You know something's wrong with a scenario that sees a councillor having to go to court to prove that - as the city's own lawyers have been saying all along - council was wrong to use taxpayer money to cover councillors' legal fees incurred during a compliance audit of their 2006 election expenses.
Such was the outcome of a court ruling this week pursued by Etobicoke Centre Councillor Doug Holyday against the $139,000 doled out to councillors Adrian Heaps and Giorgio Mammoliti by the city. Against the advice of the city solicitor, council had voted to reimburse Heaps and Mammoliti for money councillors spent in their own defence when their 2006 election expenses were separately challenged.Much more than simply an embarrassment to council, this legal drama has exposed holes in government policy at the provincial level with the rules set out in the Municipal Elections Act 1996 with regards to a lack of protection for candidates from the costs associated with election expense audits and appeals. We agree council has no business using taxpayer money to cover election-related legal expenses. However, despite Holyday's plans to persuade council otherwise, Mammoliti and Heaps should not be forced to pay back the funds.It's true, the money should not have been paid out in the first place. But to further punish these two individuals for what was really the fault of council as a whole would be unnecessarily callous. Instead, council must cease these kinds of reimbursements and push the provincial government to review the Municipal Elections Act governing compliance audits. Reforms have been made since the 2006 election that now define costs incurred during compliance audits as a campaign expense and therefore payable through campaign funds. What's missing is any safeguard for costs from appeals of those committee-led audits to the Ontario Court of Justice. That issue still needs to be reviewed.There's a risk for councillors when it comes to defending themselves from a lawsuit stemming from an election campaign. But the solution does not come from issuing a blank cheque with taxpayer money. At the very least, that one of Toronto Council's own had to turn to the courts, to challenge the city's use of taxpayer funds in these matters, is a serious sign of policy problems in need of a major review. Council and the province need to act on that as soon as possible.