Stephanie Taylor, The Canadian Press Published Friday, July 22, 2022 6:24 PM EDT Last Updated Friday, July 22, 2022 6:25 PM EDT
OTTAWA — A Conservative committee reviewing Patrick Brown’s disqualification from the leadership race has concluded the party had the evidence it needed to recommend he be removed from contention.
His decision, released Friday afternoon, contains new allegations that Brown used money orders to buy memberships and allowed sales of non-compliant memberships through a portal.
“Mr. Brown had ample opportunity to address these serious concerns,” Ian Brodie, chairman of the party’s leadership election organizing 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 campaign for re-election as mayor of Brampton, Ontario.
Brown hired Marie Henein, one of Canada’s best-known defense lawyers, who filed a notice of appeal against the decision to impeach him. The party then hired outside counsel to review that appeal request and was preparing for further legal action.
The party said the decision to disqualify Brown was based on a recommendation from its return director. A dispute resolution appeals committee had to decide whether the officer had the evidence to recommend his removal.
He says the evidence included allegations that Brown allowed more than 500 sales to non-compliant members.
“The candidate’s correspondence on this matter indicates both an unwillingness and an inability to provide the (fundraising director) with information about individuals accessing the portal to register memberships that the (party) had found to be non-compliant,” the decision he says
He said Brown left the issue unresolved for two weeks and gave “evasive answers”.
In a statement Friday, Brown’s campaign called the government unfair and “an affront to democracy.”
“Also in his administration, the party has significantly changed its story about why they rejected Patrick Brown as a candidate, now that their first story has fallen apart,” his campaign office said. “Originally, the party told the media it was because of improper corporate donations, which have since been found to be false claims. Now the party says, in its ruling, that the reason was because they received 500 suspect members … and claim, without any proof or supporting documentation, that the memberships were contributed by the Patrick Brown campaign.”
Brown must continue to take legal action, the statement said.
“This is absurd and makes it clear that this was a rigged race from the start to install their chosen candidate, Pierre Poilievre, as leader.”
The decision also addresses an allegation that Brown may have violated federal election law, which was brought to the party by a whistleblower.
After Brown’s ouster, Debbie Jodoin, a longtime party organizer, came forward as the one who spoke, alleging that Brown arranged for a third-party corporation to pay her to work on his campaign.
Brown has denied wrongdoing and said the party did not provide enough details from his campaign for him to respond properly.
In its decision, the controversies committee says the party offered Brown an opportunity to provide exculpatory evidence. “He did not,” the decision says.
“Instead, the candidate offered the explanation of an innocent mistake and an offer to reimburse the corporation’s expenses involved. This is an excuse, not exculpatory evidence.”
The decision says the party took into account the allegations Brown faced, as well as how he responded.
When it comes to money order issues, the disputes committee says the party received 78 money orders attached to membership forms that appeared to come from the same person.
The decision says Brown told the party he raised the issue with the person in question, who said the allegation was false.
He says the party was left with information that Brown’s campaign had improperly purchased members.
“When confronted with this evidence, the candidate chose simply to deny the allegation without providing any satisfactory explanation,” the decision said.