Disclosures

In 2023, I was convicted of theft under $5,000 in relation to an incident at my former strata where I was being harassed by the strata and the president approached me holding a cell phone and was filming me without consent in an area that building cameras were already recording. She refused to stop when asked so I swiped the phone from her hand, and returned it undamaged and without accessing the contents one hour later to another member of the strata. I also sent the strata manager an email immediately following the incident to explain what had happened. The following day I was arrested and charged with theft. I explained the context to police and the court, but I was convicted anyway and sentenced to one year of probation which required me not to enter the building for 12 months, despite my common law partner living there and it being the only place I could afford to live at the time. To comply with the sentence, I lived in my vehicle that winter, parking across the street from the building with my two dogs until the sentence was complete.

I could not afford a lawyer and had duty counsel. I was told that taking it to trial would result in a conviction anyway, because I was not denying that I had taken the phone without permission, and that in that case I would likely receive a harsher sentence than the deal being offered — a conditional sentence. So I accepted it.

This is a situation low-income people face every day in the criminal justice system. It results in people pleading guilty to charges they could easily beat, or be found not guilty of, if they could afford good lawyers who would actually fight on their behalf. Access to justice should not depend on the size of your bank account.

I take responsibility for my actions.

I also know what it is like for a criminal record, even from a non-violent incident where no actual loss occurred, to follow a person long after the sentence is complete. This record has been used to deny me employment on more than one occasion since it happened, and I see clearly how records like this affect employment, housing, reputation, and the ability to rebuild. That experience is one reason I care deeply about justice, policing, poverty, homelessness, mental health, and second chances.

I am not asking voters to ignore my past. I am asking them to judge the full record: what happened, what I learned from it, what I have done since, and whether Vancouver needs leaders who understand how easily people can be pushed to the margins and then kept there.

Prior to legalization, I operated a marijuana business in Guelph, Ontario. My arrest and the related charges received coverage in two regional newspapers. Also covered in the same period was the subsequent arrest of Guelph Police Officer Panylo, a case connected to the same investigation. I am disclosing these records in the interest of full transparency.

In November 2006, Scott Gilbert — then a former candidate for public office in Guelph, Ontario — cast five spoiled ballots in the municipal election using fake names and valid addresses within polling station catchment zones. He cast two ballots at the same polling booth hours apart, without being stopped or questioned. He spoiled every ballot, checking every name on it to ensure no candidate was affected.

The purpose was to demonstrate a serious vulnerability in the elections act: at the time, Ontario municipal voters were not required to show identification. Anyone with a valid address and a name could walk in and vote. Scott estimated that a single person could have cast well over 20 votes in a day, and that a coordinated team could have swung the outcome of any closely contested race.

He rented a pinhole camera, sewed it into his shirt, and documented the entire day — specifically to prove he spoiled each ballot and did not influence any candidate's result. A reporter from the city newspaper followed him throughout and the story ran as a front-page article covering both the stunt and the municipal election results. One incumbent candidate, June Hofland, won her ward by exactly five votes — the number Scott had cast in a matter of hours.

Police investigated and did not lay charges. They stated publicly that it was not in the public interest to do so, given the stunt's clear intent to expose a legitimate democratic vulnerability rather than to affect any outcome.

Years later, Ontario amended the Municipal Elections Act to require voters to show identification — a direct response to the loophole Scott identified. The city clerk's office confirmed the stunt had prompted the city to seek legislative changes. A city report was produced proposing identification requirements at the polls.

Scott notes that fixing the loophole created a new one: people without identification — including most residents of East Hastings — are now excluded or face serious barriers to participating in elections. His proposed solution is an opt-in civic digital ID, described in the AI City Hall plan.