Article content continued

Dario’s decision to scrap the fine is based on the election commissioner not giving Rumpel sufficient notice of his offence and not giving him adequate opportunity to respond. She recommended a 60-day period for response. She also noted that Rumpel does not have a history of making excessive contributions.

But Dario also raised issues with the position of the election commissioner, who submitted that the failure to provide proper notice is irrelevant because nothing Rumpel could have said in his reply would have affected the imposed penalty.

“This suggests any response, no matter (the) justification, is not satisfactory in the present case,” Dario wrote in her ruling. “This Court must consider whether the decision to apply the maximum penalty falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of the facts and law. The simple answer is no.”

In addition to dismissing the fine, Dario also ruled that Rumpel’s name be removed from the list of over-contributors on the election commissioner’s website.

Penalties are excessive, says justice

Though Rumpel’s appeal was successful due to the procedural issues, Dario said that even if those issues had not emerged the penalty imposed on Rumpel would still have been “unnecessarily punitive.”

In cases of over-contribution, the election commissioner hands down fines equal to double the excess contribution, to a limit of $10,000.

But Dario says that a penalty between 10 and 25 per cent of the excess contribution would be sufficient for first-time offenders.