Case information

Legislation — Interpretation — Courts — Jurisdiction — Relief from forfeiture of office — True statutory penalties — Did the court below err in finding that s. 88.23 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 32, Sched. (the “Act”) is a true statutory penalty precluding relief from forfeiture and inconsistent with authorities decided at first instance and on appeal across Canada concerning the availability of relief from forfeiture in cases involving a true statutory penalty — Did the Court below err in finding that the broad inherent jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice was displaced by amendments to the Act, contrary to this Court’s authorities — Did the Court below err in failing to address the applicant’s submissions that the provisions of the Act are internally inconsistent and that the respondent’s interpretation of the Act results in an absurdity insofar as the relevant provisions concerning relief from forfeiture (ss. 88.23 and 92) are more forgiving for a convicted offender than an individual subjected to an automatic, administrative act.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Two complaints were made about the applicant’s allocation of expenses in his financial statement of campaign income and expenses following his re election as a Councillor for the City of Toronto. A compliance audit was ordered, and the supplementary financial statement the applicant filed revealed that he had exceeded the allowable spending limit for expressions of appreciation during the 2018 election. Under s. 88.23(2) of the Act, automatic forfeiture of office is among the penalties for exceeding the spending limit. The City Clerk advised the applicant that he was removed from office. The applicant applied for relief from forfeiture, claiming that he had made a good faith error in categorizing his expenses. The respondent, Adam Chaleff, is a Toronto voter who intervened in the proceedings.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the applicant relief from forfeiture. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Chaleff’s appeal and set aside the lower court decision on the basis that there is no jurisdiction to provide relief from forfeiture in these circumstances. The court declared that the applicant was subject to the penalties under s. 88.23(2) of the Act, including forfeiture of his office, but has stayed its decision pending the determination of the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.