Position as mayor unaffected
CAYUGA—On Tuesday, August 13, 2024, Haldimand Mayor Shelley Ann Bentley appeared before Justice Anthony Leitch at the Cayuga Courthouse to face four charges related to her 2022 campaign’s financial statement.
Prior to the hearing, the mayor’s legal team submitted a two-page affidavit written by Bentley, along with an excerpt from the Municipal Elections Act (the Act) pertinent to the charges.
The four charges faced by Mayor Bentley were:
- Filing an incorrect financial statement that failed to record all campaign contributions and/or expenses and/or misstated campaign contributions or expenses;
- Accepting cash contributions exceeding $25, contrary to the Municipal Elections Act;
- Failing to ensure that all contributions of money received by the campaign were deposited into the official campaign bank account; and
- Failing to ensure that all campaign expenses were paid out of the official campaign bank account.
Asked by the clerk how she would plead after reading out the charges, Bentley replied, “Guilty.”
Justice Leitch said that upon reviewing a submitted statement of facts, along with the affidavit, he was content that there were sufficient details to make a decision.
“I find you guilty of all counts,” said Leitch.
Prosecutor Stephen Aylward and Defense Attorney T. David Marshall presented a joint submission related to the charges, along with a suggested $7,000 fine as a penalty for the charges.
While the Municipal Elections Act (MEA) states that a candidate could face removal from office for failing to submit a campaign financial statement on time or falsifying information on said statement, Justice Leitch found that Bentley was not acting with intention when she committed the four offences.
As such, she is exempt from forfeiture of her office, as outlined in section 92 of the MEA, which reads, “If the presiding judge finds that the candidate, acting in good faith, committed the offence inadvertently or because of an error in judgment, the penalties described in subsection 88.23 (2) do not apply.”
Marshall said, “These are errors through inadvertence.”
While the MEA states a fine of up to $25,000 could be applicable, the joint submission capped the suggested amount at $7,000, noting it as a “proportionate balance” compared to the severity of the mayor’s offences.
Marshall argued that the fine is satisfactory to uphold the MEA, while recognizing Bentley’s mistakes were not deliberate in nature.
Marshall further argued that as a first-time candidate, Bentley did not have the “benefit of an auditor to confirm her campaign’s financial state…. The position of the defense is that the facts set out in the statement of Ms. Bentley are sufficient to make out that exception applies.”
He further argued that the mayor made no attempt to conceal or mislead through her filing errors, and that she has paid back the $5,000 in cash contributions in full, and that even with the errors, Bentley was still far below the spending limit for an election campaign.
Bentley had no further comment following the discussion, leaving Justice Leitch to have the final word on the matter.
“She was well under spending limit. It’s clear there was no attempt to deceive, rather what I would describe as some sloppy bookkeeping,” said Leitch in his closing comments. “I accept she is not a sophisticated person with a substantial financial background…. This is a question of a candidate not taking the time to learn the Act and make sure she is compliant with the Act.”
He noted that while the MEA does not permit cash contributions, “in this particular case she used all cash contributions for the campaign.”
While Leitch warned the mayor to be “duly diligent” in ensuring she doesn’t commit these errors in judgement again, he concluded, “I find the exception (to removal from office) applies in this case.… Ms. Bentley was not acting with intention, doesn’t appear to be trying to achieve anything that would have given her an advantage in the election. In fact, she dramatically underspent her opponents in the election.”
The case began when a complaint was filed by a resident in the spring of 2023, raising concerns that there were irregularities in Bentley’s campaign financial statement. The Audit Compliance Committee found there was reason to require an audit of the statement in June 2023, with auditor William Molson filing his report in October 2023 with the determination that Bentley “did not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Elections Act” in four areas. Molson’s audit “identified over 50 apparently unreported or incorrectly reported transactions” and determined that her campaign budget was recorded at $7,926.36 less than what was actually spent.
The case was then sent to the courts, with charges officially laid in March 2024. Bentley had an initial court date on April 16, with her representatives appearing before Justice B. Kelly for just a few minutes as he questioned if the case should be heard in a different court. Bentley’s representatives returned to court June 18 in front of Justice Walker, where prosecutor Geri Angelova requested the matter be deferred to August as “the parties have made significant progress with narrowing down the issues, so we would like some additional time to continue those discussions.”
Bentley was given a period of 90 days to pay her fine. Once paid, the case will be fully settled, putting an end to the possibility that Haldimand could face a second by-election of this council term.
Following the hearing, Bentley declined to comment on the outcome, while Marshall stated simply, “The result speaks for itself.”
