Item - 2023.EA4.3
Tracking Status
- This item was considered by Compliance Audit Committee on July 24, 2023 and was adopted with amendments.
EA4.3 - Compliance Audit Application by Peter George for the Election Campaign Finances of Ausma Malik
- Decision Type:
- ACTION
- Status:
- Amended
- Wards:
- All
Statutory - Municipal Elections Act, SO 1996
Committee Decision
The Compliance Audit Committee rejected the application for a compliance audit of the Election Campaign Finances of Ausma Malik.
1. The Compliance Audit Committee met on July 24, 2023 to hear Item EA4.3, the Compliance Audit Application of Peter George for a compliance audit of the Election Campaign Finances of the Respondent, Ausma Malik.
2. The Applicant appeared before the Committee and provided submissions related to the Application.
3. The Applicant provided information to the Committee to support the Applicant’s belief that the Respondent contravened provisions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 relating to election campaign finances.
4. The Applicant raised concerns relating to the Respondent’s compliance with the Act. In particular these related to:
a. That Schedule 2, Part IV reported an expense of $7,950.00 for "Salaries Fundraiser Services (Independent Contractor)" which is included as an expense that is not subject to spending limits, however, more details are required to ensure this expense is an appropriate fundraising expense not subject to the general spending limit; and
b. Specifically, the Applicant asserted that precise details related to the fundraising activities were not expressly itemized or identified and thus the Respondent failed to provide sufficient transparency to demonstrate the specific allocation of expenses.
5. The Committee then provided the Respondent with the opportunity to respond. The Respondent and her accountant spoke to the issues raised in the Application.
6. The Respondent submitted that the Application should be denied because there was no evidence of any contravention.
7. The Committee has discretion to determine whether to grant or reject an application. After consideration of the evidence provided, the Committee concluded that the concerns raised by the Applicant were addressed by the Respondent's submissions and that an audit of the campaign's finances would not further the public interest and is therefore not required.
8. The Applicant failed to raise reasonable grounds to believe that there had been an apparent contravention of the Act.
9. For the reasons stated above and in accordance with s. 88.33(7) of the Act the Committee rejected the Compliance Audit Application of Peter George for a compliance audit of the Election Campaign Finances of the Respondent, Ausma Malik.
Decision Advice and Other Information
The Compliance Audit Committee considered Items EA4.2 and EA4.3 together.
The Compliance Audit Committee recessed its public session to meet in closed session to deliberate in private on Item EA4.3 - Compliance Audit Application by Peter George for the Election Campaign Finances of Ausma Malik and to receive advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Summary
Application for a Compliance Audit received June 29, 2023, from applicant Peter George for candidate Ausma Malik for City Councillor Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York.
Background Information
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ea/bgrd/backgroundfile-238402.pdf
Communications
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ea/comm/communicationfile-171546.pdf
Speakers
Ausma Malik
Andrew Rodie, on behalf of Candidate Ausma Malik
Motions
That:
The Compliance Audit Committee reject the application for a compliance audit of the Election Campaign Finances of Ausma Malik.
1. The Compliance Audit Committee met on July 24, 2023 to hear Item EA4.3, the Compliance Audit Application of Peter George for a compliance audit of the Election Campaign Finances of the Respondent, Ausma Malik.
2. The Applicant appeared before the Committee and provided submissions related to the Application.
3. The Applicant provided information to the Committee to support the Applicant’s belief that the Respondent contravened provisions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 relating to election campaign finances.
4. The Applicant raised concerns relating to the Respondent’s compliance with the Act. In particular these related to:
a. That Schedule 2, Part IV reported an expense of $7,950.00 for "Salaries Fundraiser Services (Independent Contractor)" which is included as an expense that is not subject to spending limits, however, more details are required to ensure this expense is an appropriate fundraising expense not subject to the general spending limit;
b. Specifically, the Applicant asserted that precise details related to the fundraising activities were not expressly itemized or identified and thus the Respondent failed to provide sufficient transparency to demonstrate the specific allocation of expenses.
5. The Committee then provided the Respondent with the opportunity to respond. The Respondent and her accountant spoke to the issues raised in the Application.
6. The Respondent submitted that the Application should be denied because there was no evidence of any contravention.
7. The Committee has discretion to determine whether to grant or reject an application. After consideration of the evidence provided, the Committee concluded that the concerns raised by the Applicant were addressed by the Respondent's submissions and that an audit of the campaign's finances would not further the public interest and is therefore not required.
8. The Applicant failed to raise reasonable grounds to believe that there had been an apparent contravention of the Act.
9. For the reasons stated above and in accordance with s. 88.33(7) of the Act the Committee shall reject the Compliance Audit Application of Peter George for a compliance audit of the Election Campaign Finances of the Respondent, Ausma Malik.