Greater Sudbury says councillor's lawsuit 'an abuse of process,' should be thrown out

Lawyers for Greater Sudbury pulled no punches in responding to a lawsuit from beleaguered city councillor Bill Leduc, who is facing charges under Ontario's Municipal Elections Act.

The city "denies each and every allegation" made in Leduc's lawsuit, the city said in its statement of defence. It is calling for the lawsuit to be dismissed and that Leduc pay any costs the city incurs defending the suit.

In his lawsuit, Leduc, councillor for Ward 11, claimed that the Election Audit Committee was biased in recommending that charges be laid against him for apparently exceeding the spending limit during the 2022 campaign.

The major issue was a Grandparents Day event in September 2022 that Leduc is accused of using as a campaign event but didn't claim the spending as part of his election expenses.

Had he done so, he would have exceeded the $14,159.60 spending limit. Exceeding the spending limit could result in Leduc being forced to vacate his council seat.

After hearing a complaint from Ward 11 resident Anastasia Rioux, the committee had KPMG audit Leduc's campaign expenses. That audit concluded Leduc likely broke the Act, prompting the committee to proceed with charges.

He is suing the City of Greater Sudbury and Rioux for a total of $450,000 and is seeking to stop legal action against him, among other remedies.

The suit accuses the audit committee of “deliberately engag(ing) in unlawful conduct in the exercise of their public functions.”

Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc is facing charges under the Municipal Elections Act related to his spending during the 2022 municipal campaign. (File)

The committee “demonstrated bias” through its “undue reliance on the defendant Rioux’s unproven allegations,” the suit said.

It also “made the decision to proceed with legal action against Mr. Leduc for improper purposes, including political motivations rather than genuine concerns about election integrity.”

“Mr. Leduc maintains that the defendant Rioux’s actions and statement, as well as the city’s handling of the proceedings through its committee, have gone beyond legitimate political discourse and criticism, amounting to malicious and coordinated attempt to damage Mr. Leduc’s reputation and political career.”

Immune from lawsuits

In the statement of defence, the city argues that bodies such as the audit committee can't be sued. It operates entirely independently from city council and city council has no influence over its decisions.

The statement of defence also said that the committee makes no decisions regarding guilt or innocence, only whether it was in the public interest to authorize the charges.

"If the committee decides to commence a legal proceeding against the candidate, an independent prosecutor is appointed to take carriage of the matter," the city said in the statement of defence.

"The prosecutor will have the authority to, inter alia, screen potential charges, conduct pre-trial or trial proceedings, entertain plea bargains and establish what penalty to seek upon conviction."

The committee was following the rules set down by the Ontario legislature, which gives it the authority to make certain decisions – including whether to prosecute a candidate suspected of violating campaign expense rules.

The decision to proceed with charges was based on "the severity of the apparent contraventions, and the public interest in ensuring compliance with the campaign finance rules," the city said.

'Abuse of process'

The proper forum to hear the appeal is through a judicial review, which Leduc has begun, not through the lawsuit.

"On that basis, this duplicative action seeks relief in the wrong forum, and therefore constitutes an abuse of process," the city said.

The committee itself has 'judicial immunity' from such suits.

"The committee performs a quasi-judicial function, holding hearings marked by the right of participation by interested parties," the statement of defence said.

"It exercises a statutory power of decision within the meaning of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, and its decisions are therefore subject to judicial review. As such, the committee is not an entity which can be sued civilly."

But even if that wasn't true, the city argued that the committee followed the procedures to the letter in determining that Election Act charges were warranted.

o    Download our app to get local alerts on your device

o    Get the latest local updates right to your inbox

"A complaint was made, an investigation was undertaken, that investigation revealed non-compliance and a determination was made that that non-compliance warranted a response," the city said.

"The committee denies that the decision was made for an improper purpose or motivated by malice or any improper or political purpose."

While Leduc's lawsuit accused the city of intentionally trying to damage his reputation, the statement of defence said his legal problems are his own doing.

"The committee denies that any damages or losses were caused by the alleged misfeasance in public office or abuse of power and puts Mr. Leduc to the strict proof thereof," the city said.

"Any impact to Mr. Leduc’s political ambitions, if any has been suffered, are a result of his own failures to ensure compliance with the campaign finance rules."

"The committee asks that this action be dismissed as against it, with costs payable by Mr. Leduc."