OTTAWA – Is Michael Sona the infamous Pierre Poutine?
Sona, the lone staffer from Conservative candidate Marty Burke’s campaign charged in the 2011 robocalls scheme, will learn his fate in a Guelph courtroom on Thursday.
It is alleged he is the mastermind behind the calls that intended to send Liberal supporters to the wrong polling stations more than four years ago.
The plot involved registering a burner cellphone to Pierre Poutine (which shares the name of a Guelph eatery), loading it up with prepaid cards and registering a robocalls account to a “student” named Pierre S. Jones.
More than 6,000 calls were sent out on election day, and it is an established fact that some people in Guelph were prevented from voting.
If convicted under the Elections Act, Sona, 25, faces up to five years in prison.
He has maintained his innocence, as his former friends and colleagues testified against him in the four-day trial.
Sona did not take the stand in his own defence, and his lawyer Norm Boxall didn’t call any witnesses.
Yet the Crown did not present any direct evidence linking Sona to the calls. A majority of the witnesses, young Conservative staffers, testified that Sona bragged about the scheme.
But they only came forward several months after the election, when Sona’s name had already been circulating in the news – and after speaking with Conservative party lawyer Arthur Hamilton.
At least two people involved
Even if Sona is convicted, it is unlikely the full story will ever be revealed.
For one, the Crown admits more than one person was involved in sending out the misleading robocalls.
Only Sona has been charged.
The so-called star witness, deputy campaign manager and IT professional Andrew Prescott, had a legitimate robocalls account and said he showed Sona how to set one up. He said Sona emerged from his cubicle in the early morning hours on election day, euphorically saying, “It’s working.”
And at a post-election party, Prescott said Sona had a cigar and said, “Thanks, Pierre.”
WATCH: Testimony links Sona to robocalls
Yet Prescott’s testimony was met with skepticism by Boxall, who pointed out that Prescott’s memory seemed to improve only after he received immunity from the Crown. Even Crown prosecutor Croft Michaelson said in his closing remarks that Prescott’s testimony should likely be approached “with caution.”
Then there is the matter of Ken Morgan.
The campaign manager, who refused to cooperate with Elections Canada investigators, moved to Kuwait following the election. It is rumoured he is now back in Guelph.
The Crown said the evidence suggests Morgan was involved. Prescott testified he was asked by Morgan to stop a second round of calls from going out on election day.
Conservative links?
And what, if anything, did the Conservative party know?
Court heard that Sona inquired about making calls that couldn’t be traced, and fellow campaign worker John White put him in touch with Conservative party headquarters. Matt McBain, then of political operations, testified that he wasn’t alarmed, but thought he talked Sona out of the idea.
Meanwhile, the call system was set up by Racknine, an Edmonton-based automated calling firm that counts the Conservatives as clients. Owner Matt Meier even testified that he tipped Prescott off about the investigation and also provided the Conservative party with a list of IP addresses.
Prescott, the star witness, prepared a statement never released that suggested the Conservatives were complicit in a national scheme that blamed calls on local staffers – although he later said it was written in anger and he didn’t believe it.
In April, a three-year investigation into allegations of fraudulent robocalls during the last federal election found no evidence of an orchestrated scheme beyond Guelph.
Sona, his lawyer, and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada declined to comment for this story.
“The PPSC will not speculate on any possible outcome in the case nor comment on what an accused person might or might not do in a given situation,” spokeswoman Sujata Raisinghani wrote in an email.
If Sona is acquitted, the Crown has 30 days to appeal the sentence. It is not known whether Sona would appeal.
Ottawa lawyer Howard Krongold said an appeal depends on Justice Gary Hearn’s reasoning when he delivers his verdict.
“The Crown is going to take a close look at the case, and try to make a determination about whether they think there is an arguable case of error, and whether it’s in the public interest to pursue an appeal,” he said.
“Certainly in high-profile cases there is perhaps more of a likelihood that an appeal will be launched.”
And if successful, that means another trial could be years away – well after the 2015 election.
Comments