA7.2 - Betty Shaoyi Laimo - A contributor in the 2022 Municipal Election 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 February 13, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Betty Shaoyi Laimo 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 Betty Shaoyi Laimo 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 Betty Shaoyi Laimo. 6. Neither the Contributor nor the Candidate attended. No 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 Betty Shaoyi Laimo 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 this, 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 Betty Shaoyi Laimo for an apparent over-contribution.
EA7.3amended
This report transmits the external auditor's report for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2022 municipal election and identified Joe Samion 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 for an apparent contravention. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision. 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 2022 municipal election 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.
The Compliance Audit Committee: Has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against Joe Samion. 1. The Compliance Audit Committee met on March 5, 2024, to hear Item EA7.3 - 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. 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 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.
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 Joe Samion for an apparent over-contribution.
EA7.4amended
This report transmits the external auditor's report for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2022 municipal election and identified Run Ze Xie 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 for an apparent contravention. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision. 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 2022 municipal election 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.
The Compliance Audit Committee: Has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against Run Ze Xie. 1. The Compliance Audit Committee met on March 5, 2024, to hear Item EA7.4 - Run Ze Xie - A contributor in the 2022 Municipal Election 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 February 13, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Run Ze Xie 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 Run Ze Xie 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 Run Ze Xie. 6. Neither the Contributor nor the Candidate attended. No 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 Run Ze Xie 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.
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 Run Ze Xie for an apparent over-contribution.
EA7.5amended
This report transmits the external auditor's report for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2022 municipal election and identified Yau Larry Yu 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 for an apparent contravention. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision. 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 2022 municipal election 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.
The Compliance Audit Committee: Has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against Yau Larry Yu. 1. The Compliance Audit Committee met on March 5, 2024, to hear Item EA7.5 - Yau Larry Yu - A Contributor in the 2022 Municipal Election 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 February 13, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Yau Larry Yu 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 Yau Larry Yu 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 Yau Larry Yu. 6. Neither the Contributor nor the Candidate attended. No 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 Yau Larry Yu 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 several hearings arising from the Candidate's failure to follow his obligations adequately and appropriately 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.
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 Yau Larry Yu for an apparent over-contribution.
EA7.6amended
This report transmits the external auditor's report for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2022 municipal election and identified Chen Zhou 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 for an apparent contravention. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision. 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 2022 municipal election 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.
The Compliance Audit Committee: Has decided not to commence legal proceedings against Chen Zhou. 1. The Compliance Audit Committee met on March 5, 2024, to hear Item EA7.6 - Chen Zhou - A Contributor in the 2022 Municipal Election 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 February 13, 2024, from the City Clerk identified Chen Zhou 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 Chen Zhou 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 Chen Zhou. 6. Neither the Contributor nor the Candidate attended. No 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 Chen Zhou 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 several hearings arising from the Candidate's failure to follow his obligations adequately and appropriately 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.
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 Chen Zhou for an apparent over-contribution.
EA7.7amended
This report transmits the external auditor's report for consideration. The external auditor completed its review of initial and supplementary financial statements filed for the 2022 municipal election and identified Paul Quenneville 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 for an apparent contravention. The Committee must also provide brief written reasons for its decision. 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 2022 municipal election 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.
The Compliance Audit Committee: Has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against Paul Quenneville. 1. The Compliance Audit Committee met on March 5, 2024, to hear Item EA7.7 - Paul Quenneville - A Contributor in the 2022 Municipal Election 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(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 Paul Quenneville as a contributor that appeared to have exceeded the $1,200 contribution limit to the election campaign of Arber Puci. The report from the City Clerk identified Paul Quenneville to have contributed $2,000. 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 Paul Quenneville. 6. The Candidate appeared via web portal and provided information to the Committee as well as provided a written explanation. The Candidate explained that he had told the Contributor that the contribution limit was $2,500 in error. The Contributor did not appear, nor did he submit any written statements. 7. For the reasons stated below, the Compliance Audit Committee has decided not to commence a legal proceeding against contributor Paul Quenneville 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 $2,000 which exceeded the applicable limit of $1,200. 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. In the Committee's view, the responsibility rests with the Candidate to monitor the contribution limits. The Candidate was provided with written material by the Clerk outlining the contribution limits. The Candidate was provided with the 2022 Candidates' Guide - Ontario Municipal Council and School Board Elections. The Guide states "You are required to inform every contributor of the contribution limits. An easy way to make sure that this is done is to include the contribution limits on the receipt that you provide for each contribution". Additionally, the Clerk offered multiple training sessions to candidates. 12. Despite the above, 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 Quenneville for an apparent over-contribution.