The respondent, a re-elected city councillor, filed a supplementary financial statement showing he exceeded the allowable campaign spending limit for expressions of appreciation.
Under s. 88.23(2) of the Municipal Elections Act, this triggered automatic forfeiture of his office.
The application judge granted relief from forfeiture, finding the error was inadvertent.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that there is no jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act because s. 88.23(2) is a statutory penalty and the legislative scheme deliberately precludes such relief.
