The former president of the Gatineau Chamber of Commerce has been acquitted of electoral fraud

Mr. Samson, who, at the material time, was an independent candidate in the district of Hull-Wright in the 2017 municipal elections, was accused of corrupt electoral practice. The DGEQ he was accused of violating the Law relating to municipal elections and referendums (LEMR), by having non -compliant election costs.

More specifically, the lawsuit accuses Pierre Samson of partially funded-through his Essor Center-Ville group-a $ 50,000 study on the economic impact of designating the Quartier du Musée as a heritage site. This study was published in September 2017, when the election campaign was in full swing.

He was the former councilor for the Hull district-Wright and former Action Gatineau party candidate, Cédric Tessier, who filed the complaint.

Mr. Tessier contended that Mr. Samson’s financial contribution to the study constituted an election expense and, as a candidate and official agent of his campaign, the former president of GCC is not allowed to do so.

Proof beyond doubt

In this case, the prosecution must prove four elements:

1. The respondent is a candidate or party leader;
2. Defendant allowed one cost;
3. Cost is incurred or paid except as permitted by sections 450 to 478 of LERM;
4. The cost is election cost.

In order to issue a guilty verdict, the court must be able to decide without any doubt that the defendant is guilty on all the evidence. However, in her judgment, Judge Christine Auger held that she did not succeed in making such a conclusion.

” The court acquitted defense attorney Pierre Samson of the offense as charged. “

The Tribunal found that the evidence presented by the defendant was sufficient to cast a reasonable doubt on the two elements. [2 et 3] essentials of guiltwritten by the magistrate.

Did Mr. Samson act with the necessary level of caution or did all precautions take place to avoid offense?

The court did not give a review of the appropriate defense to the effort shown by Mr. Samson, but indicated that if the court had to do so, it would be determined, on substantial evidence, that the defendant had taken reasonable steps to avoid committing an offense under LERM.