Ruling ‘disappointed’ Del Mastro
Former MP cites precedent of Nova Scotia in-and-out scheme case in seeking Supreme Court appeal of election overspending conviction
Former Peterborough Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro wrote on his Facebook page on Tuesday that he’s “deeply disappointed” with the recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling against him – particularly since he sees parallels with a similar appeal that won.
The posting on Del Mastro’s page was the first since he was released on bail from Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay on Thursday.
He’s appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada on his conviction for overspending on his election campaign in 2008 and taking steps to cover it up.
Del Mastro wrote that the Sept. 13 dismissal of his case before the Ontario Court of Appeal “stands in contradiction” with a similar case won in Nova Scotia appeals court in 2011.
The case Del Mastro was referring to is connected with the “in and out” scandal in the 2006 election.
During that election, the Conservatives had reached their total spending limit but still wanted to advertise.
The party then gave money to dozens of ridings that hadn’t reached their spending limits and asked them to return it the same day as payment toward a national TV and radio ad campaign to promote the party (and not necessarily the specific candidate).
Court documents explain that one Nova Scotia official agent, Gerry Callaghan, claimed that TV and radio ad campaign expense for his candidate.
That raised questions for the chief electoral officer of Canada, who wondered whether the candidate got direct promotion out of the ads.
According to court documents, a panel of three Nova Scotia appeal judges agreed the CEOC was allowed to examine the expense claim to determine whether the candidate paid for ads that didn’t directly promote him ( but instead promoted the party).
“In Callaghan, the Court of Appeal ruled that invoices cannot be arbitrary and that the value must be commensurate to the services provided,” Del Mastro wrote.
Meanwhile, Del Mastro’s lawyer argued before the Ontario Court of Appeal that he’d written a $21,000 cheque to his voter-calling firm, Holinshed, and received only meagre services in return.
Del Mastro’s lawyer, Scott Fenton, argued that there was “no way in the world” that the campaign received $21,000 in services, as Holinshed’s record-keeping was so shoddy there was no proof of calls made.
Yet a trial judge, a divisional court judge and three Ontario Court of Appeal judges have all ruled that it didn’t matter how much value Del Mastro got for his money: the sum invoiced is all that matters and the $21,000 cheque put Del Mastro over his spending limit.
The Ontario Court of Appeals judge wrote that it would be a “nightmare” if official agents had to start calculating the value of the services received. It would be far more clear and transparent to simply put the cost incurred on the invoice, the ruling stated.
But Del Mastro wrote on Facebook that the ruling sends a message that service providers are free to bilk a candidate – that candidate still has to claim the expense.
The ruling in favour of Callaghan and the one against Del Mastro are in stark contrast to one another, the Facebook posting concludes.
“Both determinations cannot be correct,” Del Mastro wrote. “With this in mind I have directed my attorney Scott Fenton to take leave to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.”