https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/jarvis-snively-compromised-election-bondy-called-him-out
The Following is Right from the Court Documents
Use of Proxy Votes in the 2018 Essex Election.
The victims names are blocked out here but not on the original court document.
There was a total of 96 votes by proxy cast in the 2018 Essex Election as follows:
- Seven Electors voted by proxy in Ward 1;
- Two electors voted by proxy in Ward 2;
- Fifty-three electors voted by proxy in Ward 3;
- Thirty- four electors voted by proxy in Ward 4
The Town of Essex provides each candidate an information package with instruction on how to conduct themselves during the election. During the 2018 election campaign period there were complaints by some candidates regarding the misuse of proxy votes. The Clerk sent out a reminder to all candidates to ensure the lawful use of proxies.
On the 22nd day of October 2018 XXXX XXXX, a resident of the Town of Essex, attended the polling station in Harrow to cast her vote, she was told she had already voted, and she would not be able to vote again. XXXX XXXX was confused as she had not voted prior to that day. XXXX XXXX disclosed to the Election Officer that she was not allowed to vote because someone had voted for her, by proxy, at the advance poll. The Election Officer notified Donna Hunter CAO and the Clerk. A meeting was called the next day at XXXX XXXX residence to discuss the matter. As a result the Ontario Provincial Police were notified, and an investigation was started regarding the misuse of proxy voting.
Police learned that Mr. Lawrence (Larry) Snively had campaigned in Essex mainly in Wards 3 and 4 and offered electors a way to vote for him by proxy. Mr. Snively used the Appointment for Voting Proxy (Form 3) to procure persons who were not entitled to vote as they had not been lawfully appointed. As a result of the investigation Police identified 34 proxies who were not entitled to vote in the 2018 election.
Procuring a Person to Vote When Not Entitled to Do So
Ricardo and Sara Avila (Proxy)
Sometime between June 1st and October 13th 2018 Larry Snively approached persons in Wards 3 and 4 where English was not their first language. Mr. Snively attended XXXX XXXX residence and asked for his support in the election. XXXX XXXX agreed to vote for Mr. Snively. Mr. Snively offered the option of voting by proxy to XXXX XXXX, which XXXX XXXX agreed to, and Mr. Snively had him sign two proxy forms, one for him and one for his wife who would not have to vote in the election. XXXX XXXX did not provide Mr. Snively with instruction as to whom his elector should vote for other than a vote for Mr. Snively. The wife of XXXX XXXX never spoke with Mr. Snively and was unaware that someone would be voting on her behalf.
In July of 2018, Mr. Snively spoke to Ricardo Avial looking for his support in the election. Mr. Avila agreed to support Mr. Snively. At the same time Mr. Snively procured Mr. Avila, and his wife (Sara Avila) who was not present, to vote on behalf of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX by proxy. Mr. Avila agreed and later received forms from Mr. Snively for himself and his wife.
On the 13th day of October 2018, Ricardo and Sara Avila attended the advance poll and voted on behalf of XXXX XXXX and his wife without ever receiving instruction from them with regards to which person to vote for. When attending to vote for XXXX and XXXX, Ricardo and Sara swore oaths that they had been instructed by XXXX and XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Ricardo and Sara Avila voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Lawrence Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Agueda Cacilhas (Proxy)
XXXX XXXX was approached by a younger tall Italian man. She thought it was a man from the electric company. He told her if she signed a paper she would get a package in the mail her son could fill out. She states she did not recognize the writing in the paper. She states she knows XXXX XXXX the person appointed to vote for her, but she never gave Agueda Cacilhas permission to vote on her behalf. When asked if she usually votes herself, she said she and her husband usually do, but her husband was sick and they could not get out.
Agueda Cacilhas was approached by Larry Snively and was asked if she would do a proxy vote for someone who could not vote. She agreed to do the proxy vote and received the document from Larry Snively. The only thing she knew was that the proxy vote was a vote for Larry Snively. She did not vote for any other persons in the election. When asked by police if she had spoken with XXXX XXXX prior to casting the proxy vote, she said that she had not.
Ms. Cacilhas said she saw XXXX XXXX about a week after the advanced poll when XXXX XXXX was out walking and said to her I voted in the election for you, is that okay? XXXX XXXX told Ms. Cacilhas that it was okay. The investigation revealed Ms. Cacilhas attended the advanced poll on the 13th of October 2018. Ms. Cacilas identified herself with proper identification and swore an oath that she had been appointed in good faith and instructed by XXXX XXXX on how she wanted to vote in the election. After swearing the oath Ms. Cacilhas voted on behalf of XXXX XXXX without being entitled to do so.
As a result, Agueda Cacilhas voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Mr. Snivley procured this vote thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Carla, Regan and Joshua Catherwood (Proxy)
XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX were approached by Lawrence Snively who came to their residence and asked them for his support. Mr. Snively told them if they signed the paper it would be a vote for him. XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX signed the provided forms. XXXX XXXX advised police that he does not know Carla Catherwood and never spoke with her on how he wanted to vote in the upcoming election. XXXX XXXX advised police that she does not know Joshua Catherwood and never spoke with him on how she wanted to vote in the upcoming election. XXXX XXXX advised police that she does not know Regan Catherwood and never spoke with him on how she wanted to vote in the upcoming election.
Carla Catherwood told police that Larry Snively came to her door asking her, her husband (Regan Catherwood) and their son (Joshua Catherwood) if they would assist by voting as a proxy. Carla, Regan and Joshua Catherwood did not speak to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX prior to voting on their behalf. As a result, Carla, Regan and Joshua Catherwood voted when not entitled to do so. When attending to vote Carla, Regan and Joshua Catherwood swore an oath that they had been instructed by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Carla, Regan and Joshua Catherwood voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Mr. Larry Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Margaret and Gerald Cote (Proxy)
Mr. Lawrence Snively came to XXXX XXXX’s residence sometime in early September (2018) campaigning. Mr. Kehn agreed to support Mr. Snively but said he would not be home on Election Day. Mr. Snively told XXXX XXXX that he could vote by proxy by signing the proxy form and that Jimmy Lypps would be voting for him. XXXX XXXX stated he knows Mr. Lypps but he has not seen him or spoken to him in years. XXXX XXXX had not given instructions to Mr. Lypps on how he would like him to vote. Mr. Snively provided three other proxy vote forms to XXXX XXXX one for his wife and his tenants. XXXX XXXX states he provided his wife with the form, but not the tenants. Ms. XXXX XXXX advised police that her husband provided the proxy form to her. Ms. XXXX XXXX signed the form but did not know who was voting on her behalf, and did not provide any instructions to the unidentified proxy on how she would like to vote.
While XXXX XXXX believed that Mr. Lypps would be voting for him, it was later determined that the proxy was instead used by Gerald Cote. Gerald Cote is Mr. Snively’s neighbour. Mr. Cote advised that Mr. Snively approached him and his wife (Margaret Cote) to be proxies. Mr. Cote does not know XXXX XXXX, nor did he receive any instructions from XXXX XXXX on how he would like to vote. Mr. Cote advised that Mr. Snively approached him and his wife (Margaret Cote) to be proxies. Mr. Cote does not know Mr. XXXX XXXX, nor did he receive any instructions from XXXX XXXX on how he would like to vote. Mr. Cote advised police that when he asked Mr. Snively who XXXX XXXX wished to vote for, Mr. Snively told Mr. Cote to vote the way Mr. Cote would vote. Margaret Cote also received a proxy form from Mr. Snively and told police that she had assumed that Mr. Snively had appointed her. Margaret Cote did not know and did not receive any instruction from XXXX XXXX on how to vote.
When attending to vote Margaret and Gerald Cote swore oaths that they had been instructed by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX despite not having done so. As a result, Margaret and Gerald Cote voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Mr. Larry Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Raquel and Chad Ferris (Proxy)
Mr. Snively attended their residence and provided XXXX XXXX with a business card. Ms. XXXX XXXX showed the card to her husband, who was sick in bed. Mr. XXXX XXXX indicated that he knew Mr. Snively and trusted him, and he was glad he was running for mayor. XXXX XXXX told Mr. Snively that she did not know if she could vote. Mr. Snively told her that he has a paper that she could sign, and he could get someone to vote for her XXXX XXXX agreed to vote for Mr. Snively because her husband trusted him XXXX XXXX signed the paper provided to her for herself and she signed a paper for her husband, because he was ill. XXXX XXXX advised police that Mr. Snively did not force her to sign the papers and that it was her decision.
XXXX XXXX was advised that Paul Cacilhas would be voting for her. Investigators later determined that Mr. Snively had asked Raquel Ferris to vote on behalf of XXXX XXXX and asked her husband (Chad Ferris) to vote on behalf of Mr. XXXX XXXX. Raquel and Chad Ferris did not receive instructions from XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX before voting on their behalf. When attending to vote, Raquel and Chad Ferris swore an oath that they had been instructed by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Raquel and Chad Ferris voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Mr. Larry Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Douglas Gillan (Proxy)
XXXX XXXX was 87 years of age when she remembers a man coming to her house asking about the upcoming election. She does not recall the specifics of the conversation that she had, at that time, but identified her signature on the proxy form. Douglas Gillan was asked by Mr. Larry Snively to vote as a proxy for XXXX XXXX. Mr. Gillan advised the police that he had never spoken to XXXX XXXX about how she would like to vote. When attending to vote for XXXX XXXX Douglas Gillan swore an oath that he had been instructed by XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result Douglas Gillan voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Mr. Larry Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Lynn Innes (Proxy)
Prior to the election Mr. Larry Snively spoke to XXXX XXXX at her residence. When asked if she was going to vote XXXX XXXX told Mr. Snively that the last time she tried to vote she had difficulty voting as she did not have the proper paperwork with her and was unable to vote. Mr. Snively told XXXX XXXX that he had a form she could sign, and he would get someone to vote for her. She agreed to sign the form and Mr. Snively told XXXX XXX that Peter Timmins’s daughter in law would be voting for her. Ms. XXXX XXX states she knows Peter Timmin’s daughter in law and that she agreed to have her vote on her behalf.
Investigators determined that Peter Timmins’s daughter in law did not vote on behalf of Ms. XXXX XXXX. Instead, it was determined that Lynn Innes voted on behalf of Ms. XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX advised police that she does not know Lynn Innes and that she did not appoint her to vote on her behalf and that she did not give instructions to Lynn Innes on how she would like to vote. Lynn Innes told investigations that Mr. Snively asked her if she would vote by proxy in the upcoming election. Ms Innes stated that she did not receive any instructions from XXXX XXXX about how she wanted to vote in the election. When attending to vote for XXXX XXXX, Lynn Innes swore an oath that she had been instructed by XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Lynn Innes voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Mr. Larry Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
James Webber and Victoria Lypps (Proxy)
XXXX XXXX advised police that Mr. Larry Snively came to their home and spoke to him and his wife on July 10th 2018. Mr. Snively told XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX that if they signed the proxy form they would not need to attend the polls to vote. XXXX XXXX that told Mr. Snively that he did not even know where the voting was taking place. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX advised police that they believed that by signing the form they did not need to go out and vote. XXXX XXXX signed the paper and Mr. Snively told Mr. XXXX XXXX that Victoria Lypps would be voting for him. Mr. XXXX XXX does not know Victoria Lypps and did not speak with her about how he wanted to vote in the 2018 election. XXXX XXXX was advised by investigators that James Webber voted on her behalf. XXXX XXXX does not know James Webber and did not speak with him on how she would like to vote.
James Webber told police that Mr. Larry Snively asked him to vote by proxy for someone. Mr. Webber advised that Mr. Snively was working with a person named Paul Cacilhas to speak with Portuguese voters. Mr. Webber understood that he was voting on behalf of one of these Portuguese voters but had not received any instructions on who the voter wished to vote for. When attending to vote for XXXX XXXX, James Webber swore an oath that he had been instructed by XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
Victoria Lypps advised police that Mr. Snively had asked her to vote by proxy and that she had assumed that Mr.Snively had permission from the person to appoint her as proxy. Ms. Lypps noted that the form was already filled out when Mr. Snively provided the form to her. Ms. Lypps notes that she voted for Mr. Snively because he was the one who brought her the proxy form. When asked if she knew XXXX XXXX, Ms. Lypps stated that she did not and that she had not received any instruction before voting on Mr. XXXX XXXX behalf. When attending the vote for XXXX XXXX, Victoria Lypps swore on oath that she had been instructed by XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, James Webber and Victoria Lypps voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Mr. Larry Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Susan Grunder, Mary and Bruce MacDonald (Proxy)
XXXX XXXX advised police that on the 10th day of September, 2018. Mr. Snively came to his home and asked for his vote in the upcoming election. XXXX XXXX agreed to support Mr. Snively but advised him that he and his wife would be away and not able to vote in the election. Mr. Snivley told XXXX XXXX that Mr. XXXX XXXX could sign a proxy form and Mr. Snively would arrange for someone to vote for him. XXXX XXXX agreed and signed a form for himself. XXXX XXXX also agreed to sign a proxy form for his father as he was the substitute decision maker for his father, due to his father’s physical condition. XXXX XXXX also agreed to sign a proxy form for his wife, after having called her to obtain her consent to complete the form. Both XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX intended to support Mr. Snively in the upcoming election. When Mr. Snively was asked if it was legal, he assured XXXX XXXX that it was.
Susan Grunder (Mr. Snively’s sister in law) was asked by Mr. Snively to vote on behalf of XXXX XXXX. Ms Grunder had not spoken to XXXX XXX or his subsititite decsion maker (his son), in advance of voting on his behalf. Mary MacDonald was asked by Mr. Snively to vote on behalf of XXXX XXXX. Mary MacDonald had not spoken to XXXX XXXX in advance of voting on her behalf. Bruce MacDonald was asked by Mr. Snively to vote on behalf of XXXX XXXX. Mr. MacDonald had not spoken to XXXX XXXX in advance of voting on his behalf. When attending to vote for XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX the proxy voters, Susan, Mary and Bruce swore oaths that they had been instructed by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Susan Grunder, Mary MacDonald and Bruce MacDonald voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Mr. Larry Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Donna, Paul and Kelly Shepley (Proxy)
Mr. Snively attended XXXX XXXX home and asked Mr. XXXX XXXX to support him in the upcoming election. Mr. XXXX XXXX agreed but advised Mr. Snively that he did not know if he would make it out to vote on election day. Mr. Snively told Mr. XXXX XXXX that he could proxy his vote to another person. Mr. XXXX XXXX agreed stating that he would like to vote for Mr. Snively. Mr. XXXX XXXX signed the proxy form but did not know who the person was that was going to vote for him. Mr. MacDonald does not know Donna Shepley and did not provide her with instructions on how he would like to vote.
While Mr. XXXX XXXX was speaking with Mr. Snively, his daughter arrived home. She does not recall a conversation with regards to voting but agrees that she signed the paper that was given her. XXXX XXXX advised police that Mr. Snively (the man talking to her father) returned to their residence on another occasion and asked her to sign the paper again. She noted that when the paper was brought back it had the name Kelly Shepley already filled out. XXXX XXXX does not know Kelly Shepley and did not provide instructions to Kelly Shepley on how she would like to vote.
Donna Shepley advised police that Mr. Snively asked her and her husband (Paul Shepley) to do proxy votes for people who could not attend the polls to vote. When Ms. Shepley received the proxy form, she noted that the form had already been filled out and that she would be voting on behalf of XXXX XXXX. Ms. Shepley advised police that she had not received any instructions from XXXX XXXX before voting on his behalf. When attending to vote for XXXX XXX, Donna Shepley Swore an oath that she had been instructed by XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
Paul Shepley agreed to assist Mr. Snively by voting for someone Mr. Snively advised could not attend to vote. Paul Shepley attended the polling station intending to vote for a person with the last name MacDonald. Paul Shepley did not know the person who he was voting on behalf of, nor did he speak with that person in advance of attending to vote on their behalf. When at the polling station, staff advised Paul Shepley that the person he was voting on behalf of was not on the voting list and, as a result, he could not vote on the person’s behalf of was not on the voting list and, as a result, he could not vote on that person’s behalf. Paul Shepley was embarrassed and left the proxy form at the polling station.
Kelly Shepley was approached by Mr. Snively and asked to do a proxy vote for someone. Kelly Shepley agreed, and Mr. Snively brought the form to her but did not give her instruction on how to vote. Kelly Shepley advised police that she did not know XXXX XXXX and did not speak to XXXX XXXX in advance of voting on her behalf. When attending to vote for XXXX XXXX, Kelly Shepley swore an oath that she had been instructed by XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Donna and Kelly Shepley voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Larry Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Marvin Shepley (Proxy)
XXXX XXXX is a student attending school in New York State and, from time to time he has a break from school and he returns home to Harrow. In August of 2018 he was home working at the Chiropractic office in Harrow when Mr. Snively came into the office. XXXX XXXX knew that Mr. Snively was running for mayor so XXXX XXX asked Mr. Snively when the early election polling stations were open. Mr. Snively told him that he could vote by proxy right now. Mr. Snively provided XXXX XXXX with a blank form and advised XXXX XXXX to fill out a section of the form and that Mr. Snively would take care of the rest. XXXX XXXX trusting Mr. Snively as a candidate signed the provided form. XXXX XXXX advised the police that he did not know who would be voting on his behalf. The investigation revealed that Marvin Shepley was the person who attended the polling station to vote on behalf of XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX did not know Marvin Shepley and had not instructed Marvin Shepley on how he wanted to vote.
Marvin Shepley advised police that he voted on behalf of XXXX XXXX, who he knew as the kid that works at the Chiropractor’s office in town, Mr. Shepley received the proxy form from Mr. Snively. He indicated that since he received the form from Mr. Snively, he then voted for Mr. Snively. Mr. Shepley advised police that he believed that Mr. Snively would not have provided him the proxy form if he did not intend for Mr. Shepley to vote for him. Mr. Shepley did not receive any instructions on how XXXX XXXX wanted to vote prior to voting on behalf of XXXX XXXX. When attending to vote for XXXX XXXX, Marvin Shepley swore an oath that he had been instructed by XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Marvin Shepley voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Mr. Larry Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Carma Silva (Proxy)
XXXX XXXX attended the Portuguese Club with her husband with the intention to vote for Larry Snively. However, her vote had already been cast by way of proxy with the investigation confirming that Carma Silva had previously voted on behalf of XXXX XXXX. Ms XXXX XXXX advised police that she knows Ms. Silva as a person who works near the Portuguese Club, but that she did not give instructions to Ms. Silva to vote on her behalf. Ms. XXXX XXXX noted that Mr. Snively has previously attended her home in advance of the election, but he did not indicate to her that Ms. Silva would be voting on her behalf.
Carma Silva attended the advanced poll and swore an oath that she had been appointed in good faith and instructed by XXXX XXXX. At this time Carma Silva voted on behalf of XXXX XXXX without having previously spoken to Ms. XXXX XXXX on how she wanted to vote.
As a result, Carma Silva voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Larry Snviley procured this vote thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Peter and Theresa Timmins (Proxy)
Mr. Larry Snively approached XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX with regards to the upcoming 2018 election. Both XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX indicated that they wanted to support Mr. Snively. Both XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX signed the proxy forms provided to them by Mr. Snively. The investigation later revealed that Peter and Theresa Timmins voted on behalf of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. Mr. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX know the Timmins as they are neighbours. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX did not speak to Peter and Theresa Timmins on how they would like to vote.
Peter Timmins advised police that he was approached by Mr. Snively to see if Peter and Timmins and his family could be proxies for the XXXX family. Mr. Timmins agreed, and Mr. Snively brought proxy forms to Mr. Timmins and his wife Theresa Timmins. Peter Timmins went to the advance poll and voted on behalf of XXXX XXXX. Mr. Timmins told police that he did not know why Mr. Furtado could not vote himself but believed it may have been related to XXXX XXXX difficulty with the English Language. Mr. Timmins never had a conversation with XXXX XXXX about how he wanted to vote in the election and stated that he assumed the vote was for Mr. Snively. On the day of the advance poll Mr. Timmins swore an oath that he had been instructed by XXXX XXXX, despite not having done so.
Theresa Timmins told investigators that Larry Snively came over and asked her family to vote as proxies. Ms. Timmins agreed to be a proxy for XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX and Ms. Timmins are neighbours and know each other. Ms. Timmins states she never had a conversation with XXXX XXXX to find out how XXXX XXXX wanted to vote in the upcoming election. Ms. Timmins noted that when Mr. Snively provided her proxy form, XXXX XXXX’s signature was already on the form. Ms. Timmins advised police that she had known Mr. Snively for a long time, and it was not unusual for Mr. Snively to ask for her family to do proxy votes. When attending to vote for XXXX XXXX, Theresa Timmins swore an oath that she had been instructed by XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Peter and Theresa Timmins voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Larry Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Jada Bostin Timmins (Proxy).
XXXX XXXX told police that Larry Snivley asked for her support in the upcoming 2018 election. Ms. XXXX agreed to vote for Ms. Snively but told him that she would not be able to get to the polling station to vote. Mr. Snively told XXXX XXX that there was a form she could sign, and she would not have to attend the polling station to vote. Mr. Snively told XXXX XXXX there were some Portuguese people who were willing to help her vote and provided Ms. XXXX XXXX with some names to choose from. Ms. XXXX XXXX agreed to have Domingo Pereira vote on her behalf, as he is a person she knows and trust. Mr. Snively instead suggested Paula Cacilhas and Ms. XXXX XXXX said no because she did not want him to vote for her. The investigation later determined that Jada Timmins voted on XXXX XXXX’ behalf. Ms. XXXX XXXX advised police that she signed the proxy form but did not give Jada Timmins permission to vote on her behalf.
Jada Timmins was asked to do a proxy vote by her father-in-law (Peter Timmins) who advised that the form was being provided by Mr. Snively. Ms. Timmins did not speak to XXXX XXXX about how she wanted to vote. It was Ms. Timmins’s understanding that if the person could not vote, because of language or some other reason, the person could sign the form and they just give the vote to the proxy. She went on to say the form was signed when she got it and she just filled out box “B” with her information. When attending to vote for Ms. XXXX XXXX, Ms.Timmins swore an oath that she had been instructed by Ms. XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Jada Timmins voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Larry Snively procured this vote thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Richard Webber (Proxy)
XXXX XXXX was at his residence when he was approached by Lawrence (Larry) Snively and they spoke about the upcoming 2018 election. XXXX XXXX agreed to vote for Mr. Snively but told Mr. Snively that he is a truck driver and that he would likely be out of town at the time of the election. Mr. Snively told XXXX XXXX that he could sign a paper and it would be a vote for Mr. Snively. XXXX XXXX agreed to sign the paper and when Mr. Snively showed him the paper, XXXX XXXX said he really did not have time for this. Mr. Snively told XXXX XXXX that all he had to do was sign and he would take care of everything else. XXXX XXXX states he signed the paper for a vote for Mr Snively and that was it because XXXX XXXX did not know anyone else who was running for Council.
Larry Snively asked Richard Webber if he would vote by way of proxy for XXXX XXXX. Mr. Webber agreed and voted on behalf of XXXX XXXX at the advanced poll on the 13th of October 2018. Mr. Webber advised police that he was not instructed to vote by XXXX XXXX, but he understood the implications and what XXXX XXXX wanted simply by receiving the paper from Mr. Snively. Mr. Webber admitted that he never had a conversation with XXXX XXXX about the election. When attending to vote for XXXX XXXX, Mr. Webber swore an oath that he had been instructed by XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Richard Webber voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Larry Snively procured this vote thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Mary Kathleen Gray (Proxy)
XXXX XXXX learned his mother (XXXX XXXX) had signed a proxy vote for the 2018 election. XXXX XXXX is his mother’s Power of Attorney and he was concerned that his ill and elderly mother had signed the proxy form without him being present. XXXX XXXX was 82-years old and had been ill at the time she signed the proxy form. XXXX XXXX does not remember anything about the person coming to her house and getting her to sign anything. The investigation confirmed that Mary Gray voted as XXXX XXXX’s proxy. XXXX XXXX advised that he never had a conversation with anyone about who his mother would be
voting for by proxy. He did not hear about the proxy form being signed until after the 2018 election.
Mary Kathleen Gray was asked by Larry Snively to vote by proxy on behalf of XXXX XXXX. Ms. Gray advised police that when Mr. Snively brought the paperwork to her, it was already filled out and that all she needed to do was to sign the form. Ms. Gray never spoke with either XXXX or XXXX XXXX about how XXXX XXXX wanted to vote and never received any instruction from Mr. Snively. Ms. Gray attended the advanced poll on the 13th of October 2018 and voted on behalf of XXXX XXXX. When attending to vote, Kathleen Gray swore an oath that she had been instructed by XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Kathleen Gray voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Lawrence (Larry) Snively procured this vote thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Brian Gray (Proxy)
XXXX XXXX is 93 years of age and lives in Harrow. She was approached by Larry Snively with regards to the upcoming election and signed the proxy form that Mr. Snively provided to her. Mr. XXXX XXXX is the son of XXXX XXXX and is his elderly mother’s Power of Attorney. Mr. XXXX XXXX advised police that he was concerned that his elderly mother had signed the proxy form without him being present.
Brian Gray told investigators that Larry Snively came to him and asked him to vote for XXXX XXXX by way of proxy. Mr. Gray thought he remembered who Ms. XXXX XXXX was and agreed to vote on her behalf. Mr. Snively returned later with a proxy form and advised Mr. Gray he would need to sign the form and bring it with him when he voted. Mr. Snively did not give Mr. Gray any instruction on how XXXX XXXX wanted to vote. Mr. Gray assumed that because Mr. Snively brought the form to him, XXXX XXXX would be voting for Mr. Snively.
Mr. Gray never had a conversation with XXXX XXXX and was not instructed by XXXX XXXX on how she wanted to vote in the election. When attending to vote Brian Gray swore an oath that he had been instructed by XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Brian Gray voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Larry Snively procured this vote thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Roger Sinasac (Proxy)
Roger Sinasac advised police that Mr. Lawrence (Larry) Snively came to him and asked if he would help XXXX XXXX vote in the election. Mr. Sinasac agreed, telling police that he believed that he would be helping XXXX XXXX by giving her a ride to the poll. Mr. Snively told Mr. Sinasac that he would be voting on behalf of XXXX XXXX in the upcoming 2018 election. Mr. Sinasac was uncertain about voting on behalf of XXXX XXXX but trusted Mr. Snively and agreed to help. Mr. Snively and Mr. Sinasac attended XXXX XXXX’s home and Mr. Snively spoke to XXXX XXXX. Mr. Sinasac told police that he did not understand what was being said as they were speaking Portuguese. XXXX XXXX told police that a man came to her door and asked her to sign a paper. She states the man (agreed to be Mr. Snively) told her that it was important that she sign the paper. Mr. Sinasac advised police that he believed that when XXXX XXXX signed the paper she was voting for Mr. Snively.
Mr. Sinasac never had a conversation with XXXX XXXX and was not instructed by XXXX XXXX on how she wanted to vote in the election. When attending to vote, Roger Sinasac swore an oath that he had been instructed by XXXX XXXX despite not having done so. As a result, Roger Sinasac voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Mr. Lawrence (Larry) Snively procured this vote thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when
not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Deborah and Michael Aspinall (Proxy)
Larry Snively came to XXXX and XXXX XXXX’s home and asked them for their support in the upcoming election. They agreed to support Mr. Snively, but XXXX XXXX advised that she did not drive and that they did not know if they would be able to attend to vote. Mr. Snively informed them that they could sign a paper and he would get someone to vote on their behalf. They both agreed and signed the form. Mr. Snively told XXXX XXXX that Manuel Silva would be voting for her. XXXX XXXX knew Mr. Silva and agreed that he could vote on her behalf.
The investigation revealed that Deborah and Michael Aspinall voted on behalf of XXXX and XXXX XXXX, at the request of Mr. Snively. Deborah and Michael Aspinall did not have a conversation with XXXX and XXXX XXXX and were not instructed by XXXX and XXXX XXXX on how they wanted to vote in the election. When attending to vote on behalf of XXXX and XXXX XXXX, Deborah and Michael Aspinall swore oaths that they had been instructed by XXXX and XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Deborah and Michael Aspinall voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Mr. Lawrence (Larry) Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
Ron and Theresa McDonald (Proxy)
XXXX XXXX is 83 years old, does not speak English, and has dementia. He was interviewed on the 6th day of December 2018 by Detective Coene with the assistance of his wife (XXXX XXXX) and their daughter as translators. XXXX XXXX was able to identify his signature on the proxy voting form. He could not remember if it was Mr. Snively who spoke to him about voting. Ms. XXXX XXXX advised police that Mr. Snively came to their home and had a discussion with them regarding the upcoming 2018 election. Ms. XXXX XXXX advised that she does not usually attend to vote, but Mr. Snively told them that they could sign some papers to vote. Ms. XXXX XXXX advised police that Mr. Snively filled out the papers and she and her husband signed the forms provided.
The investigation revealed that Ron and Theresa McDonald voted on behalf of XXXX and XXXX XXXX. Ron and Theresa McDonald did not have a conversation with XXXX and XXXX XXXX and was not instructed by XXXX and XXXX XXXX on how they wanted to vote in the 2018 election. When attending to vote, Ron McDonald and Theresa McDonald swore oaths that they had been instructed by XXXX and XXXX XXXX despite not having done so.
As a result, Ron and Theresa McDonald voted when not entitled to do so. It is agreed that Larry Snively procured these votes thus committing the offence of “induces or procures a person to vote when not entitled to do so” contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act.
PART III: Admission of Guilt
The Accused, Lawrence (Larry) Snively confirms that the above facts are true and correct. He admits that he induced or procured persons to vote when they were not entitled to do so contrary to section 89(d) of the Municipal Elections Act, and as a result of this act, is guilty of that offence.
PART IV: Acknowledgement of the Significance of this Document
Lawrence (Larry) Snively confirms that he has received independent legal advice
regarding the charge that he is pleading guilty to, the case against him, the available defences, the importance of signing this document and the significance of his plea. By entering his guilty plea, Lawrence (Larry) Snively acknowledges his understanding that he is waiving his right to a trial at which the Crown would be obliged to prove all essential elements of the charge before
the Court, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lawrence (Larry) Snively understands that while counsel have spoken about the sentence they will be seeking, it has been made clear to him that the ultimate decision rests with this Honourable Court.
SIGNED by Lawrence (Larry) Snively and his counsel at Windsor, Ontario on the _27th_ day of _October_, 2021.
Patrick Ducharme
Counsel for Lawrence Snively
SIGNED by Crown Counsel at London, Ontario on the 22nd day of October, 2021.
Brian D. White
A/Regional Crown Counsel
For the Ministry of the Attorney General
Province of Ontario
Court File No: 20- 2087
ONTARIO COURT OFJUSTICE
(WEST REGION)
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
~and~
LAWRENCE SNIVELY
