Stephanie Taylor, The Canadian Press Published Friday, July 22, 2022, 6:24 p.m. EDT Last Updated Friday, July 22, 2022, 6:25 p.m. EDT
OTTAWA — The Conservative panel looking into Patrick Brown’s disqualification from the leadership race has concluded the party has the evidence it needs to recommend he be removed from the race.
His decision, released late Friday, contains new allegations that Brown used money orders to purchase memberships and allowed non-compliant sales of memberships through a portal.
“Mr Brown has been given ample opportunity to address these serious concerns,” Ian Brodie, chairman of the party’s election committee, said in a statement.
The party says decisions made by its dispute resolution appeals committee are final.
The committee stunned party members and Canadians alike earlier this month when it voted 11-6 to remove Brown from the race. Brown has since launched his re-election campaign as mayor of Brampton, Ontario.
Brown hired Marie Henine, one of Canada’s most prominent defense lawyers, who filed a notice of appeal against the decision to suspend him. The party then hired an outside lawyer to review the appeal request and was preparing for further legal action.
The party said the decision to disqualify Brown was based on a recommendation from its chief returning officer. An appellate dispute resolution panel had to decide whether the employee had evidence to recommend his removal.
It said the evidence included allegations that Brown allowed more than 500 non-compliant membership sales.
“Correspondence on this matter from the applicant shows both an unwillingness and an inability to provide the (Chief Returns Officer) with information about individuals who have accessed the portal to register memberships that (the country) has found to be non-compliant of the requirements,” said the decision.
It said Brown left the issue unresolved for two weeks and gave “evasive answers.”
In a statement Friday, Brown’s campaign called the decision unfair and “an affront to democracy.”
“Also in their decision, the party has significantly changed their story about why they did not allow Patrick Brown as a candidate, now that their first story has fallen apart,” his campaign office said. “The party initially told the media that it was due to improper corporate donations, which later turned out to be false claims. The party now says in its decision that the reason is that they received 500 suspicious memberships … and claim, without any evidence or supporting documentation, that the memberships were attracted by the Patrick Brown campaign.
Brown will continue to pursue legal action, the statement said.
“This is absurd and clearly shows that this was a rigged race from the start to install their chosen candidate, Pierre Poilievre, as leader.”
The ruling also addresses an allegation that Brown may have violated federal election law that was brought to the party by a whistleblower.
After Brown’s ouster, Debbie Jodoin, a longtime party organizer, came forward as the one to speak, alleging that Brown arranged for a third corporation to pay her to work on his campaign.
Brown denied wrongdoing and said the party did not provide enough details about his campaign for him to respond properly.
In its decision, the disputes committee said the party had offered Brown a chance to provide exculpatory evidence. “He did not,” the ruling said.
“Instead, the applicant offered an explanation of innocent error and a proposal to reimburse all corporate costs involved. This is an excuse, not exculpatory evidence.
The decision said the party took into account the charges Brown faced as well as how he responded.
As for the issues surrounding money transfers, the disputes commission says the party received 78 money orders attached to membership forms that appeared to come from the same person.
The ruling said Brown told the party he raised the matter with the person in question, who said the allegation was false.
It said the party was left with information that Brown’s campaign had improperly bought memberships.
“When confronted with this evidence, the applicant chose to simply deny the allegation without providing a satisfactory explanation,” the ruling said.
Add Comment