Item - 2025.EA15.1

12:40 p.m. - That the Compliance Audit Committee recess its public session to meet in closed session to deliberate in private on Item EA15.1 - Compliance Audit Application by Deborah Lechter for the Election Campaign Finances of Progress Toronto and to receive advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.

2:34 p.m. - That the Compliance Audit Committee recess its public session to meet in closed session to deliberate in private on Item EA15.1 - Compliance Audit Application by Deborah Lechter for the Election Campaign Finances of Progress Toronto and to receive advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Compliance Audit Committee (“Committee”) met to consider the application for a compliance audit of the Election Campaign Finances of Progress Toronto, a Third Party Advertiser, and was not able to conclude whether or not there is a contravention of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. On this subject, the two participating members of the Committee have been unable to reach a consensus. Having not reached a decision on this crucial aspect, a compliance audit cannot be ordered and the application must be rejected. The following reasons are provided: 

1. 1. The Compliance Audit Committee (“Committee”) met on February 27, 2025 to hear Item EA15.1, the Compliance Audit Application by Deborah Lechter (“Applicant”) for the Election Campaign Finances of Third Party Advertiser Progress Toronto, the Respondent (“Respondent”) in the November 4, 2024 by-election in Ward 15, Don Valley West (“Event”). 

1. 2. The Applicant did not appear before the Committee but provided a written submission. A representative for the Applicant, Carrie Liddy, appeared remotely and provided oral submissions. In addition, Georganne Burke, on behalf of the Applicant, provided additional written materials related to the Application. 

1. 3. The Applicant raised over twenty (20) concerns relating to the Respondent’s compliance with the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. These are broadly summarized below: 

1. a. The Respondent incurred expenses and accepted contributions prior to registering as a third party advertiser. 

1. b. The Respondent failed to comply with the requirement to open a bank account for the exclusive use of the campaign, and pay expenses from and deposit donations to that account. 

1. c. The Respondent accepted contributions but did not include all of them on the Financial Statement (Form 8). 

1. d. The Respondent continued to advertise after election day. 

1. e. The Respondent failed to accurately record expenses including fundraising expenses.  

1. i. The Respondent failed to report the salary of its employees in its Financial Statement.  

1. ii. The Respondent did not declare, or undervalued, expenses, including advertising, staff labour in canvassing and website development.  

1. f. The Respondent accepted donations from a trade union, which the Applicant stated is not permitted. 

1. g. The Respondent failed to file an audited Financial Statement. 

1. h. The Respondent contributed to the campaign of a candidate in the Event. 

1. 4. The Respondent was represented by Saman Tabasinejad, Executive Director of Progress Toronto, along with Don Eady, Board Member of Progress Toronto. Both representatives appeared in-person before the Committee. Progress Toronto also provided written submissions related to the Application and Mr. Eady presented oral submissions.   

1. 5. The participation of the Applicant and Respondent in this proceeding was very helpful to the process and assisted in ensuring transparency and openness in understanding the Respondent's campaign finances. 

1. 6. Pursuant to the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the Committee receives and considers whether an application for a compliance audit filed by an elector should be granted or rejected relating to the election campaign finances for registered third party advertisers in a municipal election or by-election. The Committee has discretion to determine whether to grant or reject an application as part of the compliance audit process set out in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. 

1. 7. The Committee must have reasonable grounds to believe there has been a contravention of the election campaign finance provisions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. 
2.  

1. 8. After consideration of all the evidence provided, there is no consensus between the two-member panel that there are reasonable grounds to find that the Respondent committed an offence in contravention of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. In this case, without a unanimous decision on this crucial point, a compliance audit cannot be ordered and the application must be rejected.