Councillor's expense claims 'administrative error' not 'criminal behaviour,' lawyer argues

Former Calgary city councillor Joe Magliocca's expense claims submitted with the names of 27politicians he did not dine with were an "administrative fault and not criminal behaviour," his lawyer argued Friday.

The former Ward 2 councillor's trial on charges offraud and breach of trust got closer to a conclusionFriday with closing arguments before Justice Gord Wong, who will deliver his verdict at a later date.

While defence lawyerAryan Sadat asked for acquittals for his client, prosecutor Aaron Rankin argued Magliocca"demonstrated a pattern of dishonest behaviour" andshould be convicted.

Sadat delivered his submissions first.

He told Wong that there is a "significant absence of evidence to suggest that Mr. Magliocca knowingly misled anyone."

• Mimosas, cigars and ribs: Politicians deny dining with former Calgary councillor at expense claim trial

Magliocca is accused of lying on his travel expense claims between October 2017 and December 2019, naming politicians from across the country,including the mayor of Halifax, Ontario's NDP leader and a Quebec cabinet minister.

In total, prosecutor Aaron Rankin called 27 current and former politicians who testified that, despite being named on Magliocca's expense claims, they'd never dined with the former Calgary councillor.

Some of the witnesses testified they'd never even met Magliocca.

'Systemic issues'

Sadat argued the city's policies on reimbursement were "vague" and there was a "lack of oversight" by councillors' office administrators.

"Mr. Magliocca depended on his support staff," said Sadat.

• Calgary Coun. Sean Chu testifies for defence at former colleague Joe Magliocca's fraud trial

The defence lawyer also argued that the city had "confusing policies" for submitting expense claims, leading to errors that were "were not unique to Mr. Magliocca."

"They affected all councillors, underscoring systemic issues rather than misconduct," he said.

"Mistakes can and do happen, not only within Mr. Magliocca's office, but across other offices as well there should be a distinction between administrative fault and criminal behaviour."

But Rankin disagreed.

"This is not a case about enforcing a standard of perfection in expense claims, or of criminalizing honest mistakes," said the prosecutor.

He argued that there were too many instances for the claims to be explained by inadvertent error.

"Mr. Magliocca was in a company of one when it came to a systematic pattern of falsehoods inconsistent with innocent error," he told Wong.

"There is no evidence of any confusion on Mr. Magliocca's part about his obligations."

Rankin described expense claims as a"trust-based system" that relied on councillors to be honest.

"It was assumed [Magliocca]was worthy of that trust."