Reconsideration Reports

Report	Date	Organization / Filer	Lobbyist / Client	Summary
Reconsideration 23-07	Mar 28, 2024	Uber Canada Inc./Brian Kuntz		In Determination Decision 23-07, an Investigator found that the designated filer for Uber Canada Inc. (Uber) contravened sections 4(1)(f) and (g), 4.1 and 5(1) of the Lobbyists Transparency Act (LTA), and issued an administrative penalty totaling $4,500. Uber requested a reconsideration by challenging certain conclusions underlying the decision, but not the amount fined if the findings were to be upheld. The Registrar of Lobbyists confirmed the findings of, and the administrative penalty imposed by the Investigator.
Reconsideration 23-03	Dec 20, 2023	Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia/Walt Judas		In Determination 23-03 the Deputy Registrar and Delegate of the Registrar of Lobbyists (Delegate) found that the designated filer for the Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia (TIABC) had both lobbied and promised a gift to three public officer holders contrary to section 2.4 of the Lobbyists Transparency Act (“LTA” or the “Act”). The Delegate imposed a monetary penalty for three violations of s. 2.4. The Delegate also found that the TIABC’s offer of a gift to a fourth public officer was not in violation of the LTA because the TIABC had not lobbied that public office holder. The Delegate thereupon recommended that TIABC refrain from lobbying the Minister of Jobs for a period of one year from the offer of the gift in recognition of the fact that if TIABC did so, the offer of a gift might be contrary to s. 2.4 of the Act. TIABC requested reconsideration of the recommendation that TIABC refrain from lobbying the Minister of Jobs for a period of one year. The Registrar determined that s. 7.3 of the Lobbyists Transparency Act (LTA) does not permit reconsideration of a recommendation because it is not an administrative penalty imposed pursuant to ss. 7.2(2)(a)(b) or (b.1) of the LTA. The Registrar found that recommendation at issue was aimed at assisting the TIABC to avoid its offer of a gift combined with lobbying activity becoming a potential violation of s. 2.4 of the Act.
Reconsideration 22-01	Dec 01, 2022	Cisco Systems Canada Co./Shannon Leininger		In Determination Decision 22-01, an Investigator found that designated filer for Cisco Canada Co. contravened ss. 4(1)(g) and 4(1)(k) and issued administrative penalties of $1,500 and $3,000, respectively. The designated filer requested reconsideration of the finding of contravention of s. 4(1)(k) and corresponding penalty on the basis that the interpretation of the words “expects to lobby” were interpreted too narrowly by the Investigator. The Registrar confirmed the findings and penalty of the Investigator. The words “expects to lobby” must be interpreted in light of the purpose of the Act and an interpretation that allows designated filers to list any ministry or Provincial entity or public office holder the designated filer might lobby is inconsistent with that purpose.
Reconsideration 19-04	Sep 27, 2019		Dimitri Pantazopoulos/Comcast	An undertaking to lobby arose through an exchange of emails between the consultant lobbyist and his firm’s existing client. The undertaking arose when the client’s representative emailed the lobbyist and asked if there was anyone he should meet about an issue and the lobbyist responded with suggestions for possible meetings. The lobbyist’s argument that the undertaking did not come into existence until the date on which the client representative confirmed his specific availability for possible meetings is rejected. The determination that the lobbyist failed to register within the time required by section 3(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act (LRA) is confirmed.
Reconsideration 17-08	Jul 31, 2018		Hector Bremner/Steelhead LNG	The finding in Investigation Report 17-08 (IR 17-08) that the consultant lobbyist was a former public office holder and failed to declare this in contravention of section (4)(1)(o) of the Lobbyists Registration Act (LRA) is rescinded. The consultant lobbyist was not a former public office holder under the definition in the LRA.
Reconsideration 16-07	Nov 29, 2016		Marnie Mitchell/McKesson Canada	The administrative penalty of $750 imposed on the consultant lobbyist in Investigation Report 16-07 is upheld. The consultant lobbyist did not provide compelling grounds that the Delegate’s findings should be varied.
Reconsideration 15-05	Feb 17, 2016		Blair Lekstrom/City of Dawson Creek, District of Chetwynd, District of Tumbler Ridge and Village of Pouce Coupe	The finding in Investigation Reports 15-05, 15-06 and 15-07 that the lobbyist failed to comply with his obligations under s. 3(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act, to file a return within 10 days after entering into an undertaking to lobby, is upheld. The penalties imposed, respectively, of $3,000, $3,000 and $2,000 are not, however, confirmed. Penalties of $1,000 in each instance are substituted, for a total of $3,000.
Reconsideration 15-06	Feb 17, 2016		Blair Lekstrom/Duz Cho Construction	The finding in Investigation Reports 15-05, 15-06 and 15-07 that the lobbyist failed to comply with his obligations under s. 3(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act, to file a return within 10 days after entering into an undertaking to lobby, is upheld. The penalties imposed, respectively, of $3,000, $3,000 and $2,000 are not, however, confirmed. Penalties of $1,000 in each instance are substituted, for a total of $3,000.
Reconsideration 15-07	Feb 17, 2016		Blair Lekstrom/HD Mining International Ltd.	The finding in Investigation Reports 15-05, 15-06 and 15-07 that the lobbyist failed to comply with his obligations under s. 3(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act, to file a return within 10 days after entering into an undertaking to lobby, is upheld. The penalties imposed, respectively, of $3,000, $3,000 and $2,000 are not, however, confirmed. Penalties of $1,000 in each instance are substituted, for a total of $3,000.
Reconsideration 15-01	Aug 18, 2015		Brad Zubyk/Urban Impact	The finding in Investigation Report 15-01 that the lobbyist failed to file a return within 10 days after entering into an undertaking to lobby is upheld. The finding that he identified the wrong organization as his client is not confirmed. The finding that he failed to correct information in the registry when required is also confirmed. It is also noted in passing that the lobbyist ought to have identified in the return the members of the coalition of which his client was a member.
Reconsideration 14-07	Oct 01, 2014		Brad Zubyk/Scientific Games Int.	The finding in Investigation Report 14-07 that the consultant lobbyist contravened the Lobbyists Registration Act is upheld. The administrative penalty of $600 imposed on the lobbyist is upheld. The lobbyist did not provide compelling grounds that the Investigator's findings should be varied.
Reconsideration 14-04	Aug 06, 2014		William Belsey/Gitxaala Nation	The findings in Investigation Report 14-09 that the consultant lobbyist contravened ss. 3(1) and 4(3) of the Lobbyists Registration Act are upheld. The administrative penalty of $1,200 imposed on the lobbyist is also upheld. The lobbyist did not provide compelling grounds that the Deputy Registrar's findings should be varied.
Reconsideration 14-01	Jun 06, 2014	BC Federation of Labour/James Sinclair		The finding in Investigation Report 14-03 that the designated filer contravened the Lobbyists Registration Act is upheld. The administrative penalty of $1,000 imposed on the designated filer is also upheld. The designated filer did not provide compelling grounds that the Investigator's findings should be varied.
Reconsideration 14-02	Jun 06, 2014		Cynthia (Burton) Shore/MWH Business Solutions	The finding in Investigation Report 14-05 that the consultant lobbyist contravened s. 3(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act is upheld. The administrative penalty of $700 imposed on the lobbyist is also upheld. The lobbyist did not provide compelling grounds that the Investigator's findings should be varied.
Reconsideration 14-03	Jun 06, 2014		Michael Klassen/BC Care Providers Association	The finding in Investigation Report 14-01 that the consultant lobbyist contravened the Lobbyists Registration Act is upheld. The administrative penalty of $500 imposed on the lobbyist is also upheld. The lobbyist did not provide compelling grounds that the Investigator's findings should be varied.
Reconsideration 13-01	Jul 04, 2013		Joe Fieder/3M Canada	A consultant lobbyist requested reconsideration of a $500 administrative penalty imposed as a result of a contravention of the Lobbyists Registration Act. Only the amount of the fine was at issue on reconsideration. The administrative penalty of $500 imposed on the lobbyist is upheld as the consultant lobbyist did not offer compelling grounds to vary the finding of the Acting Deputy Registrar of Lobbyists.
Reconsideration 12-01	Dec 06, 2012		Jay Hill	The finding in Investigation Report 12-15 that the consultant lobbyist contravened the Lobbyists Registration Act is upheld. The penalty of $2,500 imposed on the lobbyist is, however, reduced to $250 in view of the circumstances and in light of penalties imposed to date in other cases under the Act.

Mar 28, 2024

Uber Canada Inc./Brian Kuntz

In Determination Decision 23-07, an Investigator found that the designated filer for Uber Canada Inc. (Uber) contravened sections 4(1)(f) and (g), 4.1 and 5(1) of the Lobbyists Transparency Act (LTA), and issued an administrative penalty totaling $4,500. Uber requested a reconsideration by challenging certain conclusions underlying the decision, but not the amount fined if the findings were to be upheld. The Registrar of Lobbyists confirmed the findings of, and the administrative penalty imposed by the Investigator.

Reconsideration 23-03

Dec 20, 2023

Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia/Walt Judas

In Determination 23-03 the Deputy Registrar and Delegate of the Registrar of Lobbyists (Delegate) found that the designated filer for the Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia (TIABC) had both lobbied and promised a gift to three public officer holders contrary to section 2.4 of the Lobbyists Transparency Act (“LTA” or the “Act”). The Delegate imposed a monetary penalty for three violations of s. 2.4. The Delegate also found that the TIABC’s offer of a gift to a fourth public officer was not in violation of the LTA because the TIABC had not lobbied that public office holder. The Delegate thereupon recommended that TIABC refrain from lobbying the Minister of Jobs for a period of one year from the offer of the gift in recognition of the fact that if TIABC did so, the offer of a gift might be contrary to s. 2.4 of the Act. TIABC requested reconsideration of the recommendation that TIABC refrain from lobbying the Minister of Jobs for a period of one year. The Registrar determined that s. 7.3 of the Lobbyists Transparency Act (LTA) does not permit reconsideration of a recommendation because it is not an administrative penalty imposed pursuant to ss. 7.2(2)(a)(b) or (b.1) of the LTA. The Registrar found that recommendation at issue was aimed at assisting the TIABC to avoid its offer of a gift combined with lobbying activity becoming a potential violation of s. 2.4 of the Act.

Reconsideration 22-01

Dec 01, 2022

Cisco Systems Canada Co./Shannon Leininger

In Determination Decision 22-01, an Investigator found that designated filer for Cisco Canada Co. contravened ss. 4(1)(g) and 4(1)(k) and issued administrative penalties of $1,500 and $3,000, respectively. The designated filer requested reconsideration of the finding of contravention of s. 4(1)(k) and corresponding penalty on the basis that the interpretation of the words “expects to lobby” were interpreted too narrowly by the Investigator. The Registrar confirmed the findings and penalty of the Investigator. The words “expects to lobby” must be interpreted in light of the purpose of the Act and an interpretation that allows designated filers to list any ministry or Provincial entity or public office holder the designated filer might lobby is inconsistent with that purpose.

Reconsideration 19-04

Sep 27, 2019

Dimitri Pantazopoulos/Comcast

An undertaking to lobby arose through an exchange of emails between the consultant lobbyist and his firm’s existing client. The undertaking arose when the client’s representative emailed the lobbyist and asked if there was anyone he should meet about an issue and the lobbyist responded with suggestions for possible meetings. The lobbyist’s argument that the undertaking did not come into existence until the date on which the client representative confirmed his specific availability for possible meetings is rejected. The determination that the lobbyist failed to register within the time required by section 3(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act (LRA) is confirmed.

Reconsideration 17-08

Jul 31, 2018

Hector Bremner/Steelhead LNG

The finding in Investigation Report 17-08 (IR 17-08) that the consultant lobbyist was a former public office holder and failed to declare this in contravention of section (4)(1)(o) of the Lobbyists Registration Act (LRA) is rescinded. The consultant lobbyist was not a former public office holder under the definition in the LRA.

Reconsideration 16-07

Nov 29, 2016

Marnie Mitchell/McKesson Canada

The administrative penalty of $750 imposed on the consultant lobbyist in Investigation Report 16-07 is upheld. The consultant lobbyist did not provide compelling grounds that the Delegate’s findings should be varied.

Reconsideration 15-05

Feb 17, 2016

Blair Lekstrom/City of Dawson Creek, District of Chetwynd, District of Tumbler Ridge and Village of Pouce Coupe

The finding in Investigation Reports 15-05, 15-06 and 15-07 that the lobbyist failed to comply with his obligations under s. 3(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act, to file a return within 10 days after entering into an undertaking to lobby, is upheld. The penalties imposed, respectively, of $3,000, $3,000 and $2,000 are not, however, confirmed. Penalties of $1,000 in each instance are substituted, for a total of $3,000.

Reconsideration 15-06

Feb 17, 2016

Blair Lekstrom/Duz Cho Construction

The finding in Investigation Reports 15-05, 15-06 and 15-07 that the lobbyist failed to comply with his obligations under s. 3(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act, to file a return within 10 days after entering into an undertaking to lobby, is upheld. The penalties imposed, respectively, of $3,000, $3,000 and $2,000 are not, however, confirmed. Penalties of $1,000 in each instance are substituted, for a total of $3,000.

Reconsideration 15-07

Feb 17, 2016

Blair Lekstrom/HD Mining International Ltd.

The finding in Investigation Reports 15-05, 15-06 and 15-07 that the lobbyist failed to comply with his obligations under s. 3(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act, to file a return within 10 days after entering into an undertaking to lobby, is upheld. The penalties imposed, respectively, of $3,000, $3,000 and $2,000 are not, however, confirmed. Penalties of $1,000 in each instance are substituted, for a total of $3,000.

Reconsideration 15-01

Aug 18, 2015

Brad Zubyk/Urban Impact

The finding in Investigation Report 15-01 that the lobbyist failed to file a return within 10 days after entering into an undertaking to lobby is upheld. The finding that he identified the wrong organization as his client is not confirmed. The finding that he failed to correct information in the registry when required is also confirmed. It is also noted in passing that the lobbyist ought to have identified in the return the members of the coalition of which his client was a member.

Reconsideration 14-07

Oct 01, 2014

Brad Zubyk/Scientific Games Int.

The finding in Investigation Report 14-07 that the consultant lobbyist contravened the Lobbyists Registration Act is upheld. The administrative penalty of $600 imposed on the lobbyist is upheld. The lobbyist did not provide compelling grounds that the Investigator's findings should be varied.

Reconsideration 14-04

Aug 06, 2014

William Belsey/Gitxaala Nation

The findings in Investigation Report 14-09 that the consultant lobbyist contravened ss. 3(1) and 4(3) of the Lobbyists Registration Act are upheld. The administrative penalty of $1,200 imposed on the lobbyist is also upheld. The lobbyist did not provide compelling grounds that the Deputy Registrar's findings should be varied.

Reconsideration 14-01

Jun 06, 2014

BC Federation of Labour/James Sinclair

The finding in Investigation Report 14-03 that the designated filer contravened the Lobbyists Registration Act is upheld. The administrative penalty of $1,000 imposed on the designated filer is also upheld. The designated filer did not provide compelling grounds that the Investigator's findings should be varied.

Reconsideration 14-02

Jun 06, 2014

Cynthia (Burton) Shore/MWH Business Solutions

The finding in Investigation Report 14-05 that the consultant lobbyist contravened s. 3(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act is upheld. The administrative penalty of $700 imposed on the lobbyist is also upheld. The lobbyist did not provide compelling grounds that the Investigator's findings should be varied.

Reconsideration 14-03

Jun 06, 2014

Michael Klassen/BC Care Providers Association

The finding in Investigation Report 14-01 that the consultant lobbyist contravened the Lobbyists Registration Act is upheld. The administrative penalty of $500 imposed on the lobbyist is also upheld. The lobbyist did not provide compelling grounds that the Investigator's findings should be varied.

Reconsideration 13-01

Jul 04, 2013

Joe Fieder/3M Canada

A consultant lobbyist requested reconsideration of a $500 administrative penalty imposed as a result of a contravention of the Lobbyists Registration Act. Only the amount of the fine was at issue on reconsideration. The administrative penalty of $500 imposed on the lobbyist is upheld as the consultant lobbyist did not offer compelling grounds to vary the finding of the Acting Deputy Registrar of Lobbyists.

Reconsideration 12-01

Dec 06, 2012

Jay Hill

The finding in Investigation Report 12-15 that the consultant lobbyist contravened the Lobbyists Registration Act is upheld. The penalty of $2,500 imposed on the lobbyist is, however, reduced to $250 in view of the circumstances and in light of penalties imposed to date in other cases under the Act.