Mayor McQuaker pocketed donor money intended to offset Emo taxpayers’ legal costs
- Judson Howie LLP
- 2 days ago
- 6 min read
Updated: 22 hours ago
A municipal integrity commissioner’s report has revealed that Mayor Harold McQuaker personally retained money raised from municipal donors following the Township of Emo’s human rights defeat in 2024, while nearly $30,000 raised through online campaigns remains unaccounted for. These revelations suggest that McQuaker's lawyers misrepresented the factual basis for prior orders to return funds to him. The matter has been referred to police for investigation of potential fraud, theft, breach of trust, and municipal corruption charges.
On August 9, 2026, the Township of Emo released the municipal integrity commissioner's report following a months-long inquiry into complaints concerning Mayor Harold McQuaker’s conduct under the Township’s Code of Conduct and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
The report will be considered at council's regular meeting on August 11, 2026, at 9 AM (Central Time). The integrity commissioner has recommended that council reprimand McQuaker and suspend his pay for up to 60 days.
The complaint
The integrity commission's investigation followed revelations that McQuaker had personally received money raised through online crowdfunding campaigns launched after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario concluded, in November 2024, that he and the Township discriminated against Borderland Pride, a local 2SLGBTQIA+ organization. In its decision, the Tribunal had ordered the Township and McQuaker to pay Borderland Pride $15,000 in compensation, including $5,000 for which McQuaker was personally responsible.
The complaint to the integrity commissioner pointed to, among other things, social media posts by Michael Keller, the organizer of one online fundraising campaign. Keller had publicly stated that he had sent the proceeds to McQuaker and posted a photograph showing McQuaker accepting the funds at the municipal office in December 2024. (McQuaker and Keller are currently co-respondents in a proceeding before the Tribunal alleging reprisal, contrary to the Human Rights Code.)
Section 8.0 of the municipal code of conduct prohibits a member of council from accepting any gift or cash that is directly or indirectly connected with the performance of their duties in office. It also sanctions any gift intended to influence the member in the performance of their duties, or as a reward for any action or inaction by the member of council. The section requires that a member file a disclosure statement of any gift exceeding $100 in value. McQuaker did not do so.
Donor funds are unaccounted for
Keller’s GiveSendGo campaign was one of five online fundraisers launched following the Tribunal’s November 2024 decision. Similar campaigns were launched by other, unknown persons, on GoFundMe. Collectively, these unsanctioned campaigns purported to raise money to support the Township and McQuaker in fighting the Tribunal's decision.
The five crowdfunding campaigns raised at least $34,151. Yet, a year later, on December 3, 2025, the Township confirmed that it had never received any of that money. The Township also had no record of McQuaker filing the declaration required when an elected official receives a gift or benefit.
The integrity commissioner’s August 2026 report now establishes that at least some of the money was instead deposited into McQuaker’s personal bank account and remained there, nearly two years after it had been raised.
At this point, around $30,000 raised from individual donors remains unaccounted for. The implications are serious. Members of the public were asked to contribute money ostensibly to support the municipality and its fight against the Tribunal decision. The municipality says it never received the money, while at least some of it went instead to the Mayor personally.
These events also raise serious questions about staff leadership and financial controls in place at the Township's office. Municipal staff appear to have facilitated photographs of McQuaker accepting crowdfunding proceeds at the municipal office, yet apparently took no steps to ensure the money was received and accounted for by the municipality, to address McQuaker’s disclosure obligations, or to ensure that funds raised for municipal purposes actually benefited municipal taxpayers. It is also unknown whether they took any steps to investigate the missing donor funds after receiving a freedom of information request to confirm their whereabouts.
Consequently, it is unknown whether proceeds from the other crowdfunding campaigns were similarly paid to McQuaker or deposited into other private accounts. In either case, donors were deceived about the use of these funds.
Taxpayers paid to protect McQuaker from a liability donors had already covered
Sadly, the financial consequences of Mayor McQuaker's misappropriation of donor money did not end with the crowdfunding.
In January 2025, the Township and McQuaker commenced an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. They then asked the Divisional Court to stay enforcement of the Tribunal’s order and return funds to McQuaker while that litigation proceeded. Their motion was specifically intended to protect McQuaker from having to satisfy the Tribunal’s monetary award before the judicial review was decided.
But we now know that before seeking that relief from the court, McQuaker had already personally received crowdfunding proceeds sufficient to offset the $5,000 award made against him and garnished from his bank account. That fact raises an obvious and troubling question: why were local taxpayers paying lawyers to ask a court to protect McQuaker from a $5,000 personal liability after donors had already given him money to cover it?
It also raises questions about what information was put before the Divisional Court and whether the court was given a complete picture of McQuaker’s true financial position when it was asked to exercise its discretion to temporarily reverse collection efforts under the Tribunal's order. McQuaker's counsel insisted on the court ordering the return of the funds garnished from his account, which the court ordered on March 31, 2025. The basis for this order would now appear to be false.
But the cost to taxpayers did not stop there. The Township’s lawyers have now repeatedly relied on their motion to stay enforcement to explain or justify commencing judicial review before they exhausted the Tribunal’s own reconsideration process. The Divisional Court ultimately dismissed the judicial review as premature and sent the dispute back to the Tribunal for precisely that reason. Their error has put local taxpayers to even further legal expense to protect Mayor McQuaker.
Taxpayers still do not know what this has cost them
These revelations from the integrity commissioner's report emerge against a broader pattern of secrecy surrounding the Township’s response to the November 2024 human rights decision.
Over two years after the hearings before the Tribunal, Emo taxpayers still do not know how much of their money has been spent fighting a $15,000 compensation award, pursuing judicial review, resisting disclosure of the resulting legal bills, and dealing with the growing number of proceedings flowing from the Township’s response.
The municipality is currently facing three separate appeals before Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) concerning its refusal to disclose information about its legal spending. The records are clearly disclosable, based on settled law established in prior IPC decisions. McQuaker’s and the Township’s conduct following the November 2024 decision has also resulted in two reprisal claims before the Human Rights Tribunal.
Municipal taxpayers are paying for all of it.
Referral to police for investigation
Based on the integrity commissioner's findings and the clear indicia of criminal misconduct, Judson Howie LLP has written to the Ontario Provincial Police and requested that it open an investigation into whether McQuaker, his fundraisers, or any other persons committed criminal offences such as fraud, theft, breach of trust, or municipal corruption, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. A copy of the letter has been directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
While it is no surprise to Borderland Pride that supporters of Mayor McQuaker would be vulnerable to scams, the public is entitled to know what cash inducements were received and what expense to taxpayers has been incurred to protect Mayor McQuaker from acknowledging that his office and the Township of Emo are subject to 30-year-old settled discrimination law under Ontario's Human Rights Code.
Conclusion
The Tribunal's November 2024 decision is currently before the Tribunal's reconsideration process, after the Township and McQuaker failed to take that step before launching their application for judicial review. Pending the outcome of that process, the Township and the Mayor may choose to resume their judicial review at the Divisional Court.
To date, the Township and McQuaker have lost to Borderland Pride at every step in this litigation.
McQuaker has not publicly confirmed whether he intends to seek re-election this fall. The deadline for nominations is August 21, 2026.
For more information, please contact:
Douglas W. Judson
Phone: 807-797-2023
Email: doug@judsonhowie.ca
Comments