Court Orders Take Back Alberta Founder to Turn Over Records to Elections Regulator

David Parker (C), founder of Take Back Alberta, looks on as delegates debate resolutions at the United Conservative Party annual general meeting in Calgary, on Nov. 4, 2023. (The Canadian Press/Jeff McIntosh)

A provincial court on July 29 ordered Take Back Alberta founder David Parker to provide Elections Alberta internal documents the agency has been requesting for an investigation. The court found him in contempt for not having done so previously.

The provincial elections regulator has been investigating since November 2023 whether the citizen advocacy organization broke any laws on election advertising and political contributions. The agency says Mr. Parker is obligated to turn over documents such as bank statements and invoice records to aid in its investigation. Mr. Parker says he is concerned about the privacy of donors whose names are on the records.

Mr. Parker’s organization has been active in supporting pro-freedom politicians and influencing those in public office.

Contempt Ruling

Justice J.D. Martin said in his July 29 ruling that Mr. Parker has until Aug. 19 to provide the requested documents, or else face a fine of $5,000.

The ruling follows a challenge by Elections Alberta filed in June to find Mr. Parker in contempt of court for refusing to provide the documents. The agency says it is investigating whether the funds raised by the organization “were used for political or election advertising,” whether the group was affiliated with the United Conservative Party, and whether events organized by the group constituted election or political advertising.

Mr. Parker in early July released information about his organization’s finances, including revenue details, on social media, and said more information would be released soon. But he said he would not “be releasing the names of our donors.”

“I have to have a long conversation with our donors, and find out who would be willing to let their name be presented to Elections Alberta,” Mr. Parker told The Epoch Times following the July 29 court ruling.

Mr. Parker says he has been receiving death threats, and he doesn’t want the donors to go through the same experience if their names become public.

“I’ve had my brake lines cut, I’ve had my name slandered all across the mainstream media, people calling me an extremist, people saying that I’m a misogynist,” he said.

Elections Alberta told The Epoch Times that it is legislatively prohibited from publicly commenting on cases it “may or may not be” investigating.

In an April 11 letter addressed to Mr. Parker, the agency’s election commissioner Paula Hale said provincial laws allow her to summon any person and request records while conducting investigations related to compliance with the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act.

“I have the power to enforce and compel attendance of witnesses as if I were a judge of the Court of King’s Bench,” Ms. Hale said.

Contempt of civil court can result in fines or arrest for up to two years imprisonment, according to the Alberta Rules of Court.

‘Warrant to Issue’

In a July 26 email sent to Mr. Parker’s lawyer, a lawyer representing the elections commissioner said that Mr. Parker has had 100 days to turn over the records, and that he should not take longer to provide them.

Joseph Redman added that he will be asking the court to find Mr. Parker in contempt and provide a one-week period for Mr. Parker to comply, failing which he would seek “a warrant to issue, or alternatively a daily fine until the contempt is cured.”

In an emailed response the same day, Mr. Parker’s lawyer Grey Leighton said the communication marked “the first time that Elections Alberta has stated its intention to seek a warrant for the arrest of David Parker.”

“We take the position that he has the right to a full hearing before being exposed to such severe and ham handed remedies,” Mr. Leighton wrote. He added that it appears Elections Alberta plans to raise the case “to the level of a criminal conviction.”

In the July 29 ruling, Justice Martin only referenced fines as a penalty for not complying with the court order.