Treat audit case as new, Rob Ford’s lawyers argue

Mayor Rob Ford’s lawyers want a court to ignore a city panel’s decision to order an audit of his campaign financial statements.

The city’s compliance audit committee, composed of three residents with expertise in election rules, decided unanimously in May to order the audit after considering a complaint from two residents who alleged that Ford had committed several breaches of the Municipal Elections Act.

Ford, who initially said he welcomed an audit because he has “nothing to hide,” is appealing the decision.

In documents filed Friday, his lawyers asked the court to treat the residents’ compliance audit request as an entirely new case rather than dealing with the matter as a regular appeal. In an appeal, Ford’s lawyers would have to convince the court that the compliance audit committee had made an error.

The court couldn’t possibly review the committee decision, his lawyers argued, because the committee formally stated no reasons for making it.

“In such a situation, the only manner in which a decision without reasons can be reviewed is by reexamining the evidence anew,” the lawyers, Tom Barlow and Christopher Rae, wrote in the filing.

If their request for a new airing of the case is turned down, they sought permission to nonetheless introduce new evidence they said would strengthen Ford’s claims.

The committee, they argued, made its decision based on incomplete information: Ford’s initial financial statements. His supplementary statements, which were filed later, address the concerns of the residents’ complaint, they argued.

“Restricting the scope of the appeal by banning relevant and likely determinative evidence impedes justice by requiring the reviewing court to make a decision based on an artificial and incomplete evidentiary record,” they wrote.

The complaint was filed by residents Max Reed and Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler.

Chaleff-Freudenthaler is a left-leaning activist and former Toronto Public Library board member who challenged Ford over the library budget. He argued Friday that the supplementary financial statements do not differ in any relevant ways from the initial statements.

“All pertinent information was in front of the compliance audit committee,” he wrote in an email.

“If anything,” he wrote, “the supplementary filings raise additional questions about further potential improprieties around disclosure of information related to fundraising events.”

The complaint alleges that the campaign broke the law by allowing a Ford family company, Doug Ford Holdings Inc., to pay for more than $77,000 in expenses. The campaign repaid the company a year after Ford registered as a candidate. Corporate donations are illegal, as are loans from any company that is not a bank or “recognized lending institution.”

The complaint also alleges that Ford improperly classified some events as fundraisers, which are exempt from the campaign spending limit. If the events had been properly classified, the complaint alleges, Ford would have exceeded the limit.

The case will be heard in court on Jan. 19.

Original Article
Source: Star