Seeking $450,000 in damages, Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc is suing both the resident who filed an election finance compliance complaint against him and the City of Greater Sudbury.
In a statement of claim, Leduc alleges that resident Anastasia Rioux defamed him and that the city’s Election Compliance Audit Committee was biased against him and “engaged in unlawful conduct.”
(Rioux is erroneously cited in the statement of claim as “a candidate in the 2022 municipal election for Ward 11.” The only candidates were Leduc and Christopher Duncanson-Hales.)
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.
With this being a legal matter, Rioux declined to comment until such time as she has sought legal counsel.
Leduc similarly declined to comment, but did answer a question regarding whether he believes the case sends a message about what might happen if a resident criticizes him, and if this sets a precedent for politics in Greater Sudbury.
“I think that we, as elected officials, have to stand up against the public, because we are the ones making decisions moving forward in the city,” Leduc told Sudbury.com. “A lot of elected officials throughout the country now have started to step up and challenge people.”
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities passed a motion regarding “these types of harassment issues from the public” earlier this year, Leduc added.
The motion in question calls on various levels of government to “identify and implement measures to protect elected local government officials, their family members, and staff,” and called on elected officials, “to lead by example, demonstrating civility and mutual respect for their political counterparts.”
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.
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.”
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.
This isn’t the first time Leduc responded to critics by retaliating.
In addition to the aforementioned case in which he shot back at complaintaints last year by wrongfully claiming they used “tampered evidence,” Leduc called for Boghosian to be fired earlier this year after the integrity commissioner tabled a report in response to a complaint regarding Leduc’s cellphone use. Leduc later withdrew his motion.
A city spokesperson said that Leduc's claim will be defended in due course.
"Municipalities in Ontario are required by the Act to establish Election Compliance Audit Committees to consider applications for compliance audit of election campaign finances of candidates in municipal and school board elections," they said. "The Committee’s processes and decision-making are independent from City Council. Municipalities are responsible for the costs of the Committee’s operation and administrative oversight is provided by the City Clerk."
Claims by members of city council are "quite rare," they said, and a statement of defence is typically filed within 20 days.
Sudbury.com will continue to follow and report on this court case.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.