Justice: Former Interim Mayor of Montreal Michael Applebaum will be able to keep his severance allowances

Former interim mayor Michael Applebaum will not have to reimburse the City of Montreal for the $ 268,000 in severance and transition allowances that had been paid to him, the Court of Appeal ruled.

In a judgment rendered on Monday, the court rejected the city’s most recent attempt to recover these sums of money.

In June 2013, Michael Applebaum was arrested by the Permanent Anti-Corruption Unit (UPAC) and subsequently resigned as interim mayor, which he had held for the previous year.

In accordance with the law, the City of Montreal had then paid him $ 108,204 as a severance allowance and $ 159,719 as a transition allowance.

But this law, entitled Act respecting the remuneration of elected municipal officers, was subsequently amended twice in 2016 and 2018.

Henceforth, if an elected official is prosecuted and convicted of an indictable offense punishable by two years of imprisonment, he is liable to a request for reimbursement of his allowances.

This is what happened to Mr. Applebaum: in 2017, he was convicted of fraud against the government, breach of trust, acts of corruption and conspiracy to commit criminal acts. He was sentenced to one year in prison.

Pursuit

On the strength of the new rules adopted in 2016 and 2018, the City requested the reimbursement of the sums, but stumbled upon the refusal of the former mayor, resigning himself to bring a lawsuit against him. This was rejected by the Superior Court in January 2020, which held that the changes made to the laws could not be applied retroactively, that is to say for actions taken before their entry into force.

Dissatisfied, the City appealed this decision. In vain, because the Court of Appeal confirmed the previous judgment: “The respondent [M. Applebaum] received the compensation to which he was entitled at the time […] the amounts were payable even if the elected official resigned during the term of office and did not depend on his behavior or his integrity. “

The Court saw no indication that the legislature wanted to give retroactive scope to these amendments to the Act.

Watch video


source site