The City of Greater Sudbury rejects each and every allegation in a $450,000 lawsuit filed against it by Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc, and says the city councillor not only isn’t entitled to any financial relief but the lawsuit itself isn’t the correct mechanism to achieve what the councillor wants.
In early August, Leduc filed the suit against both the city’s Election Compliance Audit Committee and a resident, Anastasia Rioux, who filed an election finance compliance complaint against him and the City of Greater Sudbury.
In a statement of claim, Leduc alleges Rioux (who is erroneously cited in Leduc’s statement of claim as “a candidate in the 2022 municipal election for Ward 11”) defamed him and that the city’s Election Compliance Audit Committee was biased against him and “engaged in unlawful conduct.”
In addition to $450,000 in damages, the lawsuit seeks to render the committee’s decision to proceed with legal action against Leduc for apparent Municipal Election Act breaches to be null and void, and for an injunction to be put in place to prevent Rioux from “publishing further defamatory statements” about Leduc.
The lawsuit also seeks to replace the committee’s five citizen appointees for any further proceedings related to Leduc’s election campaign finances.
Leduc’s allegations
Among the various points of alleged defamation Leduc cites in his statement of claim are the allegations Rioux made to the city’s Election Compliance Audit Committee regarding Leduc breaching election finance rules.
Her allegations’ centerpiece was that the Sept. 11, 2022, Grandparents’ Day event at Chartwell Westmount on William Retirement Residence served as a campaign event for Leduc and should have been accounted for in his campaign finances, but was not. The city council member has consistently denied it was a campaign event.
Leduc’s recently filed statement of claim reaffirms his position that various statements by Rioux, including her allegation that the Grandparents’ Day event was used to boost Leduc’s re-election campaign, are “false and were made with malice and the intent to harm Mr. Leduc’s reputation.”
Another point of alleged defamation by Rioux, according to Leduc’s statement of claim, was that Leduc was guilty of “wasting millions trying to get an arena/casino combination built in our ward to no fruition.”
Approximately $4.38 million was spent on the Kingsway Entertainment District, an arena/events centre/casino/hotel project, which Leduc supported. It was never built due to city council cancelling the project in 2022.
Other points of alleged defamation Leduc cites is that Rioux accused him of improperly placing campaign signs during his 2022 re-election bid, and that Leduc made false statements about video evidence from Grandparents Day being tampered.
During his 2022 civic election campaign, Leduc accused vandals of relocating his signs to places they were not allowed.
Last year, city integrity commissioner David Boghosian censured Leduc for “objectionable and impertinent” comments after Boghosian said Leduc wrongfully claimed that complainants used “tampered evidence” of the Grandparents’ Day event.
When it comes to the city’s Election Compliance Audit Committee, Leduc claims that members “engaged in unlawful conduct in the exercise of their public functions,” and “demonstrated bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias in its decision-making process.”
This includes allowing Rioux to speak on matters outside the scope of the audit during their July 3, 2024, meeting. Leduc also alleges that their decision to proceed with legal action against him was driven by “political motivations rather than genuine concerns about election integrity.”
Damages Leduc reports to have suffered include harm to his personal and professional reputation, emotional distress and anxiety, potential financial losses related to his political career and damage to his standing in the community and ability to effectively serve as a city councillor.
The committee’s response at the time
At the time, the committee determined there were “reasonable grounds” to pursue an audit of Leduc’s campaign finances, and they enlisted KPMG to conduct a third-party investigation.
KPMG’s report reaffirmed the committee’s finding of apparent breaches in campaign election rules which merit a closer look, and the committee decided the case should proceed to the provincial offences court system for a final decision.
Leduc’s apparent contraventions “are serious and threaten to undermine the important public policy goals animating the campaign finance regime,” according to the committee’s written notice of decision in July, noting that this includes “maintaining a level playing field amongst all candidates, and ensuring proper records are kept of campaign finance activities so as to enable a high degree of public scrutiny.”
The written notice of decision tabled last month also said there is “no credible basis” to suggest Leduc exercised a level of due diligence to avoid apparent contraventions of the Municipal Elections Act, and that he did not express “any contrition of remorse for the apparent contraventions.”
Response to the lawsuit
Not only does the city reject all of Leduc’s claims, it also argues a lawsuit is not the correct avenue to achieve his goal of quashing the Election Audit Compliance Committee’s ruling against him.
“Mr. Leduc’s claim against the Committee is misconceived,” the city’s statement of defence reads. “It is framed as the intentional tort of misfeasance in public office, which the Committee vehemently denies. In making out that claim, Mr. Leduc asks this Honourable Court to find that the Committee’s decision was arrived at unreasonably, and/or was made without jurisdiction. In essence, it is a claim for judicial review.”
On July 15, Leduc did, in fact, commence an Application for Judicial Review against the committee’s decision, arguing the committee erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering irrelevant factors and failing to properly consider relevant factors; denied Leduc procedural fairness, and; demonstrated bias against Leduc.
Further, the city argues that the committee itself is not a body that can be sued under the relevant statute.
“The Committee is an unincorporated investigatory/adjudicative body established by statute, namely, the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, which statute does not grant the Committee legal status or the capacity to sue or be sued,” reads the city’s statement.
“The Committee performs a quasi-judicial function, holding hearings marked by the right of participation by interested parties. It exercises a statutory power of decision within the meaning of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, and its decisions are therefore subject to judicial review. As such, the Committee is not an entity which can be sued civilly.”
Abuse of process
What’s more, the city’s lawyers argue Leduc is engaging in an “abuse of process” by seeking relief through both a judicial review and a lawsuit.
“On that basis, this duplicative Action seeks relief in the wrong forum, and therefore constitutes an abuse of process. As such, the Action ought to be dismissed,” reads the statement of defence.
As well, the city denies Leduc suffered the damages he alleges he suffered as a result of the committee’s findings, and says the onus is on him to prove he was damaged.
“In the further alternative, the Committee denies that Mr. Leduc suffered the damages or losses alleged, and puts Mr. Leduc to the strict proof thereof,” says the statement. “If Mr. Leduc suffered any at all, which is expressly denied, they are remote, exaggerated, excessive, or otherwise not recoverable at law.”
What’s more, the city argues that if Leduc did suffer any damages, they are as a result of his own actions (or lack thereof by not following the election finance rules).
“Any impact to Mr. Leduc’s political ambitions, if any has been suffered, are a result of his own failures to ensure compliance with the campaign finance rules.”
The city asks that the lawsuit be dismissed and for Leduc to cover all court costs.
-with files from Tyler Clarke
Mark Gentili is the editor of Sudbury.com.