My thoughts and comments on
the Election Compliance Audit-by Bill French
I am publishing these articles as there is small group of politically motivated individuals who would like to intimidate me to the point I will get fed up and either backoff my election promises or resign. This was article One of the series of Three Articles.
I had no
intention of making any comment on this matter until the entire matter is
resolved, but a few people have encouraged me to provide my perspective on Dan
McLean’s application for a Compliance Audit of my Election Expenses. As a point
of interest my election expenses were audited by an independent local firm
Smith and Lassaline of Barrie. I was under the eligible spending limit by
$5,000 as a point of interest or stated in another way spent about 75% of the
allowable limit.
For those
that were present on July 20th and 21st, the Elections
Compliance Audit Committee, in a 2 to 1 decision, has approved a request for an
independent audit of my already audited election expenses. I don’t mind the
decision but it appears that some on the committee missed an important point of
law that was actually submitted by Jack B. Siegel, the high profile solicitor
for Dan McLean, defeated Deputy Mayor in the 2014 Municipal Election. To quote
from the Lyras V. Heaps case that Siegel referenced, the judge of the Ontario Court
of Justice hearing stated “In my view,
where the statute requires, ‘a belief on reasonable grounds’, the jurisprudence
applicable in other contexts indicates that the standard to be applied is that
of an objective belief based on compelling and credible information which
raises the ‘reasonable probability’ of a breach of the statute”. Mr. McLean
provided no compelling or credible information, as all members of the committee
agreed, but presented a number of suppositions that could not be substantiated
with any hard evidence. As committee member QC Robert Barlow rightly stated in
his dissenting vote “Conjecture, again is
not acceptable to me in a matter of this nature” and concluded with a
statement based on various cases he referenced throughout his decision, “In the end result, considering the
documents, evidence and submissions of the parties and of the facts and on the
law provided, I find that a contravention of section 81.1 of the Municipal
Elections Act has not been proven by the Applicant (McLean) and I reject the
application.”
The
committee has appointed the firm of Grant Thorton LLP to conduct the audit.
I look
forward to the outcome and will make more detailed comments at that time, as
there are a number of other unusual circumstances that need to be brought to
the public eye that relate to this matter.
Stay tuned!
