Although the Oct. 24, 2022, civic election is far back in the rearview mirror, election spending will soon be under the microscope.
Earlier this week, the city’s latest Election Compliance Audit Committee met to learn a bit more about their role in advance of compliance audit applications.
In the event eligible voters believe a candidate or a registered third party have contravened the Municipal Elections Act, they’re able to apply for a compliance audit. The city also reviews campaign finances for contraventions, flagging anything they find for the committee.
The window to apply for a financial audit opens for 90 days after the financial statement filing deadline of March 31 at 2 p.m. None have been filed thus far.
“Following this deadline, anyone wishing to submit a complaint will be able to make an application to have the committee consider the matter,” a city spokesperson said.
During last year’s campaign season, a number of potential breaches of election rules were noted, including allegedly misplaced or oversized campaign signs, which would come down to a municipal bylaw issue and not the provincial Municipal Elections Act the committee deals with.
In the case of signs, a city spokesperson noted at the time that any breaches brought forward were quickly resolved.
In at least two cases during last year’s election, candidates appeared to incur election expenses before the nomination period opened up on May 1, 2022, which would relate to the Municipal Elections Act.
Mayoral candidate Bob Johnston posted a decal to his vehicle reading, “Not Bigger, but Better / Mayor / Vote Bob Johnston 2022,” and Ward 3 Coun. Gerry Montpellier purchased a paid Facebook advertisement in which he noted, “I am running for re-election in our 2022 municipal election.”
Montpellier quickly had the post deleted upon learning it might have been in breach of the rules, and Johnston altered his decal.
Although these two incidents appear to be breaches following the letter of the law, it doesn’t mean they’ll be prosecuted, especially given their low financial value and quick resolve.
During this week’s meeting, deputy city solicitor Kelly Gravelle explained that Election Compliance Audit Committee members don’t determine whether the rules have been broken, but whether to proceed with an arm’s-length audit and then whether to prosecute.
“The committee has some discretion there, and the courts respect that,” Gravelle said, adding that many mistakes might come down to simple mistakes or ignorance by new candidates.
If not for the committee’s discretion, she said, “a lot of things would go to an audit when there’s not really a contravention, per se, or maybe just some sloppiness or not knowing. ... That’s why it’s important to talk to the people as well.”
During last year’s election season, Ward 11 candidate Christopher Duncanson-Hales flagged a Grandparents’ Day event at Chartwell Westmount on William Retirement Residence as being a veiled campaign event for his opponent, Bill Leduc, and that it broke the rules.
Leduc denied it was a campaign event and dismissed his political opponent’s accusation as politicking.
Since the 2014 election, Gravelle said the Election Compliance Audit Committee has opted to proceed with two audits, of which one went to a prosecutor.
The committee last met on June 13, 2019, at which time they opted against prosecution in a case where a campaign contribution of $2,500 was recorded, which exceeds the $1,200 limit. It was the only case of over-contribution recorded in the 2018 election which exceeded the limit.
The city’s Election Compliance Audit Committee includes chair Peter McMullen, vice-chair Carl Nurmi, and members Melissa Sullivan, Josh Lilley and Ruby Lougheed-Yawney.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.