Sudbury, Ont., city councillor faces Election Act charges

A Sudbury committee has decided that Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc should face legal action over “apparent contraventions of the campaign finance rules” that took place during Leduc’s re-election campaign in 2022.

If found guilty of the most serious accusation – that Leduc exceeded campaign spending limits – he could be forced to give up his city council seat.

Responding to a complaint from resident Anastasia Rioux, Greater Sudbury’s election compliance audit committee met in April 2023 to hear from both sides.

Following that meeting, the committee asked KMPG to conduct a compliance audit of Leduc’s election finances.

The committee reviewed the KPMG audit at its July 3 meeting.

KPMG identified several instances in which Leduc appears to have violated campaign finance rules set out in the Municipal Elections Act.

The committee made clear that it “does not make any determination as to whether the candidate actually violated the campaign finance rules.”

“Rather, the committee must determine whether it is in the public interest to commence a legal proceeding against the candidate in respect of the apparent contraventions,” the committee said.

The audit identified four areas where the Act was apparently violated.

The committee said the biggest issue is Leduc didn’t report five campaign expenses from a Grandparent’s Day event, which was held in September 2022.

“The auditor’s report verified that the candidate incurred expenses in relation to prizes given away at the Grandparent’s Day 2022 event, which expense was paid for using funds from the campaign bank account,” the committee said.

“This expenditure was not reported in the candidate’s financial statement. Had this expense been reported, it would have caused the candidate to exceed the general spending limit prescribed by the Municipal Elections Act.”

Serious consequences

That’s particularly important, the committee said, because exceeding the campaign spending limit has serious consequences.

“Adjusted to include even one campaign expense associated with (the Grandparent’s Day) event, the candidate would have exceeded the general spending limit,” the committee said.

“Had the candidate’s financial statement accurately reported such expenses, section 88.23 of the Municipal Elections Act … provides that the candidate would have been subject to the automatic penalty of forfeiture of his office as Ward 11 councillor. The committee makes no observations about whether this was done deliberately to avoid such consequences.”

The campaign spending limit was $14,159.60.

In another case, the committee said Leduc received a $500 cheque and five, $100 bills in cash from the same person. Under the Act, cash contributions are limited to $25.

He is also accused of accepting a total of $3,000 “from three apparently related individuals,” the committee said.

Same contributor, different names

“The auditor’s report identified that these contributions were provided in the form of three bank drafts, each purchased by the same individual, with the names of two other individuals written in the memo line,” the committee said.

“It therefore appears that the bank drafts were not purchased by each of the three nominal contributors, but rather constitute an overcontribution from the same contributor, which the candidate accepted.”

Leduc is also accused of spending $307.14 from his own bank account, rather than from his candidate bank account, also in contravention of the Act.

• Download our app to get local alerts on your device
• Get the latest local updates right to your inbox

The committee said it wasn’t offered any “credible basis” to believe that Leduc exercised “due diligence” to avoid violating the Act when he filed his campaign expenses.

While Leduc and his lawyer insisted any contraventions of the Act were “honest mistakes” and errors “made in good faith,” the committee said it “was not presented with credible evidence that would establish the candidate exercised all reasonable care or took all the objectively reasonable steps that may be expected of an experienced candidate in a municipal election in order to avoid offending the statute through his campaign activities.”

Read the full decision from the election compliance audit committee here.