Case information

Elections – Election spending – Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred by failing to find that the courts below erred in the interpretation and application of the definition of “election expense” and “commercial value” under ss. 406, 407 and 2(1) of the Canada Elections Act – Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred by failing to find that the courts below erred in determining that the Applicant was a party to the offence committed by his official agent and finding that the third party liability provisions of the Criminal Code apply to prosecutions under the Canada Elections Act by operation of s. 34(2) of the Interpretation Act – Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred by refusing to grant leave to appeal the decision that it was appropriate to apply s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code to cure the trial judge’s error in drawing an adverse inference from the Applicant’s failure to call three witnesses at trial and despite refusing to grant leave, applying the proviso – Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, s. 407 – Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s. 34(2).

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.

The Applicant, Mr. Del Mastro was the successful candidate for the riding of Peterborough in the 2008 federal election. He was convicted on charges under the Canada Election Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9 of exceeding his election expense limit, of willfully exceeding his personal contribution limit and of filing a false or misleading election campaign return. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail together with a four month conditional sentence and 18 months’ probation. He was also required to pay $10,000 in restitution to the Peterborough Electoral District Association. Mr. Del Mastro appealed his conviction and sentence to the Superior Court of Justice. His appeals were dismissed, subject only to a variation of his sentence, setting aside the restitution order. His subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.