8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
1/62
4
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
2/62
0
0
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
3/62
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
4/62
Lancaster v. SL Cathartnes (City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 Carswel lOnt 1595
2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt
1595, [2012}
O.J. No. 626,
211
A.C.W.S. (3d) 5f, .
-.
Chapman v. Hamilton City) (2005), 2005 ONCJ 158, 2005 CarswcllOnl 1914, 10
MP
L R (4th) 120 (Ont. C.J .)
- e o n ~ i e r e
•
yras
v. Heaps (2008), 2008 ONCJ 524, 2008 CarswcllOnt 6348, 51 M.l'.L.R. (4th) 277 (Ont. CJ.) - followed
Mastroguiseppe v. Vaughan City)
(2008), 2008 ONCJ 763, 2008 Car.;wellOnt 9087,
61
M.P.L.R . (4th) 138 Onl.
CJ. considered
Na'1aimo
City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd (2000), 20 Admin. L.R. (3d) I , 183 D.L.R (4th) I. 2000 CorswellBC 392,
2000 Cari.-wcllBC 393, 2000 SCC 13, 251N .R.42, 132 B.C.A.C. 298, 215 W.A.C. 298, [2000) I S.C.R. 342, [2000)
6 W.W.R.
403,
76 B.C.L.R.
(3d) 201,
9 M .P.L.R.
(3d)
I (S.C.C.) -
referred lo
New Brunswick Boord
of
Management) v. D11nsm ir(2008
),
372
N.R. I,
69 Admin. LR
. (4th)
I, 61) Imm .
LR
. (3d)
1, sub
nom.
Dum·muirv. New Bnmswick) (2008] I S.C.R. 190, 844 A.P.R.
l,
sub nom . Dummuir v. New Brunswi
ck)
2008 C.L L.C . 220-020, D.T.E. 2008T-
223
, 329 N.B.R. (2d) I, (sub
nom
. D11nsm11
ir v New
Bnmswick)
170
L.A.C.
(4th) 1, (sub
nom
. Dunsmuir'
New
Bnmswick) 291 D.L.R. (4th) 517,
2008
CarswelJNB 124, 2008 CarswcllNB 125,
200R SCC 9, 64 C.C.E.L. (Jd) 1,
(sub
nom.
Dunsmuir v New Brunswick)
95
L.C
R. 65
SC C.) -
fo llowed
R. \ .Sanchez
(1994),
32
C.R. (4th) 269,
93
C.C.C. (3d)
35
7,
20
O.R. (3d)
468,
1994
Carswel!Ont
97
(Ont. Gen.
Div .) - considered
Statutes considered:
Jvfunicipal
Elections A.cl,
1996, S.O. 1996, c.
32, Sched.
Generally - referred to
.
69 l ) m)-
considered
s.
71 1)-considercd
http:///reader/full/251N.R.42http:///reader/full/251N.R.42http:///reader/full/251N.R.42http:///reader/full/251N.R.42
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
5/62
Lancaster v. SL Catharlnes City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595
2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnl 1595, [2012) 0 .J.
NO.
626, 211 A.C.W.S. (3d}574...
The Appellant applied
lo
the Compliance Audit Committee of the Corporation of the City of tCatharines
(hcreim1fter
referred to as the Committee ) pursuant
to
section
Ill
of
the
Municipal Elections Ac t, 1996
(the Act'')
for
a compliance audit
of
the
campaign finances of candidates Brian Dorsey, Matthew Harris, Mathew Siscoe nod Len Stack.
2 The Committee dismissed that application on July
19,
201 k
3
The Appellant
ha. >
appealed to the Ontnrio Court of Justice requesting
that
the decision of the Committee be set aside
and that the Committee be directed to appoint an audilor to conduct a complete compliance audit of the campai ,'ll finances of
the four named candidates.
4 The Notice
of
Appeal wa.-. served on
all
four candidates and I granted all oflhem status as added parties.
5
In
this appeal, the following issues
nrc
to be addressed:
I) What
s
the appropriate standard for review on this appeal? Is the decision o f the Committee entitled to deference
such
that a standard
of
reasonableness should apply or should l
undert11ke
my own analysis of the issues and apply a correctness
standard?
2) What
s
lhc test of rcasonable grounds under the Act?
3)
On the material before the Committee, were there reasonable grounds lo believe that
any
of
the named candidates
hnd
contravened any provision of the Act?
Standard of Review
6
In
ew Brunswick Board Management) v.
Dunl·m11ir
2008} S.C.J. No. 9 (S.C.C.), the Supreme Court ofCanada
revisited the standard of review of such ndministrative decisions nnd concluded that there ought to be two standards of review,
being correctness and reasonableness .
7 Counsel for the Appcllunt relied on two decisions
of
the Ontario Court
of
Justice which decided that correctness was the
appropriate standard of review when determining appeals pursuant
to
section
81
of the Act.
1
8 However, both decisions predate Dunsmuir. Even more importantly, the facts in both case I nrc very different from those
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
6/62
Lancaster v. St. Catharlnes City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595
2of2
ONCJ
70,2012 CarswellOnt
1595, [2012) O.J.
.626-:211A.CW .S. 3d)S74
-
11 The Committee heard evidence and submissions from all in1crested parties before makmg its decision.
12
In
light
of
these facts,
the
Committee is, in my view, entitled to deference.
13
This is very important in my delcnnination of the uppropriutc slandard of review here.
14
Al p11rn
. 47 in Dunsmuir .¥upru the Supreme Court ofCannda elaborated on the standard of reasonableness suting that
Reasonableness is a deferential standard animated by the principle that underlies the development of the two previous
standards of reasonableness: certain questions thal come before adminislrativc lribunnls do not lend themselves to
one :.-pecific, particular result. Instead, they may give rise
IO
a number
of
possible, reasonable conclusions. Tnbunals
have a murgin of appreciation within the range of acceptable
and
rational solutions. A court conductmg a review for
reasonableness inquires into the qualities that make 3 decision reasonable, referring
bo1h
to the process
of
articulating
the reasons and to outcomes. In judicial review, reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification,
transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But II is also concerned with whether the decision foils
within a range
of possible, 11cccpt.ablc outcomes which are defensthle in respect of the f a c t ~ and low.
15 Applying this to the co.se before
me
, I find that the appropri3tc standard
of
review here 1s one
of
reasonableness .
In
that
regard I agree with the reasoning
of
Lane
1
in
Ly .as
v
Heaps
[2008]
0.J
.
No
. 4243 (Ont.
J
.
ReHsonable
Grounds
16
The
relevant provisions
of
sectton
81 of
the Act read as follows;
81 . I) An elector who is entitled to vote in an election and believes on reasonable grounds that a candidate has contravened
a provision
of
this Act relating lo election campaign finances
may
apply for a compliance audit
of
the candidate's election
campaign finances.
(4) Within I 0 days after receiving the application, the clerk of the municipality or the secretary of the local board, ns the
case
may
be, shall forward the application
to
the compliance audit committee established under section 81.1 and provide
n copy
of
the npplicntion to the counci l
or
local board.
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
7/62
ancaster
v.
SL Catharlnes
(City),
2012
ONCJ
70, 2012
CarswellOnt
1595
2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595, {2012 O.J. No. 626, 211 A.c.W-.S. (3d) 574 .
even iflhe appellant had what he considered reasonable grounds to ask for an audit, the Committee
h11 c;
considerably more
infonnation at their disposal. Having heard all the submissions and reviewed all the material before them, the Comminee
is in a bener position than the appellant
to
determine whether, in fact, "reasonable grounds" do exist lo proceed with an
audit. It
is
the role
of
the Committee lo weigh the c:videncc and 10 make determinations
of
what weight should be acconlcd
to the representations heforc it.
20 I find therefore that the test to be applied by the Committee was whether the Comminee believed on reasonable grounds
lhal a canthdatc had contr.ivencd a provision of the Act relating to election campaign finances.
21
As
to
the meaning to be given to the words "reasonable grounds", at para. 41 in Chapman supru Culver
J.
adopted
the sumdard
of
persuasion articulated by Hill
J.
with respect to the issuance
of
a search warrant
in
R.
v.
Sanchez
[
1994]
O.J
.
No. 2260 (Ont. Gen. Div.).
In
that decision, Hill
J.
stated at para. 28 that Nthc standard is one of credibly based probability".
Hill
J.
then went on to state in para . 29 that
Mere suspicion, conjecture, hypothesis or "fishing expeditions" fall short of the minimally acceptable standard from both
a common law and constitutional perspective, On the other hand, in addressing the requisite degree of certitude, it must be
recognized that reasonable grounds 1s not lo be equated with pruor beyond a rcusonuble doubt or a prima facic case. The
appropriate standard
of
reasonable
or
credibly-ba.o;ed probability envisions a practical, non-technical and commonsense
probability as to the existence of the facts ;ind inferences asserted. {Citations omitted.]
22
In lyras
supra Lane J.
!'CJlched
a similar conclusion stating at para. 25 that
In
my
view, where the statute requires "a belief on reasonable grounds," the jurisprudence applicable in other o n t e x t ~
indicates that the standard
to
be applied
is
that
of
an objective belief based on compelling and credible information which
raises the "reasonable probability" of a breach of the statute. The standard of 'a prima facic case" in either its pennissivc
or r ~ u m p t i v sense is too high a standard.
23 l agree.
The
Alleged Contraventions or the Act
24 The Appellant alleged that the vanous candidates were guilty
of
number
of
different contraventions
of
the Act I propose
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
8/62
Lancaster v.
S t
Catharlnes (City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnl 1595
2 i2 NCJ 70, 2012 Carswelldnt1595 , (2012] o J:
No
. . ••• • 26, 2f1
eswbhshcd that he had previously refunded money to another corporate contnbutor because he was aware then that it was from
an associated corporation.
3
Counsel for the Appellant argued that the camlidates contravened the Act simply by receiving campaign contributions
in excess of$750.00 from associated corporations.
32 I disagree.
33 Section 71(1)
of
the Act says that ''A contributor shall not make contributions exceeding a total
of
$750
00
to any one
candidate
in
an election".
34 Section 72
of
the Act says thnt
"For
the purposes
of
sections 66 to 82, corporations that arc associated with one another
under section
256 of
the Income Tax ct Canada) shall be deemed to be a single corporation".
35 A combination of those sections makes it 11 clear contravention of the Act by the associated corporations to contribute
more than $750.00 between them to the campaign
of
a s ingle candidate.
36 The obligation on the candidate is d ifferent however.
37 Section 69(1)(m)
of
the Act says:
69.
( )A
candidate shall
e n . ~ u r e
that.
(m) a contribution
of
money made
or
received in contravention
of
this Act is rclllmed to the contributor
as
soon as possible
after the
c didatc
becomes aware
of
the contrJvcntion.
38 The obligation
on
the candidate is simply to return a contribution
of
money made in contravention
of
the Act "as soon 11 s •
possible after the candidate becomes aware
of
the contravention". Ifhe docs that, the candidate is not contravening the Act.
39 Culver
J.
reached the same conclusion in Chapman, supra, where he stated at para. 40 that
The Appellant argues that a candidate who accepts contributions from individual contributors in excess
of$750
.
00
is in
violation of the Act. The Act makes it clear in section 7 (I) that a contributor cannot make any contributions in excess ofa
total
of
S750.
00
. There is no corresponding statement with that level
of
clarity
as
it relates to the obligation
of
a candidate
http:///reader/full/of$750.00http:///reader/full/of$750.00http:///reader/full/of$750.00http:///reader/full/of$750.00http:///reader/full/of$750.00http:///reader/full/of$750.00
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
9/62
Lancaster v. S Catharines City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595
2012
ONCJ7o.
2012 CarswellOnt fs9s. (201210.J. No. 626.
211 A.C.W.S.
3d} 574...
4 t
Mr.
Slack and Mr. Dorsey both listed c o n t r i b u t i o n ~ that had been made
by
corporations as well as contributions that
had
been made
by
individuals
in the
section
of
the
fonn
that
was
intended to contain only information regarding contributions
from
individuals. Both left blunk the section of the
fonn
intended to contain infonnation regarding contributions
from c o r p o r a t i o n ~
42
Both provided an explanation to the Committee
nnd
to me .
43
Mr. Stack stated that he had mistakenly included
all
contributions.
both
corporate and individual,
in
the same section. Ile
stated that the
fonn used
following this election was different
from
the
form
used following
the 2006
election. More
par1icu
lnrly,
the
2006 form
did not require him
lo
break down the contributors
in
the way that
the
20
I 0 form
did. He stated further that
he did become aware of the mistake before the filing deadline and that he attcmplcd 1 file a corrected document but he was
not permitted to
file
it.
44
Mr
. Dorsey
ulso
stated that
he
hed made a mistake. He apologized for this saying:
I feel terrible l>ccause
or
the over contribution thul I did not catch amJ was not aware of, and for using the bottom
halfof
page four to list
the
contributions insteadof the top halfofpage five.These innocent mistakes arc cmbarmssing, unpleasant,
trying, and troublesome and were non-intentional. I did not knowingly make the mistakes, ond was not inlcnding to do
something wrong to knowingly influence the outcome of the election.
6
45 What
um
I
to
make
of
these mistakes?
6 Counsel for the Appellant argued that these
arc
dear conlravcntions of the Act.
47
The Committee decided otherwise
48 I note the comments of
Wood I
at para.
12
in raid
v. Georgian Bay ( fownship),
[2011] O.J. No. 2818 (Ont. S.C.J.).
He said:
The Municipal Election Act governs the conduct of Municipal election campaigns. All counsel stressed end I agree that
one very important component of lhe Act is to control the election expenses of
the
candidates. The Act docs this by
limiting the amounts candidotcs can spend, providing penalties for overspending or improper spending, end requiring
audited Sltltements of receipts and disbursements available
to the
public for review
in
a timely fashion. The important
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
10/62
Lancaster
v.
SL
Catharines City), 2012 ONCJ
70,
2012
CarswellOnt
1595
2012 ONCJ
70
2012-CarswellOniT595, 2012]
6 J
No. 626, 211 A.C.W.S. 3d)
57 : ..
51 Mr. Stack spent S6,230.24. He listed nine contributors (three individuals and six corporations) who conlribulcd SI 00.00
or
more. These contributions Iota lied $5,450.00, including the S 1,500.00 that he later paid back.
Contrihu11ons
totalling
SI
00.00
•
r less accounted for a further S548.00 and
he
contributed $232.
24
ofhis own money.
52 Mr . Dorsey spent $7,389.22. Mr. Dorney's listofcontributon; reveals four corporate contribulors who contributed a total of
S1,700.00, including the $750.00 that he later paid
back.
He conlributed $5,689.22 of his own money
10
finance his campaign.
53 I set
oul
these figures
lo
emphasize that the information set out in the fonns filed by the c n d t d n t e ~ was neither extensive
nor particularly complicated. It should be readily apparent
to
anyone reviewing the
fonn
completed
by
Mr. Stack
thnt
he
had
included corporate contributors in the same section where
he
included his individual conlributors.
F:ailure to List President
or
Business Mnnnger
or
Cheque Signatory
54 Both Mr. Stack and Mr. Dorsey foiled to do this too. This mistake flows
nalUrally
from the previous one. The section for
individual contributors does not include
a
space requesting the names of
u
pn.-sident
or a business manager or a cheque signatory.
Mr. Siscoc also failed to
list the
name of a president or business manager for any
of
the three corporate contributors.
However,
Mr
.
Dun Rasetta is
listed as cheque signatory
for
two contributions
ond
his wife Mr.; Janice Rnscna
for the
lhird
56 Mr. Siscoe spent $6,976.57 during the election. He listed two individuals and three corporations
who
contributed SI 00.00
or more . The contributions by individuals totalled $275.00. The contributions
by
corp
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
11/62
Lancaster
v. St.
Catharlnes
(City), 2012 ONCJ 70, 2012 CarswellOnt 1595
2012 ONCJ 70, 2012
CarswellOnl 1595, (2012)
O. J. NO
626, 211 A.
C.W
.
S {jd)
574
.
62 Mr. Harris informed the Committee that he had not retained any campaign signs since
the
signs he had used hod contained
the date nnd the yenr
of
the election. Mr. Stack infonncd the Commitlec that he had retained only 50 compnign signs (hoving n
value of
$200.00)
because the others were unsuilnble for future use end hud been discarded following the election.
63
The minutes
of
the meeting
of
the Committee make it clear thot at that meeting, "The Chair asked Ms. Lancaster if she
was satisfied that the inventory
of
signs was resolved. Ms. Lancaster concurred."
64
Counsel for the Appdlnnt advised me during his submissions that the Appellant
was
abandoning this ground
of
appeal.
Conclusion
65 1 find no reason to interfere in any way with the decision
of
the Committee.
66 The Appeal is dismissed.
67 Counsel may address the issue ofcosts, if they see fit. in court, by appointment.
Appeal dismissed
Footnotes
Chapman
11
Hamilton (City),
(2005]
O.J.
No.
1943
(Ont.
CJ.) per Culver L;
/lfastroguiscppc
11
.
Vaughan (City),
(2008) O.J.
No
,
5734 (Ont. CJ.) per
Fnvcct J.
2
Nanoimn (City) v Rascal Trucking
Ltd [2000] I S.C.R. 342 (S.C.C.), quoted
in Chapman, supru,
para. 27 .
3
ibid.
4
Affidavit
of Susan
Dodds
filed
by
Respondent Compliance Audit Committee,
pa.rn
.
S,
5 Ibid
.,
para. 6.
6 Affidovil ofBrian Dorsey, para. 7.
Ead of Document
Copyrigln 0 llionuon Reuters a n a ~ Limned or iis liccnsors (excluding o d i ~ i d u o l court documcnlll). All riKhis
reserved.
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
12/62
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
13/62
5
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
14/62
.
1
r
~
\ _•
0
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
15/62
Vezina v
Mississauga
Election Campaign
Finances
Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, ..
•
2o13
ONSC 2368,°2013Carswell0nt
5762,
10
M.P.L.R.
51h)
-- ·
·
2013 ONSC 2368
Ontario Superior
Court of Justice
Vezina
v.
Mississauga Election
Campaign
Finances Committee
2013 CarswcllOnt 5762, 2013 ONSC
2368
1
10
M.P.L.R. (5th) 311, 227 A.C.W.S.
(3d) 1030
In the Matter of an Application for a
Compliance Audit
of
Carolyn Parrish's Election Campaign Finances Pursuant
to
Section
81 of the
Municipal Elections
Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.32
Greg
Vezina
and
Mississauga Election Campaign Finances
Committee
of
the City
of
Mississauga and Carolyn Parrish
K. van
Rensburg
J
•Judgment: April
29,
2013
Docket: DC-12-0046-00
Counsel:
T.
Richardson,
M.
Atherton,
for
Appellant, Carolyn Parrish
G. Vezina. Respondent, for himself
C.
Loopstra, Q.C., for Respondent, Mississnugn Election Campaign Finances Committee, Ciry
of
Mississaugn
Subject: Public; Property
Headnote
Public
law - Elections -
Candidates - Expenses
Municipal elections - Standard of review on appeal from compliance audit committee - Candidate
in
municipal election
filed audited financial statements with municipality, pursuant to
s.
78 1)
of
Municipal Elections Act, 1996 - Elector
detected irregularities, notably in respect of
v11lue
of donated rental realty, in
:.'tatcments
- Elector brought s. 81
(I) Act
application for order compelling
c n d i d t ~
to submit to compliance audit. and in due course candidate's stalcments were
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
16/62
Vezina v. Mississauga E lection Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, ..
2013 ONS
2368. 2013 CarswelfOnt 5762,
10
l . R .
(5th) 311... - -
Appeals judge found arguable issues with respect
to
rental realty valuation - Appeal was accordingly allowed, committee
was ordered to appoint auditor and candidate appealed - Appeal allowed and decision
of
committee restored Appeals
judge properly held that standard
of
review was reasonableness and
that
committee acting
within
jurisdiction was owed
significant appellate
deference-
However, bycfTcctivcly substitu ti
ng
appeals judge's view
of
record fur that
of
committee,
appeals judge cned in
law by
in foct applying wrong standard ofreview, correctncss- Corrccl or not, commiucc's decision
was
within reasonable range
of
possible outcomes and appeal was accordingly properly allowed.
Table of Authorities
Cases considered
by
K.
v n
R e m · b u r ~ J.:
Dickerson v. Compliance Audit Committee o Pickering City) (December 21, 2 ), Doc. 2X11999 (Ont. C.J.)
considered
Fuhr v Perth South fownship) (2011 ),
89
M.P.L R. (4th)
139, 2011
CarswcllOnt 11095, 2011
ONCJ
413 (Onl.
C.J.) - considered
Jackson v. Vaughan City)
(2009), 2009
CarswellOnt
1490,
59
M.P.L.R. (4th)
55
Ont
S.C.J.) considered
Lancaster v. SI. Catharines City)
(2012), 2012
ONSC
5629, 2012
CarswcllOnt
12351. 3 M P.L.R.
(5th) 117 (Ont.
S.C.J .) - followed
lyras v. Heaps (2008), 2008 ONCJ 524, 2008 CarswcllOnt 6348, 51 M.P.L.R. (4th) 277 (Ont
CJ.)
- considered
New Brunswick Board ofManagement) v. Dunsmuir 2008), 372 N.R. I, 69 Admin.
L.R.
(4th) l, 69 lmm. L.R. (3d)
I, (sub nom.
Dunsmuir
v.
New
r u n . ~ w i c k [2008] I S.C.
R.
190, 844 A.P.R. I, (sub nom.
Dunsmuirv. New Bromwick)
2008 C.L.L.C. 220-020, D.T.E. 2008T-223, 329 N.B.R. (2d) 1, (sub nom. Du11smuir v. New Brut1swick) 170 L.A.C.
(4th) I,
(sub
nom.
Dunsmuir v.
ew
Bnmswick) 291
D.L.R (4th) 577, 2008
CarswellNB
124, 2008 CarswcllND 125,
2008
SCC
9,
64 C.C.E.L. (3d) I, (sub
nom.
Dunsmuir v. ew Brunswick) 95 L.C.R. 65 S.C.C.)- followed
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
17/62
Vezina v. Mississauga E lection Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368,
2013 ONSC 2368, 2013 CarswellOni.5762,
10 M.P.L.R.
(5th)
311
...
s. 78( I
-
referred
to
s.
81
I)
considered
s. 81
(3) -
considered
s. 81(5) - considcrcd
s.
81(6)
-
referred
to
s. 81(7) - considcrcd
s. 81
(9) -
referred to
s.
81(14) -
referred
to
s. 81 (15) - referred to
s.
81.1
[en. 2009, c. 33. Sched. 21, s. 8(44)) - considered
Public Inquiries Act. 2009 S.O. 2009, c. 33, Schcd. 6
Gcnernlly - referred
to
APPEAL by candidale in municipal election from judgment allowing elector's appeal from decision
of
Mississauga Election
Campaign Finances Committee declining
to
order compliance audit with respect to candidate's campaign finances .
K.
van Renshurg J :
In
September 2011, Carolyn
P31'rish ran
in a by-election
as
a candidate in
Ward
5 for Mississauga city council. As
required
bys.
78(1)
of
the
Mu11icipa/
Elections
Act
1996
S.O. 1996, c. 32, (the "MEA''
or
the ''Act''), she submitted to the
city clerk a financial statement and audilor's repon in lhe prescribed fonn (lhe "Financial Statement''). Greg Vezina applied
under s. 81(I of the MEA lo request a compliance audit
of
Ms Parrish's election campaign finances. The Mississauga Election
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
18/62
Vezina v Mississauga Election Campaign F inances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, ..
26f30NSC 2368, 2013
CarswellOnt 5762, 10
MP.
L.R. (5th) 311 ...
5
Once appointed, the auditor is required to promptly conduct an audit o the
c a n d i d a t e ~
election
camp1ugn
finances to
determine whether
he
or she has complied with
the
provisions
o
the MEA relating
lo
election campaign finances, and is required
to
prerarc a report outlining any apparent contnlvention by the candidate : MEA, s. 81(9). The auditor has the powers o a
commission under the
Public Inquiries Act
The auditor's report is received by the compliance audit committee, which then
considers
the
report and
may:
(a)
i
the report concludes that the candidate appears to have conlrJvened a provision
o the
Act
relating to election campaign finances, commence a legal proceedmg against
the
candidate
for the
apparent contravention; or
(b) i the report concludes that the candidate does
not
appear to have contravened
11
provision o the
Act
relating
to
election
campaign finances,
make
a finding
s to
whether there were reasonable grounds for the application ; s. 81(14).
6 Pursuant to
s.
81(3), the cost o
the
audit
is
paid by the city, however if the report indicates
that
!here was
no
apparent
contravention and
the
committee
finds
that there
were no
reasonable grounds
for
the
11pphcation,
the
council
is
entitled
to
recover the auditor's costs from the applicant:
s.
81(
15)
.
7 Mr. Vezina's application for a compliance audit raised three issues respecting Ms Parrish's campaign finances. First,
he
questioned the candidate's recorded expense ofS750
for
her campaign office space,
in
respect o which she had noted an
in
-kind
donation by
EMBEE
Properties Ltd. ("EMDEE").
Mr.
Vezina asserted that
the
value o the
rent
was
:;ubsl11nti111ly
higher than
$750, that
Ms
Parrish
had
contravened the MEA's requirement, as interpreted
by
Mr. Vezina, to value
the
rent "at market value",
and
that
EMBEE
had provided a donation
in
excess o the per-candidate contribution limit of $750 under s . 71(1) o the MEA.
8
Mr.
Vezina also
took
issue v.ith lhe accounting for signs
and
stakes used
in
Ms Parrish's campaign, asserting that' more
signs
and
stakes
had
been
used
than were disclosed in
the
Financial Statement. Finally,
Mr
. Vezma complained that
Ms
Parrish
hod not
properly completed the required statutory declaration
on the
Financial Statement. Although she signed the declaration,
the place for
her
nwne
wo o;
left blank.
9 The Committee,
at
a meeting on March 6, 2012, received evidence from
Mr.
Vezina
and Ms
Parnsh, and asked questions
of both parties, as well
as
a real estate broker who
gave
evidence in support
o
the apphcation.
0 The Commiuee deliberated and then provided its decision
us
follows:
Nu
compelling
and
credible information which raises reasonable probab1hty o breach of statute (MEA). Application for
compliance audu
is
denied for the above reason
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
19/62
Vezina v. Mlsslssaug;i Election Campaign Finances Committee
2013 ONSC 2368, ..
2013
ONSC2368
2013 Carswel lOnt 5762, 10
M.P.l.R.
(5th) 31 L -
that the maximum discount for short term rentnl
of
similar space would normally
be
50 . Mr Vezina noted that Ms Parrish
spent $44,409.75
out of
her $44,879.45 election campnign expense limit under s. 76(4)
of
the
MEA s set
by
the Mississauga
city clerk.
Mr.
Vezina argued that,
i f
Ms Parrish
had
valued
the
campaign office
space
at
market vnlue,
she
would have violated
the
expense
limit as well
as
the prohibition against corporate campaign donations exceeding $750.
15 Ms Parrish provided the following explanation respect ing
her
campaign office
i.-pucc
. At lhe time she began looking for
space there were only two vacancies in the south section
of
Ward
5. She
contacted Michael Baker
of
EMBEE to inquire about
temporary occupancy
of720
Bristol
Rd
.,
Unit
8, and was advised that the space
was
vacant pending oc
c11pa1ion
by
a submarine
sandwich frJnchise with which EMBEE had committed to a long-term lease. As the franchisee was not taking possession unul
after the election, EMBEE had no interim
use
for the premises.
Mr
.
Baker
agreed that Ms Parrish could use the premises ns
is for
her
campaign office unttl the by-election under the condittons that ga rbage from the previous tenant be removed from
the premises, that a million policy
of
liability insurance
be
taken out at Ms Parrish's expense,
and
that a payment be
ma
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
20/62
Vezina v. Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, •
2 0 1 3 0 N S C 2 3 s a : - - 2 0 1 : f c a r s w e l l 0 n t 5 7 6 2 , 1 0 M . P
( 5 t h ) 3 1 1
...
of Ms Parrish, agreed with this position. Mr. Vezina nsserted that there was no error
in
the
OCJ
judgment, He also argued !hat
the decision 10 direct a compliance audit
is
supportable because the proper standard
of
review by lhe OCJ
s
"correctness", and
not
"reasonableness" (so that Duncan
J.
was entitled to substitute his view for that
of
the Committee).
22
Jn his
reasons for judgment, Duncan J. identified "reasonableness" as the
sland1m.I
of
review
of
the decision
of
the
Committee. He noted that, "apart from questions
of
law, the appeal s cssentrnlly an examination
of
the reasonableness
of
the
decision made by the
Committee with
due deference shown to its statutory authority and expertise".
23 The weight of authority suggests that the standard of review of the decision of a compliance audit committee under s.
81(5)
of
the MEA is reasonableness. This was recognized by Quinn J. in
Lancaster v.
St
Catharines City),
2012
ONSC
5629
(Ont. S.C.J.), the only reported decision
of
the Superior Court m an appeal
of
an
OCJ
decision rcspcctmg the decision of a
compliance audit committee. In
Lyras
v.
Heaps,
(2008) O.J. No. 4243 (Ont. C.J .) at paras.
17
to 19, Lane
J.
considered carlil:r
decisions pre-dating amendments to the
MEA
and applying a "com:cmess" standard of review when
the
decisions were made
by city council
or
o
delego.ted
committee. She concluded that the composition
of
the committee, its narrow function to screen
applications for audits, and the procedure followed in that case, which included a public meeting with evidence and submissions
by the parties and questions by the committee, required deference by any coun reviewing the decision. As Duncan
J.
noted,
m ugrccing with this unalysis: "The change [in the legislation] h;is imbued the decisions made both with independence
from
potential political intlucncc and with expertise."
24 Mr. Vezina relied on two OCJ decisions made after the legislation had been amendetl and which continued
to
apply a
"correctness" standard
of
review:
Dickerson v. Compliance Audi t Committee
of
Pickering City)
[{December 21,
2011
), Doc.
2 11999 (Ont. C.J.)], (December 21, 2011, unreported) and
Fuhr
· Perth South fow11ship), (2011] O.J. No. 4251 (Ont.
CJ
.).
In
each case, the court noted that there was no infonnation
as
to
the specific expertise
of
the committee, and, in
Fuhr,
there
was only a minimal record
of
the proceedings before the committee.
In Dickersun,
Bellefontaine
J
stated that he preferred the
reasoning
of
the earlier decisions in any event.
25 In my view, Duncan I correctly identified the standard of review of
the
decision of the Committee
in
this case. In
circum.c;tances
where n compliance audit committee has relevant expertise, anti is independent
of
the political process, and
here the procedure before the committee involves the opportunity
for
each side
to
present evidence and to make submissions,
the decisions it is authorized to make under the MEA are entitled to deference, and should be reviewed
for
reasonableness.
As
Qumn J noted in
Lancaster,
at para.
58,
the appeal is in the nature
of
a judicial review.
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
21/62
Vezina v. Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368,
..
2 13 ONSC 2368, 2013 Carswe
Ont
5762,
1
M.P.L.R. 5th) 311 ...
·
-
29 Duncan
l .
may have been correct m
dc.c;cr
ibing the rent arrungcmcnt as bargain basement , however
in
my
new
he
overstated the requirements
of
the
MEA
provisions when
he
concluded that the message
of s.
66(3)
is
that there arc no freebies .
The
MEA
anticipates that municipal election candidates will receive goods and services
from
third parties, and docs not prohibit
bargains
or the
provision ofgoods or services without charge. It requires that all
good.c; nnd
services n:ci:ivcd
be
valued,
and
where supplied by a person
in the
business, the valuation must be
the
lowest amount the contributor charges
the
general public
in
the same market area for similar goods and services provided at or aboul the same time .
30 Section 66(3)
of
the MEA,
by itc;
reference to what the contributor would charge the gencml public
for
similar goods
or
services at or about the same
rime,
requires a consideration
of the
particulnr circumstnnccs in
which
the goods or services in
question
are
supplied. The
111format1on
provided by the candidate with respect to the agreement with EMBEE, the fact that
the
space
was
in
transition and nwniting occupnncy
by new
tenant.,
anti therefore surplus space to the landlord,
and
the
conditions
under which
Ms
Parrish was
in fact
offered
and
used the spnce
"as is" nnd
requiring clean-up
by
volunteer labour, were
all
relevant to what the Committee had to decide, although those circumstances may not hove been determinative.
31 Ms
Parrish's evidence did provide un answer, and it was for the Committee to evaluate all
of
the evidence before it,
including the information provided by the candidate, and the evidence olTereJ by
Mr.
Vezina
in
support
of
his
application
for
an audit,
to
decide whether there
was
a probable breach of the MEA,
nnd
whether nn nudit was warranted.
32 There was
no
evidence
that
the candidate or anyone
on
her behalf had paid
rent
that was not reported
on
the Financial
Statement, or that the transaction
was
other than arms-length. Ultimately, the question was whether the $750 inkind donation
receipt represented an nppropriate value for
the
u ~ e
of the
space supplied without charge
lo
the candidate
by
EMDEE.
The
evidence provided by
Mr.
Vezina focussed on market value for commercinl spncc for long-tcnn
ICHses,
as well as office expenses
for
otJ1er
candidates. While this was pertinent evidence because
it
provided a context
in
which
Ms
Parrish's
rent
arrangement
could
be
scrutinized,
the
commercial lease evidence was not determinative
of
the decision that had
to
be
made
under
s.
66(3)
33
Quinn J. in
Lancaster
concluded that, while the compliance audit committee
had
erred in concluding that there was no
breach
of
the
MEA
. its decision not to appoint
nn
auditor was nevertheless reasonable. The uncontradictcd
infonn11tion
received
by the committee was that the omissions in
the
candidnte's financial statement were unintentional
and
had
been
rectified.
To
have directed
an
nudit would have amounted to a ''speculative expedition 11nd ended up revealing what
was
already known :
para.
94
.
In Jackson v. auglran City},
[2009]
OJ
_
No
. I 057 (Ont. S.C.J.),
in
the context
of
review
of
a bylaw authorizing
the
prosecution
of
a candidate for breachesof the MEA campaign finance
provisionc;
following the report
of
an auditor, Lauwers
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
22/62
Vezina v. Mississauga Election Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368, ..
·
2 13 ONSC 2368. 2013 CarswellOnt
5762,
10
M.P.L .R.
5th) 311 ...
while they were wmtmg for their first
2011
sign ordcrlo urrive.
To
be used in
2011
, the
20
10 si
1,'lls
required the
"re" in
''re -elect
to be covered and the October
25
date to be cut off The value attributed to the signs from 2010 that wen: used in 2011 was
$1,858, the amount that was included in the Financial Statement., along with
$9,491
. I 7 for new signs and
S71
.
14
for
hardware
used to affix the signs to fences. Ms Parrish noted that her Financial Statement reported the value of the signs actually used.
38 With respect to stakes, Ms Parrish ststed that no new stakes were purchased for the 2011 election. ThtS was her mnth
election and she had stakes lefi over not only from the 20 I0 election, but from previous municipal and feder.tl elections. Seven
hundred stakes were used and reported as required in her Fmanc1nl StntcmenL Ms Parrish explained that there is little rclauonship
between the number of signs used and the number ofstakes required. Small signs come with wire stnnds, which do not require
stakes, and some signs are attached to fences. Ms Parrish stated that the value ofs1gns and stakes
u.'\ed
in the 2011 by·election
was uceurntely reported as $11,356.17.
39 There is no indication that the Committee disregarded any evidence relevant to thesecond complaint miscd in Mr Vczina's
application . Considering the infonnation Ms Parrish provided, it was reasonable for the Committee not to appoint an auditor.
40 The final concern was acknowledged by Mr. Vezina
to
be technical, and would not warrant in itself the appointment of
an auditor. Ms Pnm:;h noted that the failure to print her name
on
the declaration was an oversight by her accountant., and that
she had sworn the declaration in front of the city clerk, ns required. She signed the statutory declnralion, uhhough her name
was not printed in the space above her signature.
41
Finally,
in
response to the appeal,
Mr
. Vezina raised an additional point, that can
be
addressed briefly.
He
asserted that
the Committee, m decidmg whether there were rea.c;onnble grounds for an audit, ought to have considered only the infonnation
contained in bis application, without regard to the candidate's explanation. ln this regard, he relied again on the
Dic:k trson
case,
where Bellefontaine 1 concluded that the committee's function was limited
to
detennining whether credibly based reasonable
groundc; existed for the elector's application at the time it was made, and ns such it was wrong to consider materials provided •
by the candidate in response to the application.
42 Again, the weight of authority
is
to the contrary. In the Lancaster case, Quinn
J.
concluded that the role ofa compli11nce
audit committee is more than simply to detennine whether the elector believes on rcason.oble grounds that the candidate has
contravened the Act The committee musl consider all of the evidence, and the basis for the beliefof the elector, as amplified
at the hearing before the Comnuttee, detennincs whether reasonable grounds exist (at parn. 70).
http:///reader/full/feder.tlhttp:///reader/full/11,356.17http:///reader/full/feder.tlhttp:///reader/full/11,356.17
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
23/62
Vezina v Mississauga Elec tion Campaign Finances Committee, 2013 ONSC 2368,
••
•
2 13-
NSC
2368, 2 13 CarswellOnt 5762 To
M.P:CR.
5th) 311 •
46 Accordingly the decision o the Committee is restored nd the application for a compliance audit o the clcction finances
o
Carolyn Parrish m the September
2011
Mississauga city by·clcction
is
dismissed.
47 Ifthe pru ttes are unable to agree on cosLc; I will receive brief written submissions as follows: from any party seeking cosLc;
within 30 days responding submissions within 20 days
o
receipt
o
the submissions seeking costs and
reply
submissions if
any within IO days
o
receipt
o
the responding submissions.
Appeal allowed
Footnotes
The
Committee.
in
responding to the appeal
to
this court argued
that
Duncllll
1
ought not
to
have ucccptcd affidavit evidence c c a u ~ e
that would traruifonn the appeal into u hcoring cle novo I do not intend to deal with the question o the proper scope
o
the record
before the OCJ in un llflpcal from a compliuncc audit committee decision except to note that the judge hearing the up(IClll
must
ha11c
discretion on this issue. 1111: affidavits in this case did not include new evidence but simply repeated
the
evidence that wa. I before
the
Committee.
In
such
c1rcums1nuccs,
the judge did
not
embark on
a
hearing
le nuvv
when he decided
10
receive
such
evidence
End orDocument Copyrighl 0 T h u m ~ u Rcuu:r.; Canada Limited ur its licaisors (cxcludmg
md1v1dual
coun docwncnts}. All r i g h t ~
r1:5crvcd
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
24/62
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
25/62
6
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
26/62
'
0
0
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
27/62
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
SEAN HARRISON
·AND-
THE TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL
BOARD
-AND
MICHAEL COTEAU
Before Justice Patrick Sheppard
Heard
on April 11 , 2008
Reasons for Judgment
Toronto Region
(Appellant)
(Respondent)
(Added Party)
Melissa A. Kehrer ....... .
.... ..
.. .. .... . .. ...
.....
. . .. ..
..
.
..
. . ... . .. .. .
......
..... . ...
..
for the Appellant
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
28/62
election campaign finances may apply for a compliance audit
of
the candidate s
election campaign finances.
Requirements
(2) The application shall be made to the clerk of the municipality or the secretary
of
the local board for which the candidate was nominated for office, within 90
days after the later of the filing date, the candidate s last supplementary filing
date,
if
any,
or
the end
of
the candidate s extension for fihng granted under
subsection 80 (6),
if n y ~
it shall be m writing and shall set
out
the reasons for the
electors belief.
Decision
(3) Within 30 days after receiving the application, the council or local board, as
the case may be, shall consider the application and decide whether it should be
granted or rejected
Delegation
o
committee
(3.1) A council or local board may, before voting day in an election, establish a
committee and delegate its powers and functions under subsection (3) alone or
under subsections (3), (4), (7), (10) and (11) with respect to applications received
under subsection (2) and the council or local board, as the case may
be,
shall pay
all costs in relation to the operation and activities
of
the committee.
•
owers and
limitations
(3.2) A committee established under subsection (3.1).
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
29/62
•
3
4)
f it is decided to grant the application under subsection (3), the appropriate
council or local board s h a l l
by
resolution, appoint
an
auditor to conduct a
compliance audit of the candidate's election campaign finances.
I. FACTUAL HISTORY:
It is not disputed that:
[ l] Prior to the November 13, 2006 municipal elections, Michael Coteau the added party)
was the sitting T.
D.S
.B. Trustee for
Don
Valley East, Ward and,
he
was actively engaged
in
trustee functions.
[2] Sean Harrison was running for Trustee against Michael Coteau
in
the municipal elections
held November 13/07. He lost by 1287 votes with Michael Coteau receiving 6629 votes to
5342
votes for Sean Harrison.
[3]
After an unsuccessful attempt (letter of November 18, 2006)
to
prevent Michael Coteau
from
assuming the trustee seat for
Ward
17
due
to the same alleged violations which are the
subject
of
this
a p p e a l ~
on May 17,
2007, Sean Harrison made an application to the
C AC
.,
(through the Director
of
Education), seeking a compliance audit of Michael Coteau's election
Campaign finances pursuant to
Scc
.
81
(1) of the Municipal Elections
Act.
[4]
The allegations of Sean Harrison can
be
summarized as follows:
(a) The IDSB made a contribution to Mr. Coteau's re-election campaign because Mr.
Coteau. briefly,
had
a web link
from
his T.D .S.B. site to his re-election web-site.
b)
The TDSB made a contribution to Mr. Cotcau
1
s re-election campaign because
IDSB printed and distributed a document entitled, September Trustee Update Budget
Consultation at the request
of
Michael Coteau.
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
30/62
4
members as the City
of
Toronto's C.A C. for the 2006 Municipal/School Board elections. The
members did not include any munic1pally elected persons. These individuals being
first
appointed by the council of the City
of
Toronto no viable attack on their independence can be
made.
[8]
Its members are described by the Toronto City Clerk in its Appointment
of
Individuals
to the 2 6 Elections C.A.C. as:
''Two
of
the recommended individuals are chartered accountants and one is
a
lawyer in
the municipal field. All three have extensive knowledge
of
the election campaign finance
provisions
of
the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 Mr. Colboume and
Mr
Love were
members
of
the Toronto Election Review Task Force and Ms. MacLean has served on
various committees of the Ontario Bar Association.
[9] The C.A.C. met to consider Sean Harrison's application. The C.A.C. met al 10:30 wn on
May 23, 2007 and considered Mr . Harrison's request for a compliance audit of
Mr
. Coteau's
finances. The proceedings
of
the C A.C were open to the public. The C.A.C. heard and
considered
the
following:
(a)
Mr Harrison's written submissions were made Exhibit l before the C.A.C. and
are before this court;
(b) Mr. Harrison's representative also made
oral
submissions to the C.A.C.;
(c) Mr. Coteau's written submissions were made Exhibit
2
before the C.A.C. and are
before this court;
(d) Mr. Coteau's counsel also made oral submissions to the C.A.C.
(10] The C.A.C. recessed. On its return, by motion of Virginia Maclean the C.A.C. rejected
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
31/62
•
successful run for elected office and therefore, no deferency was owed to their decision. In fact,
an issue of competitive electoral bias might exist m such situations.
This court finds that a far greater deferency is owed to the decision of this C.A.C. in the case at
bar because they were appointed by a non expert School Board and the City because of thcn
expertise. The applicant in this appeal does not challenge this fact
However, in this case, either under the correctness standard
or
a less demanding deferential
standard on the hard copy documents making up the Applicant's initial complaint, this appeal can
not succeed. The documents raised in
the
complaint simply do not support the complaint.
III ANALYSIS
O
THE FOUR COMPLAINTS
t must first be noted that Mr. Coteau was the sitting and presiding trustee for Ward 7 at the
time of each of the four elements of the complainant occurred.
Trustees of current T.D .S.B. remain in office throughout election periods and for some days
following by legislation.
The business
of
the school board continues throughout election periods. The students continue to
go
to
school. The school board meets and make decisions. Trustees' constituents and parents
have a right to be consulted and advised ofSchool Board business throughout election periods as
they are
at
other times during the trustee's term of office. n other words, the municipal world
docs not stop so as to permit the holding of statutorily set elecllons. Indeed. this makes sense
given the immediate nature of the responsibilities of elected municipal bodies.
With this back drop,
it
is
often said
that
the mumcipal electoral system favours incumbents
running for re-election. In large measure, this
is
due to name and activity recognition which falls
on anyone doing the duties
of
the office. Incumbents will say that this 'advantage' can cut
two
ways. For example,
if
operations or finances of the municipal bodies are going badly, then it is
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
32/62
6
Finally, within the TDSB website. space
s
provided to identify schools and incumbent trustees
by Ward. At least on Aug.29/07, the electronic site for Ward
17
above the school list and beside
the photo/name/telephone number and e-mail address o Mr. Coteau appeared the following:
"Please visit Michael's community website at www.michaelcoteau.com for more
information.''
This community website was clearly an election driven partisan website with content not
addressing legitimate TDSB/Ward/Schoolsffrustee business. t describes Michael Coteau as:
"Candidate for School Board Trustee, Don Valley East, Ward
17
and it carries the following
tag: "Authonzed by the Campaign to re-elect Michael Coteau." No issue was taken in the hearing
o
this appeal with the fact that immediately upon
Mr.
Harrison's complaint being made to the
TDSB concerning this link that the link to the 'community website' went down permanently. That
action was appropriate but can it by itself warrant the granting
o
a compliance audit o the
election campaign finances o Mr. Coteau. t is not an issue that this website w s established
entirely at the personal expense
o
Mr. Coteau. Although under TDSB policy, in the election
period, it was not appropriate that this partisan website was linked to the TDSB site, the link
w s
broken long before election day, quickly after the complaint and without real expense to the
TDSB. This element o the complaint
is
one in which the doctrine o de minimus should apply.
Therefore, there are no substantial merits to any
o
the four allegations making up the substance
o the complaint o Mr. Harrison. The Applicant has failed to raise, let alone establish, any
reasonable grounds for the application.
This appeal is dismissed and as requested, a date can be arranged with the Trial Co-ordinator for
the issue o costs to be addressed.
Released: June 19, 2008
http:///reader/full/www.michaelcoteau.comhttp:///reader/full/www.michaelcoteau.comhttp:///reader/full/www.michaelcoteau.comhttp:///reader/full/www.michaelcoteau.comhttp:///reader/full/www.michaelcoteau.comhttp:///reader/full/www.michaelcoteau.com
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
33/62
i
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
34/62
..; . ..
I •
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
35/62
•
•
IN THE MATTER OF
AN
APPLICATION BY MICH EL CRAIG
UNDER THE MUNICIP L ELECTIONS ACT l 996 (THE "ACT") TO THE
CITY
OF
TORONTO
CO:rvtPLIANCE
AUDIT COMMITTEE IN·RESPECT
OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT
OF
MARK GRIMES,
CANDIDA
TE
FOR ELECTION
TO
TORONTO CITY COUNCIL, WARD 6 {THE
"CANDIDATE").
AFFIDAVIT
OF
MARK GRIMES
I MARK GRIMES, of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontnrio, MAKE OATH
AND SAY:
1.
I
was
the successful Candidate for City Councillor in Ward 6 (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) in the
• most recent municipal election
held on
October 27, 2014. As such I have knowledge ofthe matters
contained in this affidavit.
Where
my
knowledge is based on information
and
belief, I state the
source
of
my
belief and verily believe it
to be
true.
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
36/62
4. My successful 2014 campaign was managed by Mr. James MaJoney (''Mr. Maloney ), a
prominent local lawyer and personal friend for over 30 years. Mr. Maloney has managed all
of
my
successful campaigns. He has volunteered countless hours
of
his own time . o manage my
campaigns. Neither I nor my campaigns have ever paid Mr. Maloney for his time running any of
my campaigns, including that in 2014.
5
My main opponent in the 2014 municipal election was Mr. Russ Ford ( Mr. Ford ), who I
defeated by a margin ofapproximately 44% to approximately 34% ofvotes cast. The Applicant in
this matter, Mr. Michael Craig
( Mr. r a i g ~
or the Applicant''), was a financial supporter and
volunteer for Mr. Ford. Attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit is
Mr
Ford's audited Fonn 4,
which lists
Mr
. Craig as a contributor. Attached as Exhibit B to this Affidavit is a photograph of
Mr. Craig attending with Mr. Ford at a campaign event during the last election.
6. I believe that this Application is part
of
a campaign against me that Mr. Ford's allies have
•
waged since he lost the 2014 Municipal Election. Mr. Craig has also filed a complaint with the
City's Integrity Commissioner against me. To my knowledge, this complaint is pending.
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
37/62
have used Gullons to print large volumes o printed material in both the 2010 and 2006 Municipal
Elections. As far
s
I know, there is no familial
or
personal relationship between myself
or
any
o
my Campaign personnel and Gullons.
10. The Campaign filed copies o invoices to reflect my reported Form 4 expenses with the
City Clerk. Attached as Exhibit to this Affidavit are copies o each o the three relevant Gullons
invoices. Contrary to Mr. Craig's suggestion in the Application, each o these invoices was filed.
The Campaign paid these expenses and they were reported on my Form 4 under b r o c h u r e f l ~ e r
expenses.
11. The Campaign produced a number
o
different printed materials. Attached
s
Exhibit E to
this Affidavit is a chart breaking out which o the printed materials were associated with each
invoice rendered by Gullons.
12 Further, I note that there was an additional brochure entitled Shutting the Door on
Residential Development at Christies not mentioned by Mr. Craig in his Application. This was
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
38/62
campaigns or other work that they do. As you can see from the materials attached to the
Application, the designs were relatively similar and straightforward. At no time was any person
paid to provide graphic design services to the Campaign.
15
. I have reviewed the quotes
Mr.
Craig provided in his Application to suggest that I obtained
printing services below market value. In response, I note that Netprint & Ship and The Printing
House are located in Ward 6, while Gullons is located in Ward 28. Attached as xhibit G to this
Affidavit are Google maps demonstrating the locations
o
these printing houses, as well as a
Toronto Municipal Ward Map.
16.
The camera-ready proofs used in the brochures were done by James Heaslip
(4 Mr.
Heaslip ), a photographer. That expense ($560.00) is reflected in my Form 4 in the Advertising
Expenses category. Attached as
xhibit
to this Affidavit is a copy
o
the invoice from James
Heaslip Photography in that amount. This invoice was submitted to the City Clerk along with the
others.
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
39/62
Advertising Expenses
18. With respect to the online video costs raised byMr
.
Craig in the Application, the Campaign
did create and post a number of short YouTube videos. We retained the professional services of
Mr. Matthew Lochner
( Mr.
Loclmer ) to help create several
of
these videos. The cost for
Mr
.
Lochner's services is reflected in three invoices, which are attached to this Affidavit as
xhibit I.
19. In the Application, Mr. Craig alleges that Mr. Lochner and Mr Heaslip, the photographer
described above, are p ~ r s in the film and video production company Fifth Ground
Entertainment Inc. ('
4
FGE ) which is owned by Mr. Chris Szarka ( Mr. Szarka ). Mr. Craig
suggests that their professional association with
FG
indicates that services were improperly
reported (i.e. were paid for but provided at below market value).
20. In fact, it is my understanding that Mr. Lochner and Mr. Heaslip work independently
of
FGE. Mr. Szarka is a good friend and supporter. I have worked with him in the past on many
events in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, including the Lakeshore Film Festival.
We
discussed using a
Youtube channel for the campaign, at which point he recommended I hire
Mr.
Lochner as his rates
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
40/62
volunteers or family members. Many volunteers contributed by filming various events during the •
campaign and uploading them
on
YouTube. These
were
not professionally-produced videos.
23.
Mr Szarka also suggested that I hire a Humber College student to perform videography
work, as student fees would be within the Campaign's budget. took this advice in hiring
Mr Ken
MacLauchlin ( Mr. MacLauchlin ) to assist with the campaign voting day party. Attached as
Exhibit J to this Affidavit
is
a
copy o
this invoice.
24 With respect to the robocalls
made
by then-candidate John Tory ( Mr. Tory ) endorsing
my election, the campaign paid for the cost o these calls in their entirety. The cost was $0.05 per
call, with a minimum charge
o
$100.00. The calls were targeted at voters
who were
known
to
be
supporters o
Mr
. Tory, and as such this was a small robocall effort. The invoice for these services
is attached as Exhibit K to this Affidavit.
25 In his Application,
Mr
Craig alleges that my campaign under-reported expenses related to
truck and automobile costs.
He
alleges that a number
o
trucks, decorated with Grimes Campaign
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
41/62
Salary/Staffiog Expenses
28. With
respect to staffing expenses,
Mr.
Craig alleges that I paid or should have
paid my
campaign manager,
Mr.
Maloney,
and Ms.
Sheila Paxton ( Ms.
Pa'
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
42/62
in, such as hockey and lacrosse leagues, and in part through other community relationships, I have
been fortunate enough to build a large network
o
supporters willing to devote their time to my
campaign.
34. With respect to Mr. Craig's allegations regarding the Event Coordinators who helped to
organize fundraisers for
my
campaign, all fundraising expenses were reported and documented in
my Form 4 Two individuals were retained to assist with my campaign, each o whom was paid the
same flat fee per month
o
service leading up to fundraising events for the Campaign. These event
planners were necessary to plan and execute fundraising events important to the Campaign. Their
duties involved in organizing fundraisers are extensive, including booking the venues, advertising,
picking up cheques, arranging for decorations and food, organizing volunteers to be at the event,
coordinating payment and preparing and mailing contribution rebate forms to donors.
35. Attached as
Exhibit M
to this Affidavit is a copy o the invoices reflecting these expenses.
For the sake
o
the privacy
o
the individuals involved, the names and addresses
o
the individual
coordinators are redacted.
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
43/62
SWORN EFORE ME at the ity o
p i ~
i ~ i f
oi Fo
o
th
£
r
or
Taking ffidavits
or as may be)
.
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
44/62
.
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
45/62
A
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
46/62
0
0
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
47/62
This s Exhibit ..A referred to in the Affidavit o Mark Grimes
sworn /t e m ~ l 2015
l
~ - - - -
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
48/62
Mlnlstryd
Mtnclpal
Affaln
Financial Statement-Auditor's Report
.£;.>Ontario
andHouma
Fonn4
unicipal Elections Act 1998 (Section 78)
Instructions
All candidates must complete Boxes A
and
B.. Candidates who receive contributions or Incur expenses
beyond the
nomination fee must
complete
Boxes C, D, Schedule 1, and
Schedule
2 as
appropriate. Candidates
who
teeeive
c:ontnbutlons
or
Incur expenses
in
excess
of
10,000 must
eJso
a lache an AuditOl's Report.
AD
surplus funds (after
any
refund to
the
candldale
or
his
or
her spouse) shall be paid Immediately ever
to the
dertt
who was
responsible
ror
the
conduct
of the election.
YYYY
MM
DO
yyyy MM
O
For the campaign period from
tday
candidate filed nomination)
I
2014
I
03
I
17
I
to t
201
..
I
12
31
l' ll
Primary
filing
reftecting finances to December
31
(or
Slh day
after
voting
day
In a
by-election}
f:I Supplemental)' filing Including
i ~
after December 31 (or 45th day aftervoting day in a by-election)
IBox
A:
Name of Canatdata and Office
Candidate's
name as
shown
on the
ballot
last
Name
FOR
Name
of
office
for wtalc:h the
candidate sought eledlon
COUNCllLOR
Nameof
MunldpaJity
TORONTO
Given Name(s)
Russ
Ward name
or
no.
(if any)
6
0
~ p e ~ n d ~ ~ r~ m r t
m
e d : : b y
e f k ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
40,432.25
IEl
I did
not
accept any c:ootributions
or
Incur any expen5e5 other than
the
nomlnaUon fee.
Complete
Sm
A and
B
on y}
IBox B : Declaration
http:///reader/full/40,432.25http:///reader/full/40,432.25http:///reader/full/40,432.25http:///reader/full/40,432.25http:///reader/full/40,432.25http:///reader/full/40,432.25
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
49/62
IBox c:
Statement
of c a m ~ a l D
Income and Ex( nses
N·
e
of bank or
recognized lending Institution
ntborrowed
s
INCOME
TOlal
amount of
n
conbtbutions
(From line 1A In
Schedule
1)
39,621.33
RefUnd of nomination filing
fee +
s
Sign deposit
refund
s
Revenue from fund-raising events
not deemed
a
canlribution (From Part Ill
of
+
Schedule2)
1.254.00
Interest earned
by
campaign
bank account
+
s
7.96
Other (provide full details)
1.Proc:eeds from sale of campafs
office erinter
+
s 115.00
2.
+
3.
+
Tobi Campaign Income
(Do not include
loan)
=
40.9911.29
C1
EXPENSES
(Note: Incl ude lhe
value
of conbibutlons of goods and sefVic:es)
Expenses Subject to Spending
Umlt
Nomination fffing
fee
+
100 0C
lnvenlDry
from previous
campaign
used
int his
campaign (list details
In Table +
5 of Schedule
1)
Advertising
+
s
Brochureslftyers +
7,236.32
Signs
(induoing
sign deposH)
+
s
7,185.31
Meetngs
Hosted
+
582.83
Office expenses Incurred until t i n day
+
61435.04
Phone
and/or Internet
expenses Incurred
until
voting day
+
643.40
Salaries, benefits honorarta, professional
fees
Incurred
until
voting day
+
14,000.DO
k Charges
Incurred
until
voting
day
+ 39.32
erest charged on loan until voting day
+
1.
+
2. +
3.
+
s
Total
Expenses
aubject
to
apending Omit
=
s
36,222.22
C2
Expenses NotSubJect
to
Spending Umlt
Accounting
and
Audit
+
2,260.00
Costs
of funckalaing
eventsladivftles (list details
In
Part IV of Schedule
2) +
s
840.00
http:///reader/full/39,621.33http:///reader/full/1.254.00http:///reader/full/39,621.33http:///reader/full/1.254.00
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
50/62
Box D· Calculation ofSu lus
or
Deflclt
• Exce5s
deficlenc:y)
of Income
over
expenses
Income - Total
Expenses)
(C1-C4)
+
D1
Blgible deficit
carried forward
by the
cancfldate
from
the last election
Total
D1-D2)
- D2
- - ,.....____________
If thera fa a surplus,
deduct
any refund ofcandidale'a or spouse's
contrlbutions to
the campaign.
Surplus
(or
deficit) for the campaign
03
ff
line
D3 shows
a swplus, the amountmust
be
paid In trust. at the time
the1inandal statements are
filed, to
the muntcipal dert t
who
was
responsible
for the
conduct of the election.
Amount
of - paid
to municipat deric In the municipality
of
Toronto
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
51/62
u t e
1 -
Contributions
..fi
I·Summary
of Contributions
Contnbutionfromcandidate(include
the
value
cf
lnventmy listedInTable
5 +
652.20
Conlnbutlcnfromspouse
+
750.00
Total valueof contributionsnot
exceecfmg
100 per
contributor
• includeticketrevenue.cxmtributions
In
money,goodsand services
where
lhe lo1al
contribution
from
acontribuloris$100or ess(do
not
includecontributionsfromfromcandidate
or
spouse).
+
$ 10,384.13
Tolavalueof conlribulfons
exceeding
$100per
contribuCor
(from 16; ist
-------
details
In
Tables1-4)
• klcludeticketrevenue,contributionsInm6ney,goodsandservices
Wflere Ute
total contributionfrom aa>ntrlbutor
eicceeds
$100(do
not
lndude
conbibutionsfi'om fromcandidateerspouse.
+
27,835.00
Less: Contributionreturned
or
payableto lhecontributor
Contnl>utlon
paid or
payable
to lhe dert,
Includingcontributions
fromanonymoussources
exceeding
$10.
Total
Amount of
Contributions
(RecordIn
Box
C)
=
s
39,621.33
1A
Part fl •Uat
of Contributions from
EachSing
le
Conb1butortotaling Mon
than
$100
Table1: Monetarwconbfbutions
from
lndMduafs otherthan
candidate
ors..........e
Name Full
Addrus
Amounts
-
.
.
.
.
http:///reader/full/10,384.13http:///reader/full/27,835.00http:///reader/full/39,621.33http:///reader/full/10,384.13http:///reader/full/27,835.00http:///reader/full/39,621.33
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
52/62
Schedule
:
Part
If - List of
Contributors from Each Single Contnl>utor totalling
Mor than
100
Table : Monetary contributors from
lndMduals
other than candidate
or
s:ouse
I
Name
I
Address Amount
Adam Feldman 6 LakeShore Dr6 Toronto, ON, MBV m 210.00
Alan Broadbent
170
BloorSt W 804,Toronto ON, MSS 11 9 200.DO
Allan Valk 48 ThirteenthSt. Toronto, ON, MBV 3H4
300.00
Anna Janaslk 48 13th St.Toronto ON, M8V 3H4 300.00
Barbara Pidcodc 2676
u
Shore
Blvd
W Toronto ON, M8V 1G8 500.00
Brian Mackay 67 Jellicoe Ave, Toronto, ON, MSW
1WS 300.00
cary
Milner
S6 BordenSt. Toronto, ON, MSS 2MB 250.00
Catherine
Balley
6 Meaford Ave,Toronto ON, M8V 2HS 200.00
Char1es
Dillingham
1368 Ravine Dr, Mississauga, ON, l5J 3E7
22S.OO
Char1otte Ford
5229
Dundas StW 308 Toronto ON,
M98 61.9
500.00
Chris Marshan 61 Heman St . Toronto, ON, M8V
lX4
300.00
Dan Abrahams 299 Glendale Ave.Toronto
ON
M6P 4A6 200.00
David carson
18 5
Humberv.aleBlvd,
Toronto
ON, MSY 3R2 200.00
David Crombie
2181
Yonge St 501, Toronto ON, M4S 3H7
150.00
DavfdVeflekoop S4 EastboumeCres Toronto,ON, M8V 1W8 200.00
DebbieHardy 87A Alder Cres, Toro nto, ON, M8V 2H7 200.00
Deborah
Qulafn
4 Elsinore
Path
406,Toronto ON,
MBV
4G7 200.00
Dennis
Raphael
62
First
Ave
Toronto
ON
M4M
1W8
200.00
Douglas Kerr 112 George St, Toronto, ON, MSA 2MS 200.00
Duncan Farnan 59
Station
Rd, Toronto ON, M8V 2R2 200.00
El1zabeth Beader 8 Hills Hts. Toronto ON, MSY 1Z1 350.00
Eva Hourihan 1409 Applewood Rd, l s s l s s a u ~ ON,
l5E
2M1 700.00
Fatima FUlppl
96 Comay
Rd. Toronto, ON, M6M 212 200.00
Faye
Worth
SS
Bridesburg
Cr
206,
Toronto ON, M9R 2K7 200.00
Frank CUnnln£ham
13 0
cartton St 905 Toronto ON, MSA 4K3 200.00
George
Takach
Marine
Parade
Dr713 Toronto ON,
MRV 484
500.00
Glenys
Huws
49
Wheatfield
Rd,
Toronto
ON.
MBV
2PS 300.00
Graham Jones 16 Acom Ave. Toro nto, ON, M9B 3P8 300.00
~
Jones 16
Acom Ave, Toronto ON, M9B 3P8 300.00
8/19/2019 Submission From Brian Kolenda on Behalf of Candidate Mark Grimes - Part 3 (EA.supp.EA4.2.3) (September 1, 2015)
53/62
Lorraine Telford
Maggi Redmonds
Margaret Ollder
Margaret
Clupa
Mario Galofaro
Melissa Nelson
Michael Craig
Michael Earle
Michael Hotrum
Michael Olivier
Michelle Soares-McCarthy
Mila
Mohammed
Netres Van loon
Pat
Evans
Patr1da Plant
Peter Shepherd
Pushkala Taracad
R. Scott James
Jtmdafl a ~
Renate
Kok
Rob
Howarth
Robert
Gumns
Rudolph Wiens
Ruth Grier
•
Sandra Van Ruymbeke
Shella Masters
St phanle Ford
Steve Nazar
TenyGrier
llmButler
W E Bamett
WalterY-1111
Wanda Jurashelc
42 Femwood
Park
Ave, Toronto,
ON, M4E 3G1
250.00
277 Booth
Ave,
Toronto,
ON, M4M
2M7 150.00
411 v.ilermo
Dr,
Toronto,
ON,
MSW
216
300.00
62 Fairfield Ave, Toronto.
ON, MSW 1R8
200 00
SB
Kenneth
Ave,
Toronto,
ON, M6P
lJ3
600.00
97
EJghtth
St., Toronto,
ON,
MSV
3CS 2SO OO
56
Sheth
St, Toronto,
ON,
MBV 3A2
300.00
54 Eleventh St, Toronto,
ON, M8V 3G4
300.00
16 Dartmouth Cres, Toronto, ON, M8V 1Xl 500.00
9 I ~ Rd, Toronto, ON,
M6H
22 8 750.00
83 Kennlnghall Cres, Mississauga,
ON,
LSN 2T8 300.00
202 l;llce
r o m e n d ~
Toronto,
ON, MSW 1AS
150.00
24 Humewood Gdns, Toronto, ON, M6C 1Gl 250.00
70 ThirtySixth St. Toronto,
ON, MBW
3L2
400.00
29 Rfth
st,.
Toronto, ON, MSV
m
300.00
77 Miles
Rd,
Toronto, ON, MSV 1V4
2SO OO
330 Bumhamthorpe Rd W 1601, Mississauga, ON, LSB
OEl
200.00
20 Niagara
St ~
Toronto,
ON, MSV 3L8
250.00
29 Elton
O'es,
Toronto,
ON, MSW 2X9
200.00
1 Market St, Toronto,
ON, MSE
OA2 200.00
14
Grfmthorpe
Rd,
Toronto,
ON,
M6C
1G3
300.DO
40 Twenty Second St, Toronto,
ON, MBV 3Ml
200 00
28 CUtler
Cres,
Toronto, ON,
MSW 2K5
300.00
74 ArcadianCtd,Ttironto,
ON, MBW
2Y9 500.00
401 Sunnyside
Ave,
Toronto,
ON,
M6R 2S2
200.00
1S Tenth St. Toronto,
ON,
MBV 3E7 200.00
12
Viewbank Rd, Toronto,
ON,
MlN
1E7
750.00
411 ValermoDr, Toronto, ON, M8W
2L7
300.00
74 Arcadian Cn:le,. Toronto,
ON,
MSW 2Y9 750.00
340
lhe