From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: My original post had my Statement of Claim against   
   Elections Canada to fully cover my auditors' bill from a   
   federal byelection. Here's their response:   
      
                                           File No: T-561-15   
                     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA   
   Between:   
                           JOHN TURMEL   
                                                Plaintiff   
                               AND   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                Defendant   
      
                        STATEMENT OF DEFENCE   
      
   CR: 1. The Defendant, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of   
   Canada (the Defendant"), has no knowledge of the letters   
   referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Statement of Claim,   
   and has no knowledge of the allegations contained in them.   
      
   1. On Feb 16 2015, I wrote Elections Canada with respect to   
   the reimbursement of auditor's fees for candidates with no   
   contributions nor expenses pointing out:   
       When I started running in federal elections in 1979, the   
       auditor's fee reimbursed was $250. It has remained that   
       way since then. My regular auditor contented himself   
       with that fee for the past 35 years but after he   
       retired, I had to use a regular auditor and chose   
       Millard, Rouse and Rosebrugh in Brantford who are paid   
       $875 by the Ontario government to audit my null   
       provincial returns.   
       Their auditor's fee for the Nov 25 2013 Toronto-Centre   
       byelection was $678 of which Elections Canada only   
       covered $250 leaving me stuck with the other $428 plus   
       finance charges. Though their fee is commensurate with   
       other jurisdictions and I will honor it, the   
       reimbursement by Elections Canada has not kept up with   
       the times. The political process has now become   
       prohibitively less affordable for a candidate in forma   
       pauperis, I would therefore ask if the reimbursement   
       limit could be reconsidered to keep up with the times   
       and their overage covered by Elections Canada.   
       Given the number of elections in which I participate, it   
       will be worth my while to ask Federal Court for a   
       declaration that the 35-year-old reimbursement cap is   
       limiting my constitutional right to participate in the   
       electoral process. Please consult with Director General   
       at Justice Canada Alain Prefontaine before dismissing my   
       expected response to no resolution as a bluff.   
   2. On Mar 16 2015, Elections Canada responded the Elections   
   Act afforded them no leeway because S.477.75 allows:   
       the Chief Electoral Officer provides the Receiver   
       General with a certificate that sets out the greater of   
       a) the amount of expenses incurred for audit, up to a   
       maximum of the lesser of 3% of the candidate's election   
       expenses and $1,500; and   
       b) $250.   
      
   CR: 2. The Defendant relies on the following facts:   
      
   The Role of Her Majesty the Queen and the Chief Electoral   
   Officer of Canada   
      
   3. The Attorney General of Canada ("AGC") is the chief law   
   officer of the Crown in right of Canada and, pursuant to the   
   Department of Justice Act, is responsible for the regulation   
   and conduct of all litigation for or against the Crown. As   
   such, the AGC, acting on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen, is   
   responsible for responding toe challenges to the   
   constitutionality of all federal legislation including the   
   CEA.   
      
   4. The Chief Electoral Officer ("CEO") is the head of the   
   Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, an   
   organization known as Elections Canada. The CEO is an   
   independent officer of Parliament in that the holder of this   
   office reports directly to Parliament and not to any   
   government of the day. One of the duties of the CEO is the   
   administration of all electoral legislation including the   
   CEA.   
      
   5. The Defendant is separate from the CEO. As such, the   
   Defendant has no knowledge of the allegations against the   
   CEO, or Elections Canada, referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2   
   of the claim.   
      
   JCT: Guess they're saying I should have served Elections   
   Canada directly who would then have called in Justice or   
   have their own lawyers. If they insist though the magic   
   words may fix that.   
      
   The Canada Elections Act and Election Expenses Act   
      
   6. Starting in 1974, the CEA underwent significant revisions   
   in response to mounting public concern over the escalating   
   costs of election campaigns and the desire for greater   
   accountability in relation to campaign spending. The 1974   
   revisions, made through the Election Expenses Act were aimed   
   at making elections fairer, more affordable, and more   
   transparent by imposing spending limits along with reporting   
   and disclosure requirements in exchange for parties and   
   candidates being provided with limited access to public   
   funds.   
      
   7. While a candidate has historically been required to   
   appoint an official agent as part of the campaign process,   
   the 1974 Elections Expenses Act revisions included, for the   
   first time, a requirement that each candidate also appoint   
   an auditor. The requirements to appoint both an agent and   
   auditor remain in place today and serve a fundamental role   
   in ensuring the accountability and transparency of the   
   election financing regime under the CEA.   
      
   8. The role of the auditor is to examine a candidate's   
   electoral campaign return and prepare a report that states   
   that, in his or her opinion, the return presents unfairly   
   the information contained in the financial records on which   
   it is based. The role of a candidate's official agent is to   
   be responsible for receiving, administering, and reporting   
   any contributions made, goods and services provided, money   
   borrowed and any electoral campaign expenses incurred.   
      
   The CEA Subsidy for the Auditor's Fee   
      
   9. Along with introducing the requirement that all   
   candidates appoint an auditor, the 1974 Elections Expenses   
   Act revisions to the CEA also provided a subsidy for the   
   auditor's fee.   
      
   10. Section 10 of the 1974 provisions amended s.63(2) and   
   (3) of the CEA as follows:   
       63.1(2) Upon receipt of a certificate referred to in   
       ss.(1), the Receiver General shall pay out of the   
       Consolidated Revenue Fund to the candidate to whom the   
       certificate relates, as partial reimbursement in respect   
       of the candidate's election expenses, an amount equal to   
       the aggregate of   
       (a) the amount determined under paragraph (1)(b) that is   
       set out in the certificate; and   
       (b) the amount, if any, determined under paragraph   
       (1)(c) that is set out in the certificate;   
       and shall pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to   
       the auditor for the candidate the lesser of two hundred   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)