Update and Apology: Ghosts of Christmas Past: Bans and Arrests issued by City of Mississauga Corporate Security on Christmas Days 2006 to 2012

December 25th, 2013  

UPDATE: December 29, 2013

Please be advised that I have removed the content of my December 25, 2013  blog, “Ghosts of Christmas Past: Bans and Arrests issued by City of Mississauga Corporate Security on Christmas Days 2006 to 2012”.

While the title and text referred to Bans and Arrests issued by City of Mississauga Corporate Security on Christmas Days —meaning December 25ths, the actual image copied from the City of Mississauga Corporate Security included all Twelve Days of Christmas (December 25th through January 5ths).

Huge error, huge.

That said, there’s a difference between when I make a mistake and the City of Mississauga and City of Mississauga Corporate Security in particular.

1.  I’m committed to Science, that is evidence-based research and reporting.

2.  I don’t need someone to point errors out to me. I eventually find them on my own.

3.  I acknowledge an error as soon as it’s noticed.

4.  I have a conscience.

5.  I always man up to my mistakes.

Last I apologize to the City of Mississauga and City of Mississauga Corporate Security for making the City’s record of bans and arrests appear worse than they actually were during the 2006 through 2012 Christmas holiday season.

That said, I’ll stand by what I wrote in my December 25, 2013 blog —that City of Mississauga Corporate Security “isn’t all that conscientious about accuracy in reporting or recording” and that “Freedom of Information has confirmed that not all bans –or even arrests are recorded in this database”.

That’s it.

 

Wishing all a safe holiday,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

City of Mississauga Corporate Security "Response Units" (aka knob units) parked opposite the evil empire, Christmas Eve 2013

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

“CSIS” database confirms City of Mississauga Corporate Security’s Reign of Error after Error after Error after Error after Error after

December 16th, 2013  

It’s been a long time since I wrote a blog. Wow, last one was December 2, 2013. Right now I’m heavily into analyzing the City of Mississauga Corporate Security (MissCorpSec) database and in the process I have to learn Excel. The database is a record of 5,381 incidents of bans and arrests courtesy of City of Mississauga Corporate Security guards, Contract Security guards, City of Mississauga Corporate Security Area Managers (SAMs) as well as those issued by Security Manager, Jamie Hillis.

In an email, Ken Owen, Director of MissCorpSec once referred to the database as “non-robust”. Such classic MYTHissaugaspeak from that individual! “Non-robust”…

Tell you what. YOU decide about “non-robust”. Take a peek at the City of Mississauga Corporate Security “CSIS” database (below). But first, some background.

As a way of familiarizing myself with the MissCorpSec database, I began a colour-coding exercise: Red for failure to record key information like “Complexion” (aka Race/Ethnicity) or omitting two related pieces of information like Date of Birth and AgeRangeID so the person receiving the ban could be an 8 year old —or 88.

8 or 88… Think that’s preposterous? Well City of Mississauga Corporate Security has banned someone as young as 8 and as old at 89!

The difficulty for me is figuring out how to analyze what Director Ken Owen calls a “non-robust” database and what I call a total piece of disgrace-to-public-service-piece-of-shit.

By our count over 1,700 of 5,381 Security incidents contained either errors or omissions. That’s over 30% of all entries for the “Trust Quality Excellence” “Best City in Canada” whose Mayor brags that they “Lead Canada in management”.

Sometimes while the Date of Birth is missing, at least City of Mississauga Security guards entered the AgeRangeID. The problem was there were numerous circumstances where 15 year olds were assigned the 16 – 20 AgeRange. Or a 16 year old was assigned 11 – 15. Or 26 – 30. You get the idea.

So even when the Date of Birth was missing, you could draw little confidence from a MissCorpSec guard filling in the AgeRange. And it isn’t just that. With Date of Birth missing what use is the AgeRange 16 – 20? Was that person a minor or a 19 – 20 year old?

Seriously. How do you go about analyzing such a piece of crap? How could anyone be confident in drawing any conclusions from it? Have Hazel McCallion and her Councillors been lying to us since at least May 2006—or just not paying attention? You can’t look at the City of Mississauga Corporate Security database and believe City of Mississauga Staff are accountable. If the Mayor and Council even remotely expected some oversight and consequences from senior Staff, we would not be wading through the shitterie that is their “CSIS” database.

We will be responding to all Corporate Reports authored by Security Manager Jamie Hillis and Security Area Manager, Cathie Evans from Spring 2010 to current. In these semi-annual reports they summarized bans, arrests and even “trends” of this database…

Imagine. Hillis and Evans provided no caveats about the “non-robust”ness of this database. (Most telling) not one word about “Complexion”!…

I will say this. When I warned Hazel McCallion and Councillors about City of Mississauga Corporate Security —about the lying, about the chronic disregard for Policy, about behaviour that confirmed Security bosses saw themselves as untouchable to any accountability, a rogue force and Law Unto Themselves— the City of Mississauga Corporate Security database still took me by surprise at just how bad it really was….

So here in its Full-Callous-Disregard-for-Policy are the over 1,700 incidents containing errors, omissions or just stinks of plain stupid.

You’re best to click here for the original size version that I uploaded to Flickr:  www.flickr.com/photos/43172810@N00/11405203586/sizes/o

And here’s the City of Mississauga Corporate Security database, FYI, squished into 640 pixels across…

City of Mississauga Corporate Security database: Sample of over 1,700 errors or omissions in entries

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

“Contrary to your allegations, it is because the City does not discriminate on the basis of age and ethnicity that there are no records to be found based on such categories.”

–Mayor Hazel McCallion, April 16, 2007 email

Christmas Mississauga Council meeting 2006: Trying to warn Mississauga Council about City of Mississauga Corporate Security but aborted. December 13, 2006
Christmas Mississauga Council meeting 2006: Trying to warn Mississauga Council about City of Mississauga Corporate Security but aborted. December 13, 2006

 

 

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Letters to Hazel McCallion: “Urging that the City of Mississauga MUST NOT fill their Manager, Security position internally. ”

December 2nd, 2013  

This document was sent to Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion on November 24, 2013 and a corrected version was emailed today. We provide it here for the record.

City of Mississauga Corporate Security LETTERS TO HAZEL MCCALLION logo

Hi Madam Mayor,

I hope that you are well.

Please forgive my haste and know that the supporting evidence (Freedom of Information and audio/video) can be prepared and brought forth in good time, but right now it is more important to bring this urgent request to your attention before a decision is made.

On November 12, 2013, as a result of receiving an email advising me that the City could not reveal the name of a City of Mississauga Corporate Security (MissCorpSec) Area Manager, I went to your website at mississauga.ca to see if I could find a name that way.

As is my practice I checked your Jobs and Careers page.

Imagine my SHOCK finding the job, “Manager, Security” posted the very same day!

“I hope that the people we hire are sensitive to the fact that we are dealing with the public and we should give them every understanding possible.”

Madam Mayor, you, Council, and the City Manager, MUST NOT fill the Manager, Security position internally.

I remind you of an instruction you gave to Staff (and especially Jamie Hillis) at the March 17, 2008 Audit Committee meeting. Recall that you were reviewing the first-ever Security public complaints procedure and you said how important this document was.

And then, you pointedly told all there, “I hope that the people we hire are sensitive to the fact that we are dealing with the public and we should give them every understanding possible.”

To which Jamie Hillis responded, “Yes. Absolutely.”  It takes the most cursory of looks at City of Mississauga Corporate Security’s “CSIS” database to confirm that “Yes. Absolutely.” was a lie.

Hazel McCallion quote: “I hope that the people we hire are sensitive to the fact that we are dealing with the public and we should give them every understanding possible.” --Mayor Hazel McCallion at the March 17, 2008 Audit Committee
Another lie was that the City does not collect records on Ethnicity.

Your April 16, 2007 email to me states:

“Contrary to your allegations, it is because the City does not discriminate on the basis of age and ethnicity that there are no records to be found based on such categories.”
I know you didn’t write that Madam Mayor, but someone on Staff turned you into a liar. That’s why I wanted a name. I still want the name of the individual who made that statement. It’s a blatant lie — a lie that extends all the way back to at least January 2006. Corporate Security collected a lot more personal information on citizens than just Age and Ethnicity.

And ready for this? Remember that 9/10 year old girl that Security banned for 30 days from three facilities at once? Turns out she wasn’t the youngest! The MissCorpSec “CSIS” database confirms they banned an 8 year old boy for 30 days as well.

So much for the Peel Youth Charter…

I’m asking that you, Madam Mayor, personally oversee the hiring of the new Manager of City of Mississauga Corporate Security. There is not enough time right now to explain why all MissCorpSec’s SAMs (Security Area Managers) need to be replaced, and for that matter, Supervisors as well.

One step at a time, and the very best thing you can do for youth/citizens is to poach a new Security Manager who is “sensitive to the fact that we are dealing with the public” and “will give them every understanding possible.”

This implies that the candidate would have a high standard of ethics and would be willing, and ideally eager, to submit to the Province’s public complaints procedure under Bill 159.

Ministry of Community Safety Correctional Services Private Security Investigative Public Complaints
In his book “Her Worship: Hazel McCallion and the Development of Mississauga”, author Tom Urbaniak implied that when you go fishing, Madam Mayor, it isn’t just for salmon. You’ve been known to “poach” for City Staff.

On page 4 in his book, Urbaniak states that you have “spared few efforts to recruit seasoned top bureaucrats, sometimes even poaching respected senior provincial public servants.”

Madam Mayor, I urge you to poach and ensure we get a new Security Manager “who is sensitive to the fact that he is dealing with the public and should give them every understanding possible”.

I’ve been documenting City of Toronto Corporate Security during Toronto Council meetings (November 13 and 18, 2013). That might be a good place to start…

Respectfully,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

EXHIBIT 131124 01 “Contrary to your allegations, it is because the City does not discriminate on the basis of age and ethnicity that there are no records to be found based on such categories.”       –Mayor Hazel McCallion, April 16, 2007 email

In an April 16, 2007 email, Hazel McCallion denies that City of Mississauga Corporate Security keeps records on Age and Ethnicity. Who at the City of Mississauga is responsible for the Mayor's VERY false statement?
EXHIBIT 131124 02 Print screen of City of Mississauga Corporate Security “CSIS” database.

Despite heated, chronic denials by the City, Freedom of Information eventually confirmed that City of Mississauga Security also kept records on ethnicity in Column “R” under the heading “Complexion”.

Not only that but since January 1, 2006 the “CSIS” database had Caucasian spelled “Caucasion” and it would seem City of Mississauga Corporate Security also thinks that European is a complexion.

City of Mississauga Corporate Security "CSIS" database classifies European as a complexion

EXHIBIT 131124 03  3/19/2007 -0400,  March 19, 2007 email Our File:  07/030

“In any event, please be advised that the City treats all its residents fairly regardless of language or ethnicity.”

The fact is, the City does NOT treat “residents fairly regardless of language or ethnicity”.

For example, if you are banned or arrested by “Contract Security” on City property (see below), you can file a complaint with the province under Bill 159. Not so if you’re unfortunate enough meet up with a City of Mississauga Corporate Security guard. You are then denied that route and can only “complain” through the City’s Staff-drafted public complaints process –where the Security bosses “investigate” –a Freedom of Information confirmed Road to Nowhere.

City of Mississauga's confirmed use of "Contract Security" turns residents into Haves and Have Nots.

Hazel McCallion quote: “I hope that the people we hire are sensitive to the fact that we are dealing with the public and we should give them every understanding possible.” --Mayor Hazel McCallion at the March 17, 2008 Audit Committee
Cc Jim Tovey; Pat Mullin; Chris Fonseca; Frank Dale; Ron Starr; Nando Iannicca; Katie Mahoney; Pat Saito; Sue McFadden; George Carlson; John Stewart (Mississauga News); Emil Kolb; Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin,

Cc: Crystal Greer; MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

THE McCALLION LETTERS

Email 01 sent October 8, 2013 4:57 PM   Letters to Hazel McCallion: The McCallion Letters, “Request for a Meeting with the Mayor” Factum #1

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Letters to Hazel McCallion: The McCallion Letters, “Request for a Meeting with the Mayor” Factum #1

October 4th, 2013  

City of Mississauga Corporate Security LETTERS TO HAZEL MCCALLION logo

[I REQUEST THAT THIS COMMUNICATION BE INCLUDED AS CORRESPONDENCE IN THE OCTOBER 9, 2013 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AND OCTOBER 21, 2013 GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES]

Dear Madam Mayor,

I’m sitting on the floor outside the Security Office as Crime Awareness Day 2013 is happening all around me. I can think of no more fitting way to finally deliver on my February 2010 promise to meet with you to discuss my concerns relating to the City’s governance in general, and your Corporate Security “force” in particular.

Please remember that I requested permission to document our meeting on video and you responded with “anything you want”. I also understand that at best, I might be able to get an hour of your time. I propose that we meet on Monday, October 6, 2014 –just over a year from now. I chose this date for three reasons.

First I’ve attended enough court sessions to know that to make the most efficient use of time, lawyers exchange factums. I propose to do that as well –provide you a series of factums over the course of a year, to be included in Council and Governance Committee minutes. These factums will be Freedom of Information documents, and audio/video evidence (ie: Staff
interviews, meetings, speeches etc).

The Oxford dictionary defines “factum” as:

factum

noun (pluralfactums /-təmz/ or facta /-tə/) Law chiefly Canadiana
statement of the facts of a case.

I’m sure you’ll agree that if I state something supported with Freedom of Information, audio, or video evidence, then the factum will indeed be “facts of a case”. Your Staff can review each and respond where they see I might be in error. Or not.

Second, I propose meeting a year from now because by the time of our meeting I will be 65 and officially a senior.

My third and final reason for waiting a year is that I know that nothing I say or do will actually have any effect on anything, other than setting the record straight and finally answering your question.

What question?

You asked it during the October 16, 2008 Peel Police Homicide Information Session at Peel Regional Council. Frustrated by the spike in homicides that year, you’d asked Chief Metcalfe and Peel Regional Council, “We’re spending a lot of money on programs. What is missing?”

You asked “What is missing?” five years ago. I submit that the answer to your “What is missing?” goes a long way to explain what is missing in the McMurtry/Curling Review of the Roots of Youth Violence report.

The City’s 2013 Crime Awareness day is a rainy, gray affair and I’ve taken enough time sitting on the floor of the Great Hall.

So please slot a time for me for Monday, October 6, 2014 (or later). I look forward to a productive hour of your time.

You have my very best wishes,

Ursula
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

City of Mississauga Corporate Security boss Jamie Hillis' November 27. 2007 email secured through Freedom of Information


 

[Exhibit 1  Freedom of Information confirms ban of 9-10 year old girl Nov 14, 2008. Next page.]

City of Mississauga Corporate Security, Special Occurrence Report, 9/10 year old girl BANNED and punishment more harsh than many adults

 

 

[Exhibit 2   Email to Freedom of Information coordinator Barbara McEwan asking who at City of Mississauga Corporate Security told her the City’s banning database had only two fields. [BOLDED for emphasis. Grayed when less relevant]

From: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
To: Barbara McEwan <Barbara.McEwan@mississauga.ca>
Cc: Ken Owen <Ken.Owen@mississauga.ca>; mississauga_watch@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2008 8:19 AM
Subject: Question regarding my February 2007 FOI request

Hi Ms. McEwan,I’ve just finished an email to Ken Owen clarifying what I would like for an update on the list of bans, trespasses and arrests (BTA’s) that I first requested as in FOI back in February 2007. Back then you may recall I told you that I was concerned about MissCorpSec’s banning practices and wanted to analyze their BTA records especially as it related to facility, ethnicity and age.If you were in Council back in December 2006 (yes, that long ago) it was the first time I tried to give a deputation on MissCorpSec practices.McCallion and Bench intmidated me so much that I chickened out and aborted.It’s been that long that I’ve been emailing The Corporation, trying to get McCallion et al to analyze the bans/trepasses/arrests of MissCorpSec especially as it pertained to “at-risk youth”. The Mayor’s subsequent December 2006 email-refusal to investigate and assurance that the city “treated all citizens fairly” led me to Freedom of Information.I came to you and FOI for MissCorpSec banning records.I know that in our talks about what I wanted in that first ban/trespass/arrest printout, I told you that I was worred about how MissCorpSec dealt with Youth and especially visible minority youth.I also informed you that I wished to analyze any trends based on facilities, age and even ethnicity of those banned, arrested etc. I requested records for a decade.You may recall that when you told me that MissCorpSec only began keeping computer records since January 2006. I hope that you can recall that you also said, that the only data MissCorpSec kept were  “two fields”.I’ve posted that FOI list to the Net long ago and allow me to aim you at just as an example. Please take a look.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43172810@N00/448642308/sizes/o/in/set-72157600092315322/

As you can see Freedom of Information provided me with just two fields. “Date of Issue” and “Cause of Ban”.

You may recall that I was incredulous. I asked you how Mayor McCallion could assure me in email that Mississauga treated citizens fairly if MissCorpSec only kept those two fields and that therefore it was impossible to analyze and back up such an assurance.

You may recall the massive effort I expended to secure the original “tags” in order to snare more details like facility name, age etc even if it were just the arrests. You know that I even headed out to Burnamthorpe Court House for those tags. I even emailed McCallion again asking for an estimate of how much it would cost to find the “shadows” (the people banned, trespass, arrested) and tags.

Yet Brampton Corporate Security gave me the info (date, ban/tresp/arrest, cause, facility, age, ethnicity –even security guard name) right away (first time asking) –including a vast list of other security-related queries for $420. A true bargain (especially a Time bargain).

My prupose for writing. Question.

Who at MissCorpSec back in early 2007 (when I made that first printout request) told you that MissCorpSec only kep records of those two fields and that that would all I would ever be able to get?

Thanks.

 

 

[Exhibit 3    Email to Director Ken Owen asking in her December 2006 email, what data/stats did Madam Mayor use to make the assertion, “In any event, please be advised that the City treats all its residents fairly regardless of language or ethnicity.”  

Mr. Owen’s original email included for context.]

From: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
To: Ken Owen <Ken.Owen@mississauga.ca>
Cc: mississauga_watch@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: MISSCORPSEC FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (personal info) arrived today

 

Hi,

Me again. I’ve just did a quick check and have a new question.

You say that “the incident in question did not show up because it was related to a ban from all facilities while the search criteria that were driven by the FOI request was specific to Burnhamthorpe.”

To be clear, the incident in question was an “all community centres” ban originating from  Burnhamthorpe Archery Group.

I’ve just checked the Malton CC MissCorp/sec database printouts. They’re from the same FOI batch as the Burnhamthorpe one –stats from for all major community centres up to September 20, 2008.

So I’d assume that there’d be a  Burnhamthorpe-specific search, a McKechnie-specific search, a Malton-specific search, a RiverGrove one etc etc.

I’ve confirmed that so far three “all community centres” and “all facilities” bans show up DO for the Malton-specific FOI search..

So why not Burnhamthorpe?

So who at MissCorpSec confirmed your suspicions that the reason the Youth didn’t show was because the printout was for a facility-specific search. Because that’s simply wrong.

Or, I ask that he explain why “all community centres” “all City facilities” bans do show up in the Malton-specific searches arriving in the same batch as the Burnhamthorpe one.

The question that I have sir is this. Way back in December 2006 I alerted Hazel McCallion about concerns that I had re: treatment of at-risk youth and visible minorities at the nds of MissCorpSec.

Here’s what she wrote back.

“In any event, please be advised that the City treats all its residents fairly regardless of language or ethnicity.”

What data/stats did Madam Mayor use to make that assertion? Serious question.

Thanks



From:
Ken Owen <Ken.Owen@mississauga.ca>
To: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
Cc: Peter Meyler <peter.meyler@mississauga.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:35:35 AM
Subject: RE: MISSCORPSEC FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (personal info) arrived today

Ursula

I’ve confirmed my suspicion that the incident in question did not show up because it was related to a ban from all facilities while the search criteria that were driven by the FOI request was specific to Burnhamthorpe.  The list provided to you with the decision letter is complete relative to the requested search criteria.

Ken Owen
Director, Facilities and Property Management
Corporate Services Department
City of Mississauga

905 615 3200 ext. 4206

 

 

 

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

To Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion “I’m sitting on the floor outside the Security Office as Crime Awareness Day is happening all around me.”

September 23rd, 2013  

For the record, what follows is video of me reading an email written to Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion during Saturday’s Mississauga Crime Awareness Day as well as a transcript of the actual letter.

City of Mississauga Corporate Security, Peel Regional Police: “What is missing?” –Hazel McCallion


Video transcript of the actual letter.

[I REQUEST THAT THIS COMMUNICATION BE INCLUDED AS CORRESPONDENCE IN THE OCTOBER 9, 2013 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AND OCTOBER 21, 2013 GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES]

Dear Madam Mayor,

I’m sitting on the floor outside the Security Office as Crime Awareness Day 2013 is happening all around me. I can think of no more fitting way to finally deliver on my February 2010 promise to meet with you to discuss my concerns relating to the City’s governance in general, and your Corporate Security “force” in particular.

Please remember that I requested permission to document our meeting on video and you responded with “anything you want”. I also understand that at best, I might be able to get an hour of your time. I propose that we meet on Monday, October 6, 2014 –just over a year from now. I chose this date for three reasons.

First I’ve attended enough court sessions to know that to make the most efficient use of time, lawyers exchange factums. I propose to do that as well –provide you a series of factums over the course of a year, to be included in Council and Governance Committee minutes. These factums will be Freedom of Information documents, and audio/video evidence (ie: Staff
interviews, meetings, speeches etc).

The Oxford dictionary defines “factum” as:

factum

noun (pluralfactums /-təmz/ or facta /-tə/) Law chiefly Canadiana
statement of the facts of a case.

I’m sure you’ll agree that if I state something supported with Freedom of Information, audio, or video evidence, then the factum will indeed be “facts of a case”. Your Staff can review each and respond where they see I might be in error. Or not.

Second, I propose meeting a year from now because by the time of our meeting I will be 65 and officially a senior.

My third and final reason for waiting a year is that I know that nothing I say or do will actually have any effect on anything, other than setting the record straight and finally answering your question.

What question?

You asked it during the October 16, 2008 Peel Police Homicide Information Session at Peel Regional Council. Frustrated by the spike in homicides that year, you’d asked Chief Metcalfe and Peel Regional Council, “We’re spending a lot of money on programs. What is missing?”

You asked “What is missing?” five years ago. I submit that the answer to your “What is missing?” goes a long way to explain what is missing in the McMurtry/Curling Review of the Roots of Youth Violence report.

The City’s 2013 Crime Awareness day is a rainy, gray affair and I’ve taken enough time sitting on the floor of the Great Hall.

So please slot a time for me for Monday, October 6, 2014 (or later). I look forward to a productive hour of your time.

You have my very best wishes,

Ursula
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Mississauga blogger to City of Mississauga Director of Corporate Security, "CITY STAFF LIE."

Toronto Star "Peel officers who 'lied under oath' won't face charges" October 19, 2012

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Ombudsman accepts Durham police officer’s apology; Real “Joe Mayo” regrets hateful tweets

September 23rd, 2013  

For the record I should have posted this update a lot sooner.

Press Conference Ontario Ombudsman André Marin accepts Durham police officer’s apology and takes questions

Ombudsman accepts Durham police officer’s apology; Real “Joe Mayo” regrets hateful tweets

Date: 2013-09-13

(TORONTO, September 13, 2013) – Ontario Ombudsman André Marin has accepted a personal apology from the Durham Regional Police Service detective responsible for sending him hateful Twitter messages on August 8 via an account set up in a fellow officer’s name.

“The officer in question reached out to me to arrange a meeting and I met with him Thursday,” said Mr. Marin. “He apologized unconditionally for his actions and told me he regrets posting those tweets. I believe the apology to be heartfelt and sincere, and I am happy to accept it.”

Mr. Marin said the officer understood that his name should be made public in the interest of transparency. He is Detective Jeff Caplan, a member of the Durham Regional Police Service’s Major Fraud Unit.

The abusive tweets were sent immediately prior to a press conference where the Ombudsman announced an investigation into police de-escalation training, related to the recent police shooting of Sammy Yatim. Among other slurs, the author urged the Ombudsman not to stick his “big French nose” where it didn’t belong and called him “a carded member of Al Qaida.”

Under the alias “Joe Mayo,” the user stated in his Twitter profile that his “only goal in life” was to “expose André Marin” and added: “Ombudsman = stick nose in everyone’s business.” He also sent angry tweets related to the Yatim case to a Toronto councillor.

However, the account originated under the name and badge number of one of Detective Caplan’s colleagues. Mr. Marin initially named that officer as the source of the tweets when he brought the disturbing incident to the DRPS’s attention via Twitter. The Ombudsman issued a public apology to that officer on August 28, when the Durham Police sergeants conducting the internal investigation informed Mr. Marin they had confirmed another officer created the account. Detective Caplan has also apologized to his colleague.

“While I am pleased to consider the situation resolved, it is unfortunate that such an incident – one officer destructively impersonating another online – could happen in any police service,” Mr. Marin said. “I am a strong proponent of good policing, but no one should tolerate situations of police abuse, and this case is no exception.”

Detective Caplan has been charged with discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and his first appearance on that matter is set for October 1.

Mr. Marin will be available to speak to media at 11:30 a.m. today only. For details, contact:

Linda Williamson, 416-586-3426, lwilliamson@ombudsman.on.ca
Ashley Bursey, 416-586-3521, abursey@ombudsman.on.ca

It takes a remarkable person to take accountability the way that this police officer did. Ask yourself if you’d be able to summon that kind of courage.

 

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Durham Regional Police Services Board and Police Chief Mike Ewles confirm Twitter’s “Joe Mayo” a Durham Police Supervisor.

September 10th, 2013  

Yesterday I attended the Durham Regional Police Services Board meeting because “Twitter Update” was an item on their agenda. I decided to videotape it for two reasons: First, I no longer trust the Media to report what I really need to know and second I believe that, rather than depending on Media, people should see the unedited primary source material and draw their own conclusions.

And now that I’ve read the articles covering yesterday’s Durham Police Twitter Update, I know I was right making certain my camera was there to document what was said.

What follows is unedited video of the entire Durham Regional Police Services Board Joe Mayo/Twitter Update discussion, plus the CHEX TV interview with Police Chief Mike Ewles. The video is 17:34 minutes long and fact is I don’t feel like providing an entire transcript. It’s a sunny day and my 2006 black Dodge Charger R/T hasn’t had a run since the end of June and today’s the day!

That said, I will provide a video transcript of what I feel are the most important things said by Durham Regional Police Services Chief Mike Ewles.

Chief Mike Ewles re Twitter attack on Ontario Ombudsman at Durham Regional Police Services Board (17:34 min)


ANNOUNCEMENT DURING THE DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD MEETING, September 9, 2013

[PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles

The investigators looked at the entire scope of the investigation as police officers looked at criminality, looked at the potential of involving the crown attorneys, had discussion with the crown attorneys with regards to any criminal offenses, that may be germane to this investigation. There were none.

Quite candidly social media is evolving so quickly that the legislative process by way of the criminal code are —lacking— is the term that we could use. And if you’re aware of the some of the challenges that they’re facing down-east in Halifax with the cyber-bullying, online cyber-bullying, in which a young girl committed suicide —they’re actually using child pornography offenses to try and hold those people accountable for that cyber-bullying that went on.

It’s a whole new area for us in policing and a challenge for us. But we did look at the criminality. The crown attorney did not determine —or did not feel that any criminal offenses had been committed. Notwithstanding that we did continue with our investigation.

The officer is facing what we deemed —I have deemed,  to be serious misconduct charges. As is typical of all Part 5 disciplinary processes we do not release the officer’s name until the actual date of the hearing. And there are several reasons for that.

First and foremost is the concern that the officer may in fact resign, at which point we lose jurisdiction. And there would be no grounds for releasing the officer’s name.

Secondly his counsel, through Statutory Powers Procedure Act, Article 9, could ask for an in-camera hearing at which point his name would not be released. Those are options available to the defense —of him, at the hearing itself.

The third piece, and hopefully that’s not the case in this instance, is that, as you know, oftentimes, both criminal and other cases hinge on witnesses, hinge on the whole process. There is an option for an informal resolution. Oftentimes we have to accept an informal resolution because the case goes sideways at the last minute. We are not anticipating that in this instance but we have to prepare for that. And if it is in fact an informal resolution, then there would be no authority for me to release that officer’s name.

So, having all those factors in consideration and in play at this point in time, it’s our belief that the officer will be named at the actual hearing date.

MEDIA INTERVIEW with Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles, September 9, 2013

 

Reporter

Am I correct in my inference that this person is a supervisor that we’re dealing with —a veteran officer?

Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles

Supervisors generally, well, they’ve been promoted at least to the rank of Sergeant or Detective.  So, I got promoted at ten years, whether that was a veteran. I got promoted to Sergeant in ten. Whether I consider myself a veteran in that point in time?…

Reporter

Does that make this a little more troubling in your mind?

Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles

Very much so. Our Supervisors we definitely hold to a higher standard. It is quite a surprise and a concern to us. And that’s why we initiated the investigation so quickly. And when it was determined that it was a supervisor, they [sic] were immediately removed from their [sic] assignment. They [sic] have no supervisory duties —right now, and we’ll deal with that accordingly. That may be an aggravating factor at trial if it’s brought forward by the prosecutor.

Reporter

Is there any notion why Dennis in particular was targeted?

Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles

I have no idea. No idea. And that may come out as part of the hearing.

Reporter

But this Supervisor supervised Dennis, correct?

Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles

The Supervisor was a supervisor within the Service. [smiles]

[general laughter MISSISSAUGAWATCH into camera “Interesting”]

Everyone’s a supervi— Every sergeant is a supervisor. Every detective is a supervisor.

Reporter.

Did they have a direct working relationship.

Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles

I can’t comment on that. It might tend to disclose who the officer is.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH into camera “Yeah. That’s true.”


[PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

I’ve had my own share of “Joe Mayo”-types originating from the City of Mississauga. Readers might recall “HyJynx” —the City of Mississauga Corporate Security guard and his online confessions. Or the anonymous City of Mississauga Security personnel who refused to identify himself despite numerous requests when emailing me via Public.Info@mississauga.ca. Freedom of Information led right to City of Mississauga Security Manager Jamie Hillis as the cowardly culprit.

(Put in perspective, discovering that “Public.Info” was the City of Mississauga Security Manager is kind of like it would be if the Ontario Ombudsman found out that “Joe Mayo” was none other than Chief Ewles!)

For the record, Durham Regional Police’s “Joe Mayo” burned me almost as much as he did Marin. By impersonating Detective Constable Scott Dennis, “Joe Mayo” suckered me too! That’s why I’ve gone to considerable pains to research this issue.

For example, I scoured the 2012 Public Sector Salary Disclosure for 2012: Municipalities and Services “Sunshine List” to see if I could identify said-supervisor. That’s just not possible. There are close to 90 Detectives or Detective Sergeants in the Durham Regional Police Services. That doesn’t even include those in the Sergeant-only rank.

So you can understand Police Chief Ewles’ “I can’t comment on that. It might tend to disclose who the officer is” response to the reporter’s “But this Supervisor supervised Dennis, correct?” That keeps “Joe Mayo” close to two hundred suspects!

Because if Ewles had answered yes, that would have narrowed the suspects down considerably!  After all, it’s been confirmed that “Joe Mayo”s colleague-victim Dennis, works in the Durham’s Fraud Unit.

Cut-and-pasted from the Durham Regional Police website:

Fraud Unit
A Detective Sergeant leads a team of Detectives and Detective Constables in the investigation of fraud related offences. Located in 17 Division, 77 Centre St.N., Oshawa, the Fraud Unit investigates all major fraud related offences in the Durham Region.
URL: http://www.drps.ca/internet_explorer/our_organization/how_we_operate.asp?S cope=Unit&ID=17

Had Chief Ewles responded in the affirmative, that would make Durham’s Fraud Unit Detective Sergeant or one of his Detectives (not Detective Constables) potentially the Supervisory “Joe Mayo”… and a small list indeed.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles gives three reasons why Durham Police's "Joe Mayo"s real name may never be released.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH ATTENDS "SHARPEN YOUR TEETH III" CONFERENCE/WORKSHOP ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE  (December 2, 2009 am)

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Toronto Star Rosie DiManno “Who’s the tweeting twit on Durham’s police force?” –and his actual tweets.

September 2nd, 2013  

This is an update on our previous blog “Will Durham Regional Police pull a City of Mississauga on the Ontario Ombudsman –and protect “Joe Mayo”?

I just want to alert readers to the Toronto Star column “Who’s the tweeting twit on Durham’s police force?” by Rosie DiManno.

I’ll reproduce the most important part of DiManno here.

Who’s the tweeting twit on Durham’s police force?: DiManno

By: Rosie DiManno Columnist, Published on Sun Sep 01 2013

An impulsive ombudsman who called out the wrong twitter troll is unfortunate.

A municipal police force that hides the identity of the alleged true culprit whilst demanding apologies — from the victim — is unhinged.

Durham Regional Chief Mike Ewles has bigger problems than a rogue cop going off the social media reservation with contemptible yips sent to Andre Marin. To wit: Calling him a “douche-bag’’, describing him as a “card-carrying member of al-Qaeda’’ and snarling “Why don’t you stick your big French nose up you’re a– instead of business it doesn’t belong’’, which is both crude and ungrammatical.

What Ewles has in the bosom of his police department is an asp, a venomous cop, who betrayed a colleague before ever going on the twit prowl against Marin, appropriating that individual’s name to set up a dummy Twitter account from which to spew his bile, under the handle “Joe Mayo.’’

So much for the solidarity of that famous thin blue line. I can only imagine what this disclosure has done for morale at the Durham cop-shop. We’ve heard lots about the public’s deteriorating confidence in law enforcement. Up in Durham Region, they can’t even trust each other. Stab you in the back rather than I got your back.

DiManno gets it! The real problem isn’t the names someone tweeted the Ontario Ombudsman. Good Lord, there’s far worse festering on that cesspool of a law-enforcement-hate-site blueline.ca! (Seriously. If you really want to see what police officers, municipal security and private security personnel, hiding in anonymity, think about oversight and the public, feast your eyes there.)

The problem was not the “Joe Mayo” Twitter account but the one impersonating the victim-officer. DiManno reports:

No-name copper — Ewles-the-sock-puppet won’t say who-done-it — is, sources told the Star’s Tony Van Alphen, a top detective in a supervisory role in the same major crimes-unit as Dennis.

Let’s repeat that. The “no-name” Joe Mayo is “a top detective in a supervisory role in the same major crimes-unit as Dennis.”

A simple Google search shows that back in 2011 that “same major crimes-unit” would be Durham Regional Police Services East Criminal Investigative Bureau.

That’s all I’m going to say for now.

I do think it’s important to provide a support document, for the record, to support Rosie DiManno’s statement, that this top Durham Regional Police detective in a supervisory role “betrayed a colleague before ever going on the twit prowl against Marin”.

“No-name copper” opened a Twitter account using the victim-officer’s real name and ID —a subordinate colleague that was his duty to “supervise”.

Durham Police detective "Joe Mayo" who trolled Ontario Ombudsman and impersonated officer-colleague protected by Police Brass.

Now read these tweets in this new light –as tweets generated by a Durham Regional Police “top  detective in a supervisory roll” making it appear as though his victim-subordinate wrote them…

Tweets

  1. Lunch taken care of. Now a 2 hr nap sitting at my desk pretending to be looking at my computer screen. Then home time. #leavingearlyagain

  2. Woot its Friday! Wait…its only Thursday. Doesn’t matter really cause I don’t do much on Fridays at work. Maybe I won’t even go in.

  3. Think anyone will notice if I close my eyes for a few mins before lunch?

  4. Did not sleep well! Guess it’ll be an unproductive day at the office again. What should I do for lunch hmmmm…. #priorities

  5. Welp its past my bed time gotta big day at the office tomorrow, gonna tuck myself in!

  6. End of another day already? I’m outta here. Don’t tell the boss I left at 4:10 ;)

  7. Hmmmm still hungry…missed the breakfast meeting….maybe Ill head to Boston Pizza if anyone is interested

  8. Its almost 9am. Time to start thinking about what to eat for lunch #myday

Rosie DiManno’s “No-name copper — Ewles-the-sock-puppet won’t say who-done-it” reminds me of all the “No-name” City of Mississauga Corporate Security guards that Security Bosses Jamie Hillis and Ken Owen have shielded from accountability over the years.

And Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles’ “That officer will be held to account” is just so-City-of-Mississauga echoing Ken Owen’s “The incident to which you refer in your email has been addressed and appropriately handled and, as such, we consider the matter closed.”

Us-Schmuck-Public will have to admit though that Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin got further along the No-name Copper’s Police Blue Wall than you or I ever could…

Last. Found this only yesterday…  Toronto Star, April 26, 2013, “Durham police officer accused of making child pornography back on job, sources say”

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Ontario Ombudsman ‏@Ont_Ombudsman "You will not find a greater fan of good policing than me. Ever. But I abhor situations of police abuse. So do Courts."

"Joe Mayo" Durham Regional Police. Twitter For the Record "It's not because that @DRPS detective-supervisor went after the Ontario Ombudsman. It's what he did to his victim-colleague..."

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Will Durham Regional Police pull a City of Mississauga on the Ontario Ombudsman –and protect “Joe Mayo”?

August 30th, 2013  

All this drama about Durham Regional Police’s “Joe Mayo” reminds me of my unsuccessful efforts to get the City of Mississauga to hold its “Joe Mayo” accountable —someone using the alias “HyJynx”.

City of Mississauga Security Director Ken Owen confirmed the person responsible for the posts and issue “has been addressed and appropriately handled” so it’s not like he denied that “HyJynx” wasn’t one of the City’s own. The City claimed that they couldn’t identify “HyJynx” to a single individual security guard.

So I filed Freedom of Information on a unique Christmas 2005 incident that “HyJynx” bragged about and up popped a single name. I then shared that with Director Owen with the expectation that he’d now continue his “investigation”.  Silly me…

The City’s “Joe Mayo” has never been held into account.

The similarities between Durham Regional Police’s “Joe Mayo” and my own experiences with City of Mississauga Security’s “HyJynx” are so similar. For that reason I’m eager to see whether Durham Regional Police will also twist itself into a pretzel to protect its Detective-supervisor responsible for the anonymous Twitter account(s).

An aside: I’ve always found that one of the funniest things about the City of Mississauga’s “Joe Mayo” is that its Security bosses bragged about their guards being trained by —and having trained with— Peel Police!

I do owe City of Mississauga’s “HyJynx” a huge thank you however. He provided key insight into why he and his Corporate Security colleagues are so free to abuse (and that includes physical abuse). In an Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:13 am post, “HyJynx “served up some surprising honesty and simply admitted “beacuse [sic] I can.”

Why do police and security guards lie? Easy answer. Because they can!

Because they can.

And for the record…

Why do municipal security guards (and police) get away with abuses? City of Mississauga's "HyJynx" explains "beacuse [sic] I can"

The text:

Postby HyJynx » Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:36 pm

A few PP’s I absolutley hate:

#1: SUCKING YOUR TEETH: If you want to keep your teeth don’t suck them at any LEO.

#2: SPITTING: no respect

#3: calling me “boss”: I ain’t your boss or your Bag Of Shit.

#4: Can I see your ID Please: why my taxes pay your salary, you know who I am…..Yes your one of the hundreds of assholes that think thats funny. So when I give you the ticket you know where your moneys going.

#5: While sitting in a Park on my break citizen says :you know your wasting my tax dollars right now. Me :twisted: Your absolutley right sir, I didn’t realize that I was not allowed to take a break and have some food, are you allowed a break at your work, CTZN: why yes, ME: So should I complain to your boss everytime you take a break?? How about this sir, I’ll finish my lunch since I’ve been working for 8hr’s with out any break, then when I’m done eating I’ll tow your car so you can feel satisfied that your tax dollars are well spent, or maybe I’ll watch you while you use the park and give you a ticket beacuse I can :twisted:

#6: Last one promise… My Taxes Pay your salary: Good, does that mean if you pay them on time this year I’ll get a raise :D

SIC VIC PACUM PARA BELLUM
———————————-
IF YOU WANT PEACE PREPARE FOR WAR
Source: http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1486&start=75
and

Introducing HyJynx, City of Mississauga protected its "Joe Mayo" and swept his abuses under the rug.

The relevant text:

HyJynx » Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:59 am

“Once we explained that they had each committed 4 offences for a grand total of $3K, well she quit her babbling and left :D

Source: http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6572&start=15

And:

HyJynx » Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:27 am

Actually with out letting on where I work, I have done this before because the client was rapidly become hostile and was going to get violent. So I let him walk beacuse no back up was arriving in time. And wouldn’t you know, the next weekend I ran into him again, same bat time same bat channel. Only this time there were 3 of us vs. him. Lets just say that the Administration of Justice was not the one dragged through the cement :twisted: …er rather mud… yeah the soft squishy stuff :roll:

Never had someone apologize to me so many times for doing something illegal…..ya think maybe the 1K in tags helped :twisted:

Honestly I would never jack someone for that much in one sitting… actually wait I would :twisted:

Source: http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3676&start=195

Last. See HyJynx’s “Actually with out letting on where I work”?

Fact is, HyJynx’s Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:13 am post where he wrote, “I have over 500 parks, 11 community centres, 12 areans, 2 marinas and a transit system” instantly identified where he worked!

So. Will Durham Regional Police pull a City of Mississauga on the Ontario Ombudsman and protect “Joe Mayo”?…

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

City of Mississauga bosses, Jamie Hillis and Cathie Evans lie --and cover up for each other. (And protect their guards from accountability)

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Durham Regional Police finds “Joe Mayo” Twitter account is not Scott Dennis but a fellow police officer.

August 26th, 2013  

Something astonishing just happened —like INCONCEIVABLE.

Back on August 9, 2013, in the article, “Durham detective investigated for tweets against Ontario ombudsman” the Globe reported:

The account appears to have been created with Detective Constable Scott Dennis’s work e-mail address, said Durham Deputy Chief Paul Martin.

Clearly the functional word was “appears” because as it turned out it wasn’t the Reality.

Durham Regional Police Finds "Joe Mayo" is not Scott Dennis but a fellow police officer-detective

What a SHOCK! Who would do this to a fellow police officer?!

DRPS Finds Source of Inappropriate Tweets

26-Aug-2013 15:19 PST

An internal investigation into inappropriate tweets made to the Ontario Ombudsman and a Toronto politician will result in discipline charges against a Durham police officer.

On July 28, 2013 a Toronto City Councillor received a tweet from an account identified as “Joe Mayo,” criticizing her position on the Sammy YATIM shooting incident. On August 8, the Ombudsman of Ontario received several tweets from the same Twitter account prior to a press conference he was holding on the issue.

At the time, the Ombudsman announced that the person behind the offensive tweets was, in fact, a DRPS police officer. The Ombudsman further revealed the name of the officer as “Dennis Scott” and later clarified the name as “Scott Dennis” and disclosed the salary of that officer.

The person behind the offensive tweets quickly shut the account down. DRPS Deputy Chief Paul Martin immediately launched an internal investigation after being made aware of the offensive tweets, even though the tweets were not associated with any official DRPS email or Twitter accounts.

The investigation, conducted by the DRPS Professional Standards Unit (PSU), determined that the police officer identified by the Ombudsman had nothing to do with the Joe Mayo account. The officer, a D/Cst. within the Major Crime – Fraud Unit, was on annual leave and had no idea the Twitter account even existed.

Investigators quickly determined the Twitter account had been opened by a fellow police officer, who created a false account linked to the D/Cst., without his knowledge or consent.

The police officer behind the offensive tweets is a DRPS detective and he will be charged under the disciplinary provisions of the Police Services Act (Part V). A hearing date will be set in the near future for that officer to face the appropriate disciplinary charges. His name will be made public at that hearing. The DRPS will disclose the date, location and charges in advance of the public hearing. The officer has not been suspended; he remains on duty and has been removed from his current assignment.

During the investigation, Detectives with the PSU reached out on several occasions to interview the Ombudsman about the incident, but have yet to speak with him.

DRPS Chief Constable Mike Ewles is deeply concerned about a number of issues related to this incident.

“First and foremost, I am concerned that one of my police officers allegedly used a fellow officer’s information to create a fictitious Twitter account and then use it for such offensive purposes. That officer will be held to account,” Chief Ewles says. “With very few rules and even less accountability in the world of social media, it’s not the first time someone has landed in hot water. Politicians and celebrities are usually the culprits. This is a first for us here at the DRPS.”

“It’s also troubling to me that a high-ranking public official like the Ombudsman of Ontario would rush to judgment and identify any person, without the benefit of some sort of objective investigation and evidence, particularly given Mr. Marin’s experience,” the Chief says. “D/Cst. Dennis is an outstanding police officer who has had his personal and professional life turned upside down for no reason. I look forward to Mr. Marin’s co-operation with that portion of the investigation.”

Anyone with new information about this investigation is asked to contact Sgt. Romano of the PSU at 1-888-579-1520 ext. 4378.

Anonymous tips can be made to Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477 (TIPS) or online at www.durhamregionalcrimestoppers.ca and tipsters may be eligible for a cash reward of up to $2,000.

-30-

Editor’s Note
Chief Constable Ewles will be available for interviews in person or by phone on Monday, August 26, 2013 from
3 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. Book via Corporate Communications Director Dave Selby at 1-888-579-1520 ext. 4277

 

Note: This Durham Regional Police press release just mentions the “Joe Mayo” Twitter account and not the “Scott Dennis @DET3091” and we will try and get clarification on that.

“D/Cst. Dennis is an outstanding police officer who has had his personal and professional life turned upside down…”

Huge huge regrets. HUGE…

 

UPDATE August 26, 2013. A press release from the Ontario Ombudsman

Statement by Ontario Ombudsman André Marin

Date: 2013-08-26

TORONTO (August 26, 2013) – On August 8, just prior to my press conference announcing an investigation into provincial direction to police services in de-escalation of conflict situations, my office became aware of an abusive Twitter account. The account featured a series of hateful, malicious and bigoted messages personally directed at me.

Within minutes, my office determined that the account had originated in the name of an officer in the Durham Regional Police Service and was identified by his badge number. The tweets lashing out at me – as well as a Toronto city councillor – appeared to have been in reaction to the controversy over a recent shooting by Toronto police of a young man on a streetcar.

I responded to the tweets publicly and included the DRPS Twitter handle, ensuring the police service was instantly aware that one of its staff was attacking public officials. Thus exposed, the account was swiftly taken down.

When the DRPS moved to investigate this very serious matter, I directed my staff to co-operate fully. Just this morning, we set a meeting for Wednesday to have DRPS investigators meet with my senior IT and investigations staff.

I was surprised to learn this afternoon that the investigation had already concluded and that an officer is now facing charges under the disciplinary provisions of the Police Services Act.

Regrettably, it appears that a Durham police officer not only personally attacked public officials on Twitter, but impersonated a colleague in doing so – hiding behind the name and badge number of Det.-Const. Scott Dennis. Both Det.-Const. Dennis and I were duped by this disgraceful, malicious act.

I commend Durham police for taking this matter so seriously, and I will follow further developments in the case with interest.

Also for the record, I emailed Durham Regional Police today:

From: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
To: “oshawa@drps.ca” <oshawa@drps.ca>
Cc: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 2:23 PM
Subject: Regarding Twitter account “Scott Dennis” @DET3091

Hi there,

Durham Regional Police’s recent press release has confirmed that Constable Scott Dennis was not responsible for the “Joe Mayo” @joeymayo12 Twitter account but rather that it was “opened by a fellow police officer”.

I’m writing regarding the second Twitter account, “Scott Dennis” @DET3091 which I consider, given its contents to be far more troubling than the “Joe Mayo” account. And I hope that Durham Regional Police Services does as well.

Can you confirm that the “Scott Dennis” @DET3091 account was also opened by the same “fellow police officer” as “Joe Mayo” @joeymayo12, please?

Thank you,

 

We’ll advise if we get a response.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Toronto Police Service Officer Charged in Death of Sammy Yatim. Toronto Sun breaks with “James forcillo charged with second degree murder” tweet

August 19th, 2013  

At 8:57 AM Joe Warmington tweeted “SIU will announce Sammy Yatim – Const. James Forcillo investigation today”

Three minutes later he’s the first to break:

Joe Warmington ‏@joe_warmington 3h

James forcillo charged with second degree murder

9:00 AM – 19 Aug 13

WOW! What a shocker! I did not expect that!

Toronto Sun's Joe Warmington @joe_warmington breaks SIU decision to charge Toronto Police officer James Forcillo with second-degree murder

For the record, this press release from the Special Investigative Unit Ontario:

News Release

Toronto Police Service Officer Charged in Death of Sammy Yatim

Case Number: 13-TFD-181

Mississauga (19 August, 2013) — The Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), Ian Scott, has reasonable grounds to believe that a Toronto Police Service (TPS) officer committed a criminal offence in relation to the shooting death of 18-year-old Sammy Adib Yatim in July of 2013. Director Scott has caused a charge of Second Degree Murder contrary to s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code to be laid against the officer. The incident took place on a TTC streetcar around midnight on July 26-27, 2013.

A warrant was issued this morning for the arrest of TPS Constable James Forcillo.

Because the arrest warrant was just issued, Cst Forcillo has not been arrested at this point. An updated news release will be issued and tweeted as soon as there are any material developments.

The SIU is an arm’s length agency that investigates reports involving police where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must

    • consider whether an officer has committed a criminal offence  in connection with the incident under investigation
    • depending on the evidence, lay a criminal charge against the officer if appropriate or close the file without any charges being laid
    • report the results of any investigations to the Attorney General.

Monica Hudon
SIU Communications/Service des communications, UES
Telephone/No de téléphone: 416-622-2342 or/ou 1-800-787-8529 extension 2342

 

Also for the record, the original video of Sammy Yatim’s shooting death.  Uploaded July 26, 2013.

Police shoot 18 year old Sammy Yatim at Bellwoods and Dundas, Toronto

And the enhanced version byTheEditPlayer

Enhanced video – Shooting of Sammy Yatim by Toronto Police Const. James Forcillo on July 27, 2013

A reminder that the Ontario Ombudsman has announced that his office is launching a full probe into the shooting death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim. What follows is video of Andre Marin’s August 8, 2013 announcement.

Ontario Ombudsman  Announcement – Annonce : Ontario direction on de-escalation – Directives concernant la désescalade

That’s it.

Signed,
With sadness…

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

ROB FORD SAVES HAZEL on fishing trip! Just six days after drunken Taste of Danforth romp! (What a coincidence!)

August 17th, 2013  

Rob Ford Saves Hazel McCallion On Fishing Trip… really?

By now Traditional and Social Media are abuzz about how Mayor Rob Ford “saved” Hazel McCallion during the opening day of the Great Ontario Salmon Derby. You really need to watch the video, “Hazel McCallion lands the big one as Rob Ford and Italo Labignan cheer her on” by Italo Labignan to see “saved” for yourself.

Odd that the actual videographer doesn’t name his video, “Rob Ford saves Hazel McCallion”.  More odd, his YouTube video description also makes no mention of saving. It simply reads, “Hazel McCallion, Rob Ford, Julian Fantino, Walter Oster and Italo Labignan enjoy the day on the water when Hazel lands a HUGE Salmon!” [commas added].

The description failed to mention Toronto Sun’s Joe Warmington in attendance [guy with camera YouTube thumbnail above]. As he was the year before. And likely before that….

Given Rob Ford’s recent public appearance, seen here in the YouTube video Toronto Mayor Rob Ford drunk walking along the danforth! by Adrain Sosa, anyone else think this Rob Ford/Hazel McCallion “fishing trip” was an orchestrated Pity Photo-Op? Especially given that at last year’s Great Ontario Salmon Derby opening day trip, Julian Fantino and Walter Oster had an all-penis crew of many of the usual suspects minus Rob Ford?

It’s clear from his column “Mayor Rob Ford makes catch of the day — Mayor Hazel McCallion” and his first three sentences why the Sun columnist is invited each year.

MISSISSAUGA – It was not just the catch of the day, but the save of the day too.

On Capt. Dolly Erbrecht’s Salmon Express II Thursday, that distinction went to none other than Mayor Rob Ford.

The trophy of the day went to Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion — with a little help from her honourable friend.

Warmington’s “save of the day” “from her honourable friend” reminds me of the white lie people lie just to prop up someone’s meager self-esteem —or flagging fortunes. Add photos of Rob Saves Hazel. Video too. A classic Pity Photo-Op!

Fact is, when you’ve seen how Mississauga political hopefuls latch themselves onto Hazel McCallion like the desperate leeches they are —their campaign literature littered with photos of them with the Mayor—  you can understand why Rob Ford needed a Pity Photo-Op with The Hazel.

It was a Pity Photo-Op all right. And it was Hazel McCallion who saved Rob Ford, not the other way around.

By far the most puzzling photograph in Warmington’s “Ford Saves Hazel” photo series is this one.

  Mayor Rob Ford reads a copy of the Toronto Sun on board the Salmon Express II Thursday, Aug. 15, 2013, as part of the Great Ontario Salmon Derby. (Joe Warmington/Toronto Sun)

Now we-all know what Rob Ford looks like when he’s taking a dump. It takes little in the way of PhotoShop to place McCallion’s “honourable friend” onto a gleaming white porcelain toilet…

I decided to PhotoShop Joe Warmington’s “honourable” Mayor Ford more subtley…

"FORD SAVES HAZEL!" Toronto Sun. "HAZEL SAVES FORD!" Mississaugawatch:  Rob Ford moves his lips to the Toronto Sun.

So. Friday, August 9th Rob Ford staggered bleary-eyed drunk in Taste of the Danforth. Thursday, August 15th, he was on a boat “saving” Hazel McCallion…

Anyone ever bother to ponder why it wasn’t former Top Cop Julian Fantino “saving” Hazel?….

They say people deserve the government we get. Seems we also deserve the MEDIA

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

Additional Resources

Toronto Sun’s Joe Warmington trip with Julian Fantino, Justin Ciano, City Councillor Mark Grimes (Etobicoke/Lakeshore) et al on Opening Day Great Ontario Salmon Derby 2012.

The Great Ontario Salmon Derby Opening Day 2012

And

A drunken Rob Ford doesn’t say “blow” but “cologne”. How could Traditional Media miss that?

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Social Media Twitter Chronology: Rob Ford’s “cologne” reported first –and then who tweeted “blow”…

August 13th, 2013  

This Rob Ford “cologne” versus “blow” scuffle reminds me of the quote that if you repeat a lie often enough it will be believed. Just can’t recall who that observation is attributed to. Hitler? Goebbels? Warren Kinsella?… Ezra Levant?

Doesn’t matter. Rob Ford said “cologne” and that’s the truth.

But the Damage is Done.

As of today, when you Google “Rob Ford” and “blow” you get about 643,000 results.  Search for “Rob Ford” and “cologne” and Google offers only about 26,000 results.

Now try and put yourself in Rob Ford’s place —and how you’d feel if “blow” happened to you.

My interest in Rob Ford’s Taste of the Danforth drunkenness was in who started the “blow” rumour and the Chronology of “cologne” versus “blow”.

The actual video Toronto Mayor Rob Ford drunk walking along the danforth! was uploaded by Adrain Sosa on the evening of August 9, 2013.

It turns out that “cologne” was the first word to be identified on Twitter by 9:48 PM same day.

Here’s the tweet:

August 9, 2013 9:58 PM, Ben Spurr @BenSpurr, News writer at NOW Magazine
correctly reports that Rob Ford says “COLOGNE”.

Spurr/NOW Magazine is retweeted just 3 times….

“Blow” was crapped out on Twitter some time after midnight.  On August 10, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Potatowast3 @potatowast3 and Geoffrey Dow @ed_rex “Blogger, critic, ghost-writer” tweeted that Rob Ford says “blow”.

A lesson in Social Media. Twitter Chronology:  Rob Ford's "cologne" vs "blow". NOW Magazine first to get "cologne" right.

News writer at NOW Magazine Ben Spurr’s “cologne” was ignored and thus began the Traditional and Social Media “blow” pile-on… Even now on Twitter, people are spreading the lie that Ford said “blow” —a few are resolute, insisting that’s what they hear, despite being told otherwise.

This morning I tweeted, “Looks like @BenSpurr of NOW generated the First Tweet of what Rob Ford REALLY said. Tweet at 9:58 August 9, 2013. ‘COLOGNE'”

Ben Spurr responded confirming that he’d actually talked to the videographer!

Spurr tweeted:

@MISSISSAUGAMUSE Yes I don’t think he says “blow.” At the time the videographer told me it was “cologne”

8:30 AM – 13 Aug 13

Ben Spurr @BenSpurr tweets videographer told him Rob Ford said "cologne"
Won’t matter though.

A ‘blow’ lie gets halfway around the world before the ‘cologne’ truth has a chance to get its pants on.  —Winston Churchill (kind of)

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

A drunken Rob Ford doesn’t say “blow” but “cologne”. How could Traditional Media miss that? (35 sec)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS

ROB FORD as “Brother” puts his arm around the Mayor for a PhotoOp.

“I’m not driving. I’m not driving. Get that away, buddy.. I know, but it stinks, brother. Between you and I, brother… Brother –when it stinks… You gotta… Maybe some cologne. You want some cologne? I need some cologne. [inaudible]. I have it. Seriously.”

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

A drunken Rob Ford doesn’t say “blow” but “cologne”. How could Traditional Media miss that?

August 12th, 2013  

I’m sure you’ve heard it by now. Rob Ford was supposed to have offered Taste of the Danforth revelers some “blow”. And you heard that from reputable Traditional Media.

As we were analyzing the video, we didn’t hear “blow” but “cologne”.

The first person we found to report this fully was TheArtfulDodger an online commenter at the Huffington Post. He wrote that Rob Ford said:

“Get that away.. I don’t know, but it stinks… brother brother brother.. Maybe some cologne will.. do you want some cologne.. I’ll get you some cologne.. I have it, seriously..”

TheArtfulDodger’s right. Rob Ford does say “cologne” not “blow”.

HUFFINGTON POST online commenters: Mayor Rob Ford says "COLOGNE" not "BLOW"!

We have a slightly different transcript of Adrain Sosa’s video [seconds 0 through 22] than Dodger does. And we worked up this video complete with transcript.

A drunken Rob Ford doesn’t say “blow” but “cologne”. How could Traditional Media miss that? (35 sec)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS

 

ROB FORD as “Brother” puts his arm around the Mayor for a PhotoOp.

“I’m not driving. I’m not driving. Get that away,  buddy.. I know, but it stinks, brother.  Between you and I, brother…  Brother –when it stinks… You gotta…  Maybe some cologne. You want some cologne? I need some cologne. [inaudible]. I have it. Seriously.”

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS

 

We suspect it’s possible that the “brother” was a tad ripe….

Here’s the point. When Traditional Media sat down with headphones and analyzed the audio and what’s actually happening, how could they miss “cologne”? How could they hear “blow”?!

How could Traditional Media miss that?

Oh wait….

 

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Sammy Yatim “You’re a fuck’n pussy” + “Police are a Gun Culture” = “How could this happen?” Police board chair.

August 3rd, 2013  

Just an update. An important read.

Globe and Mail, ‘How could this happen?’ Police board chair asks for answers in Sammy Yatim shooting by Alok Mukherjee, Chair of the Toronto Police Services Board.

Mr. Mukherjee writes in part:

Ever since that tragic night when the Yatims lost their son, I have been trying to put myself in their situation. Every time, that leads me to one question: “How could this happen?”

It leads me to this question because of all the effort that I and many other people of goodwill have made to realize a different vision of policing than we had been accustomed to. I can say in all honesty that it has been a significant effort, intended to bring about comprehensive change in the culture and practice of policing. Those efforts, to a very large degree, have been in response to earlier incidents, such the deaths of Edmund Yu and Jeffrey Riodica in police shootings.

Tragedy such as the one that has befallen the Yatims causes profound soul-searching. I very much hope there will be a collective soul-searching on the part of all of us involved with policing, in whatever capacity.

I know there will be no letup on my part until we have an answer to the question, “How could this happen?” I have heard and read the pat, instant solutions that have been offered so far, and I find them wanting or off-base.

Until we have the answer and respond to it with concrete action, the hope expressed in that dedication from 1978 will not have been realized, as far as policing is concerned.

We had better get down to the task quickly and in all seriousness. We owe it to the memory of Sammy Yatim.

I’ve read articles, columns and most important, watched the Sammy Yatim video. The thing is I’m still shocked at nine rounds fired by one police officer into a guy holding a knife in an empty streetcar.

It’s like your most cherished trusted family dog just killed someone with one tear of the jugular. And I can’t get past that.

Fact is, my “memory” of Sammy Yatim is an audio track —his voice taunting “You’re a pussy. You’re a fuck’n pussy.”

But the message that’s left, the one that promises to make sense of it all took me back to Summer 2008 when I had a conversation with a Maui Police officer. I told him that I was researching law enforcement (police/security guards) focusing on their relationships with youth. Youth Crime. Roots of Youth Violence. Guns and Gangs.

And the Maui officer stated the Obvious that I hadn’t thought of before. “Police are a gun culture.”

Sammy Yatim shooting powerful reminder that "POLICE ARE A GUN CULTURE".
I really don’t think that Sammy Yatim expected second 39.125 would ever happen…

UPDATE  August 3, 2013 8:31 pm.

Also want to highlight Toronto Sun’s Michael Coren and his “Let truth triumph: Don’t bash police in the Yatim tragedy, and don’t apologize for them” if for no other reason than he speaks for me. This part:

…I’m not defending criminals and attacking the police — and I am sick and tired of gangsters being described as saints after they are killed. But in this case, it appears the victim was a fool rather than a felon.

The support marches were, naturally, hijacked by the usual coalition of left-wing fanatics, naive zealots, and anti-police thugs. And neurotic teenage girls wanting to be part of a happening.

The boy’s parents, however, have reacted with grace and genuine emotion, and my heart breaks for them. I just pray their last words were loving rather than confrontational and they do not blame themselves.

Let me be candid. A decade ago, I had hardly a bad word for the police. I am afraid my experience since then has not been good. Selective policing, indifference, dishonesty, political agendas, contempt. A minority I am sure, but not so small that you don’t notice.

Michael Coren’s noticed too…

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Sammy Yatim. “Police are a Gun Culture”. BamBamBam in 0.750 seconds.

August 1st, 2013  

Just a quick update. First, the Toronto Police officer who shot and killed Sammy Yatim has been identified as Constable James Forcillo.

Today’s Globe & Mail states that “18-year-old was shot nine times by Toronto Police Constable James Forcillo after the teen brandished a knife on a streetcar Friday night.”

Next, I’ve worked up another video —because I’m still trying to make sense of it all. Once again I analyzed the YouTube video, “Enhanced video – Shooting of Sammy Yatim by Toronto Police Const. James Forcillo” by TheEditPlayer.

This time I focused on the lethal hundredths-of-a-second between 39.125 seconds when Constable James Forcillo fired his first round at Sammy Yatim to his third shot at 39.875.  I’m still astounded. Forcillo’s first three shots were fired in 0.750 seconds. Sammy Yatim could not possibly have known what hit him.

Couldn’t have even had time to ask “What the Fuck?”

0.750 seconds. BamBamBam.

Several years ago I had a conversation with a Maui Police officer. He asked what my interest was in photographing police cars and I told him that there was an entire subculture on the Internet who just love Emergency Vehicles be they police cars, fire trucks or ambulances.

I also told him that I was researching law enforcement (police/security guards) focusing on their relationships with youth. We also discussed the differences between Canadian law enforcement and American. Especially the American fascination with guns.

And the Maui officer gave me the most important insight that anyone ever revealed about police —He said to remember that “Police are a gun culture.”

“Police are a gun culture.”

And that’s certainly been replaying in my head at Sammy Yatim’s expense: “Police are a gun culture. Police are a gun culture. Police are a gun culture….”

0.750 seconds. BamBamBam.

Here’s what I worked up this morning.

Sammy Yatim shooting: Constable James Forcillo fires first three shots in 0.750 seconds.

Last. The TORONTO STAR reports that the Ontario Ombudsman “is preparing to look into whether police are properly trained in de-escalation techniques in situations of potential violence – like the Sammy Yatim shooting.”

Sammy Yatim: Ontario ombudsman considers probe into police de-escalation training

Andre Marin’s office is moving toward an investigation into how police are trained in dealing with potential violence.

Ontario Ombudsman André Marin's office is preparing to look into whether police are properly trained in de-escalation techniques in situations of potential violence - like the Sammy Yatim shooting.

RICK MADONIK / TORONTO STAR file photo

By: News reporter, Published on Wed Jul 31 2013

Ontario’s ombudsman has taken steps toward launching a probe into whether and how police are trained to de-escalate potentially violent situations.

André Marin said in a news release Wednesday that he has asked his staff, to put together, as soon as possible, a “case assessment to determine whether or not an investigation is warranted in the wake of the recent Toronto Police shooting of Sammy Yatim.”

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MAUI POLICE CARS LAHAINA 080206

MISSISSAUGAWATCH and Maui Police cruiser, August 2008

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Sammy Yatim video: “When the hell do they start shooting that guy?” And first three shots in 0.750 seconds!

July 30th, 2013  

[UPDATE Thursday, August 1, 2013. Today’s Globe & Mail states that “18-year-old was shot nine times by Toronto Police Constable James Forcillo after the teen brandished a knife on a streetcar Friday night.”

Next, in this blog we incorrectly wrote, “The first shot starts at 39.125 and the third ends at 39.958. First three shots in 0.833 seconds!” Actually, the third shot is at 39.875 in the YouTube video, “Enhanced video – Shooting of Sammy Yatim by Toronto Police Const. James Forcillo” by TheEditPlayer. That means the first three shots were fired in 0.750 seconds. As a result we had to change the title to reflect this.]

 

A ton has been written since a Toronto cop pumped nine shots into Sammy Yatim and killed him. I avoided actually watching the YouTube video because I’m loathe to watch such End of Life violence.

But I did yesterday for no other reason than among all the Twitter outrage and media noise, how could I not watch the event —on video, As It Happened.

How many times have I referred to raw video as “irrefutable proof”? I decided that not only did I have to watch, I had to download and analyze the YouTube “Police shoot 18 year old Sammy Yatim at Bellwoods and Dundas, Toronto” video by Martin Baron.

After enhancing the audio, I heard an faint voice talk into the video camera —something like “[inaudible] shooting that guy”. Police sirens obscured what was actually said, so I went back to YouTube to see if anyone had created an enhanced version of Mr. Baron’s.

YouTube user TheEditPlayer posted a magnified version that also included a time stamp. I downloaded that version as well.

By magnifying TheEditPlayer’s audio from seconds 22.667 to 32.663 it was certain that someone very close to the camera —perhaps even the videographer had said “[inaudible] shooting that guy” at seconds 29.417 to 32.500.

Increasing audio to 29.417 to 32.500 and repeating the clip over and over, I finally think I made sense out of the inaudible faint beginning. To my ear, at least, it sounds like someone talking into the video camera (and perhaps to himself) asks, “When the hell do they start shooting that guy?”

In the National Post article “Sammy Yatim’s final warning: New audio reveals officer’s hostile words before teen was shot dead by police” Josh Visser writes:

In the enhanced audio recording made available to the National Post, it appears police gave Yatim one stark warning just seconds before they opened fire.

“If you take one step in this direction with that foot …[inaudible] die,” a male police officer appears to tell the teenager. Five seconds later the first three shots ring out.

“If you take one step in this direction with that foot …[inaudible] die” begins at second 23.792. The third of three rapid shots ends at 39.875.

That’s 16.166 seconds the National Post analyzed. But the Post either failed to notice something said or chose not to report it.

So allow me.

It’s clear from the video that the videographer sure believes what the police officer is shouting. Right after “If you take one step in this direction with that foot …[inaudible] die,” the camera’s motion suggests that the videographer is backing away!

And as the camera backs away, it also picks up someone faintly asking what appears to be “When the hell do they start shooting that guy?” with “start shooting that guy” certain.

Whoever asked “When the hell do they start shooting that guy?” didn’t have to wait long. The first shot starts at 39.125 and the third ends at 39.875. First three shots in 0.750 seconds!

And it’s not “they start shooting that guy”. But one Toronto Police officer —all nine shots his!….

Here’s my worked-up video…

Sammy Yatim video: Does someone really say, “When the hell do they start shooting that guy?”

I feel sorry for Chief Bill Blair….

Toronto Police Chief Blair reprimands officers — Credit: Toronto Star Freedom of Information


Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

 

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Hazel McCallion asked for our New Year’s Resolutions: “1. I will not procras –I’ll finish this later.”

July 23rd, 2013  

Back on January 1, 2013 at the Mayor’s New Year’s Levee, Hazel McCallion invited Mississauga residents to share their New Year’s Resolutions with her.

The Mayor said:

“I know you all adopted resolutions. I’d like to see the list you all adopted. It would be fun. We would file them into the City Man –into the Mayor’s office and look –I’d be happy to look at them.”

And McCallion was right about us all having adopted resolutions. I sure did and what luck that the Mayor invited us to share them with her!

My first resolution back on January 1, 2013 inside that Council Chamber happened to be the same first New Year’s Resolution I’ve made since 1963!

1.  I will try not to procrastinate so much.

That it’s taken until July 2013 (perhaps even August…) to getting around to sharing my resolutions with the Mayor condemns “1.  I will try not to procrastinate so much” as EPIC FAIL.

My second resolution was to get back to an exercise regimen and especially back to strength training. Given that I am 63 years old I kept that goal modest:

2. I will complete a set of 8 reps with two 40 lb dumbbells by the end of February.

Only 8 reps.

Repeated family crises —primarily hospitalizations, got in the way but I exceeded that 8 reps goal on March 29th and shared my delight with the Ontario Ombudsman who happened to be tweeting about exercise that day!

@Ont_Ombudsman re “Next few tweets about exercise…” New Year’s Resolution was Chest press 8 reps w 40-lb dumbbells. 1st try today. 12 reps!

Andre Marin was happy for me and tweeted his congratulations.

But for me to share my New Year’s Resolution and results with Hazel McCallion I couldn’t just simply tell her. (After all, “Saying doesn’t make it so” is especially true about anything related to the City of Mississauga.)

My GoodLife gym has a policy against use of cameras so I had to wait until summer to document any heaving of two 40 lb dumbbells.  By then I’d revamped my goal to three sets of 15 reps with two 40 lb dumbbells.

So here’s the video we produced at Valley Isle Fitness, Lahaina, Maui on July 15, 2013. It documents the entire session (including three Fails).

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (63.8 yr old female) presses two 40 lb dumbbells for Hazel McCallion (3 sets x 15)

Which brings us to Resolution 3.

3. I will keep my promise to Mayor McCallion and meet with her as she invited me to do back on February 3, 2010.

Yes, it’s been that long since I promised that I’d accept Hazel McCallion’s invitation to meet with her. (Now you know the wisdom denouncing my First 2013 Resolution “I will try not to procrastinate so much” as EPIC FAIL.)

At that February 2, 2010 General Committee meeting McCallion had said:

“This morning you covered a volume of issues. So I’m going to make the offer again –that we will sit down with you, the total staff that you’ve involved, the Legal, the City Manager, the Community Services, the Security, etc. I’m prepared to do it again for you to get the issues out.

I hope you will accept it this time…”

I gave her a solemn promise that day right in front of Council.

So. Before the end of this summer, I will write the Mayor and request a meeting with her some time in September or October 2014.

Yes. 2014. I’ll need the time to work up a factum (Freedom of Information, video, audio) which I will share piecemeal starting this Fall to ensure City Staff won’t waste my October 2014 meeting time lying and denying.

For the record. I’m under no illusion. If there’s one thing I’ve learned since I began trying to change the way the City of Mississauga conducts its business is not only that ordinary people can’t, but you can actually make things worse —a whole lot worse.

So. There’s absolutely no need to be in any kind hurry for a meeting… since I’ve no expectation of any positive coming out of it.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Valley Isle Fitness Maui Lahaina. MISSISSAUGAWATCH 40 lb dumbbell presses. Last set 19th of 20 attempted.

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

“The McGuinty we never knew” telegraphs the McCallion we never knew

July 13th, 2013  

It’s been June 29th, 2013 since my last blog and fact is, it really doesn’t matter if I ever write another one. I’ve achieved one of the goals I set out for myself and it explained precisely why it really doesn’t matter if I ever write another blog —or any other thing again.

I found The Answer. Quite literally —found it.

Back in November 2008 the Liberals released the McMurtry/Curling Review of the Roots of Youth Violence Report.

I responded with three December 2008 blogs summarizing this $2.7 million study that failed to file a single Freedom of Information request as part of its “research”.

Highlights: Executive Summary of The report of the Review of the Roots of Youth Violence  

McMurtry/Curling, Volume 1 FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS -in Search of “accountable” and “accountability”  

McMurtry/Curling, Volume 1 FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS -word-surfing for “municipal”, “municipality” and “municipalities”

In so in December 2008 I set out to find The Roots of Youth Violence and what extraordinary good fortune for me that my research base was Mississauga! Fact is I don’t think I’d have stumbled on The Answer had I not filed Freedom of Information in this, Ontario’s —possibly even Canada’s, most influential city.

As you can see even back in December 2008, I’d suspected that the Roots of Youth Violence were somehow connected to a lack of accountability at the local level, in municipal government itself. Back then Freedom of Information had already confirmed the failure of City of Mississauga staff to comply to the City’s corporate policies, procedures and even provincial legislation.

Back then I still stupidly believed that if I could just let Mayor Hazel McCallion know what I knew this “honest” Mayor would ensure a couple of heads would roll and she’d return everything back to the “tight ship” she hailed to run at the City.

Trust me, I just couldn’t have gotten stupider than that.

Think of all that’s happened politically since November 2008 in Mississauga and in Ontario. The Mississauga Judicial Inquiry revealed that the “Honest” Mayor isn’t quite so honest.

Back in the day I wrote my local MPP Bob Delaney and even approached MP Bob Dechert for help —to investigate the lack of accountability at the municipal level.

That’s right. I turned to both the Province and Feds to stop the lying and investigate the City of Mississauga’s unaccountable ways.

Fast-forward to 2013 and we see the immoral political slimefest that is Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. And Dalton McGuinty and his despicable Ontario Liberals have surely set new lows in this province.

I once referred to the City of Mississauga as disorganized white-collar crime. Little did I know at the time, “disorganized white-collar crime” was the perfect descriptor for the Harper Government —and especially Premier Dad’s.

I submit even as Premier Dalton McGuinty announced a study into the Roots of Youth Violence back in 2007, that he knew the Root! McGuinty knew and he only had to look in the mirror.

This week I stumbled on a Globe and Mail article that I read back in October 2012, but I just didn’t get its true significance at the time. But add the January 26, 2013 Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention that saw Puppet Master Hazel McCallion sit-mighty in Kathleen Wynne’s box stringing her MPP Charles Sousa into Wynne’s ranks and you can paint Mississauga Liberal-Red.

Hazel McCallion and Kathleen Wynne January 26, 2013 Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention

Now add McGuinty’s Emailgate.

From Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian’s special report “Deleting Accountability: Records Management Practices of Political Staff.”

“It truly strains credulity to think that absolutely no records … responsive to the Speaker’s ruling were retained”…

“It is difficult to accept that the routine deletion of emails was not in fact an attempt by staff … to avoid transparency and accountability.”

That’s right. I looked to MPP Bob Delaney and the Liberal government that deletes emails “to avoid transparency and accountability” to try and hold the City of Mississauga accountable!

You just can’t get stupider than me.

Re-reading Adam Radwanski’s “The McGuinty we never knew” provided the answer that zipped over my head back in October 2012.

This part:

In between his first campaign and his second, Mr. McGuinty also significantly overhauled his office. That included bringing in some cutthroat political fixers, ruthless about heading off dissent, unapologetic about stroking interest groups that needed to be stroked, and generally willing to do whatever it takes to win – a group headed by a Windsor organizer named Dave Gene, who has been in the office ever since.

“You judge a leader by the people he chooses to be around him,” a long-time insider says. “And he chose some of the most ruthless operators to be there to help him implement his vision.”

In conversations, several senior Liberals suggested that in opposition and then in government, Mr. McGuinty chose to “outsource” politics. Others would do his bidding, while he stayed on the high ground, focused on broader policy areas– health care, education, the environment – that excited him.

The KEY! To Dalton McGuinty.

To Hazel McCallion and her City of Mississauga. Same.

For the record, there's considerable evidence that the "Friends of Hazel" (McCallion) and Bonnie Crombie "political fixers" are one-and-the-same.

Both relied on “cutthroat political fixers, ruthless about heading off dissent”, “some of the most ruthless operators to be there”, “while [McGuinty/McCallion] stayed on the high ground”.

I’ve been researching Hazel McCallion’s “Friends of Hazel” since October 28, 2009 and agree with that long-time insider and several senior Liberals that the “Friends of Hazel” are indeed  “cutthroat political fixers, ruthless about heading off dissent” and “some of the most ruthless operators” this country ever crapped out.

It should comes as no surprise too, that at least some of McGuinty’s “cutthroat political fixers, ruthless about heading off dissent” and “some of the most ruthless operators” are also Hurricane Hazel’s.

And I know this sounds perverse, but I’m happier than I’ve been in years. I’ve found the Roots of Youth Violence and they are the same roots that keep the Poor poor, provide substandard care in Ontario’s nursing homes and the source of all manner of society’s ills.

Our politicians and their “political fixers”.

“Politics is a nasty, unpleasant, mean-spirited business, which is presumably why so many of us here tonight are drawn to it. Many of us are nasty, unpleasant and mean-spirited people.”  —Warren Kinsella, The War Room, p. 72.

Political fixers…

DON CHERRY ROB TREWARTHA FRIENDS OF HAZEL RALLY

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH
Ursula Bennett, liberal

 

Additional Resources:

The McGuinty we never knew   by Adam Radwanski  The Globe and Mail     Published Saturday, Oct. 20 2012

The War Room by Warren Kinsella

Excellent – A must read!  by Robert Trewartha, a review of Warren Kinsella’s “The War Room”,  6 years ago

SAMARA DEMOCRACY REPORT #6  Lightweights?  Political Participation Beyond the Ballot Box

Rob Trewartha gave his boss Warren Kinsella's "The War Room" a 5-star rating on indigo.ca

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Mississauga Councillor on McGuinty/Wynne Liberals “You’d think they’d have a brain in their heads” re: gas plant cancellation.

June 29th, 2013  

Perhaps someone with influence in the McGuinty-Wynne malgovernment might wish to pass this along to them —Mississauga Councillor Nando Iannicca blasting them for, well… any number of “screwed up” things.

Mississauga power plant. Councillor to McGuinty-Wynne Liberals “WE didn’t make this mess”

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT BEGINS]

Councillor Nando Iannicca, General Committee June 26, 2013

I’m tempted to let it go but I can’t.

Councillor Jim Tovey (Chair), General Committee June 26, 2013

[laughs]

Councillor Nando Iannicca, General Committee June 26, 2013

$600 million dollars later, this is a site that we have no claim to. We’re out 2/3rds of a billion dollars as taxpayers.

With respect the local member [inaudible] is the Finance Minister [sic]. It’s his government. They are not, I would say dedicated, but they are not dedicated —we paid $600 million dollars for them, we are not getting parkland there?!

It’s embarrassing!

So Madam Mayor, let’s not waste a lot of time. Refer it back to the Premier. Refer it back to the Minister of Finance. Refer it back to the local MPP —who is one and the same, and tell us when the ribbon cutting is for the parkland that I hope Mississaugans, and all Ontarians are going to receive instead of well, $600 million but we don’t really own the land.

I mean how much more badly could they have screwed up this file?!

And they’re going to sell this to taxpayers? Good luck.

Madam Mayor I hope you and I and the local —aren’t selling this to taxpayers.  We didn’t make this mess.

I’m shocked Madam Mayor. It’s just appalling!

You would think they would know that to clean it up they would get rid of the evidence, give them the park real quick. And we’re done and just for the extra $4 million —we’re already out 2/3rds of a billion, what’s the big deal?!

You’d think they’d have a brain in their heads to at least do that! To cover up the shame!

I’m shocked. I’m just shocked, Madam Mayor.

And here it is falling on you to have to write another letter to tell them what’s obvious.

Get rid of the evidence! Let’s get this horrible chapter in the history of this Province out of here —and to think we have to tell them that.

Oh my goodness! *groan*

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’m shocked.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera, General Committee June 26, 2013

I’m not.

Councillor Jim Tovey (Chair), General Committee June 26, 2013

Anyone have a message to follow?

Councillor Nando Iannicca, General Committee June 26, 2013

My God!

[mocking] “But we don’t own it.”

Former Liberal MP/Councillor Bonnie Crombie, General Committee June 26, 2013

Tell us how you really feel.

Councillor Nando Iannicca mocking, General Committee June 26, 2013

“We don’t own it.”

“We don’t own it.”

Councillor Jim Tovey (Chair), General Committee June 26, 2013

Yeah.

Councillor Nando Iannicca mocking, General Committee June 26, 2013

We’ll have to talk to the company I guess so— oh!

Councillor Jim Tovey (Chair), General Committee June 26, 2013

Mmhm. Just a clarification. The MPP and the Finance Minister are not the same person actually. It’s Dipika Damerla’s riding, actually is where Loreland is.

Councillor Nando Iannicca, General Committee June 26, 2013

Thank you for the clarification.

Councillor Jim Tovey (Chair), General Committee June 26, 2013

The other clarification is that the citizens in 2007 took Ontario Power Authority’s own report to them which clearly stated that they could have converted Nanticoke to 2,0oo megawatts and they didn’t have to build any of these power plants…

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT ENDS]

Reminder that this is an excerpt of the video and not a video transcript in its entirety. Next, any errors are mine and I’d appreciate being advised so I can fix them.

Last. While I share Councillor Iannicca’s disgust at the McGuinty-Wynne Liberal government’s gas-plant-gate, I don’t entirely agree with his urging that the gas plant be demolished and a park put in its place, “To cover up the shame”.

What with email-gate, there’s been enough Liberal cover-up, thank you very much. Yes, a park is a worthy goal but at least part of the gas plant should remain complete with plaque with words something to the effect:

“This site commemorates a horrible chapter in the history of this Province that we are doomed to repeat again and again, for no other reason than Ontarians see themselves as taxpayers instead of citizens.”

Mississauga Councillor BLASTS "shameful" McGuinty-Wynne Liberals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Mississauga Councillor Nando Iannicca on: Municipal Election Campaign Contribution Rebate Program

June 26th, 2013  

This letter from Mississauga Councillor Nando Iannicca to his Ward 7 constituents has been reproduced here with his kind permission.

Regarding the Municipal Election Campaign Contribution Rebate Program he writes:

Dear Ward 7 Ratepayers,

I bring to your attention a report on a Municipal Election Campaign Contribution Rebate Program that will be going to the Governance Committee of the City of Mississauga on Wednesday, June 12, 2013.  Once this committee has dealt with the matter their final recommendation will be coming to a future Council meeting for ratification.

First and foremost, I bring the enclosed information to your attention because I fear you otherwise may not be aware of what is being proposed.  Secondly, as both a Municipal Councillor whose first duty is to Taxpayers and not myself, and also as a private citizen, I have grave concerns at what may come to pass.  A new policy is suggested that would see all Mississauga taxpayers rebate 50% of all political campaign contributions private individuals or corporations make to a candidate’s election campaign for any contribution between $100.00 and up to $750.00.

The full report can be obtained online at
http://www7.mississauga.ca/documents/agendas/committees/governance/06_12_2013_Governance_Committee_Agenda.pdf.  I take this opportunity to highlight some of the comments directly from the report.

Through detailing the procedures and writing the draft implementing By-law, the Elections Office has identified the following concerns that relate to the Rebate Program:

Given the uncertainty of the outcomes which will be achieved from the implementation of a Rebate Program, it is recommended that the Program be undertaken as a pilot program for the 2014 Municipal Election, and that Election staff review and report back to Governance Committee following the conclusion of the 2014 Rebate Program.

Financial Impact:  The anticipated costs associated with the Rebate Program are as follows:

For my part, I am strongly opposed to the new program for the following reasons:

All told, as a politician, candidate, and taxpayer I have always taken great comfort in the fact that I play by the rules given to me, and any contributions received, in addition to the money my spouse and I put into my campaign, is in no way subsidized by any other taxpayer.

It is my strong belief that this is the system that should remain, and that you should be made aware of what is being contemplated.

Kindest personal regards,

[SIGNATURE]

Nando Iannicca
Councillor, Ward 7

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

ELIAS HAZINEH v. HAZEL McCALLION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE JOHN R. SPROAT (released June 14, 2013)

June 22nd, 2013  

What follows is Justice John R. Sproat’s “Hazineh vs McCallion” decision scanned from the Hazineh v McCallion – Reasons for Judgment_June 14, 2013 (PDF) file. We’ve done our best to ensure that our scan matches Justice Sproat’s original text. Any errors are ours and we’d appreciate being advised as well.

                                               CITATION: HAZINEH v. McCALLION, 2013 ONSC 2164
                                                                 COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-1130-OO 
                                                                               DATE: 2013-06-14

                                                     ONTARIO 

                                            SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:                                                )
                                                         )
ELIAS HAZINEH                                           )  Thomas A. Richardson and Monique 
                                                         )  Atherton, for the Applicant 
                                                         ) 
                                                         ) 
                                          Applicant     ) 
                                                         ) 
                                                         ) 
                                                         ) 
- and -                                                 )
                                                         ) 
HAZEL McCALLION                                         )  Elizabeth J. Mclntyre and Freya J. 
                                                         )  Kristjanson, for the Respondent 
                                                         ) 
                                                         )
                                            Respondent  ) 
                                                         ) 
                                                         ) HEARD: April 3, 8-12, 15-19, 2013

                                      REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SPROAT J.

Table of Contents 
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 
The Issues ............................................................................... 1 
The Witnesses ............................................................................ 3 
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act ..................................................... 5 
The Mississauga Judicial Inquiry .......................................................... 6

OVERVIEW OF THE FACTS ..................................................................... 7 

DID MAYOR MCCALLION HAVE A DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST IN WCD? ................................ 15
The Law ................................................................................. 15 
The Financial Interest of Peter McCallion in WCD ........................................... 16 
What did Mayor McCallion know about Peter’s Interest in WCD? ................................ 18 
Analysis and Conclusion .................................................................. 22 

COULD WCD QUALIFY UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS? ....................................... 23 
Introduction ............................................................................. 23 
The Evidence ............................................................................. 23 
Analysis and Conclusion ................................................................... 27 

WAS MAYOR MCCALLION’S DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST AN INTEREST IN COMMON WITH ELECTORS GENERALLY? .. 31 
The Law ................................................................................... 31 
The Evidence .............................................................................. 33 
Analysis and Conclusion .................................................................... 34 

WAS MAYOR MCCALLlON’S DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST REMOTE AND INSIGNIFICANT? ..................... 36 
The Law ................................................................................... 36 
The Evidence .............................................................................. 37 
Analysis and Conclusion .................................................................... 39

                                                        -2-


WAS ANY CONTRAVENTION DUE TO INADVERTENCE OR BY REASON OF AN ERROR IN JUDGMENT? ................ 45 
The Law ................................................................................... 45 
The Evidence .............................................................................. 46 
Analysis and Conclusion .................................................................... 47 

DID MR. HAZINEH COMMENCE THE APPLICATION IN TIME? ............................................ 48 
The Law ................................................................................... 48 
The Evidence .............................................................................. 48 
Analysis and Conclusion .................................................................... 50 

SHOULD THERE BE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST MAYOR MCCALLION? ................................. 52 

CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 53

INTRODUCTION

The Issues
[1] This is an application brought by Elias Hazineh (“Mr. Hazineh”) seeking to
have Hazel McCallion (“Mayor McCallion”), the Mayor of the City of Mississauga
(“the City”), removed from office for violating the Municipal Conflict of lnterest Act
(“the MCIA”).

[2] in brief, Mr. Hazineh alleges that:

(a) Mayor McCalli0n’s son Peter McCallion (“Peter”) incorporated and
was an owner of World Class Developments Inc. (“WCD”). WCD
agreed to purchase land for the purpose of constructing a hotel,
conference centre and condominium towers.

(b) Mayor McCallion knew Peter had a financial interest in WCD. As
such, the MCIA deems her to have the same financial interest as
Peter for conflict purposes.

(c) Mayor McCallion cast a number of votes at Peel Regional Council
(“Regional Council”) in September-October, 2007 (“the Votes“),
related to increased development charges. As enacted, the by-law
contained provisions (“the Transitional Provisions”) by which
developers who met certain requirements, including the filing of a


-2-

 

complete site plan application by October 7, 2007, continued to be
eligible to pay the lower rate.

(d) WCD was eligible to qualify under the Transitional Provisions. As
such, WCD and Mayor McCallion had a financial interest in the
Votes.

(e) It was not until reading an October 11, 2011 article by municipal
lawyer Clay Connor that Mr. Hazineh learned of Mayor McCallion’s
conflict of interest at Regional Council. As required by the MCIA he
then commenced a court application within six weeks of learning of
the conflict.

[3]  The issues are as follows:

(a) What was Peter’s interest in WCD?

(b) What did Mayor McCallion know about Peter’s interest in WCD?

(c) Had WCD filed a complete site plan application prior to October 7,
2007, such that it was eligible to qualify under the Transitional
Provisions?

-3-

 

(d) if WCD was eligible, and so had a financial interest in the
Transitional Provisions, do any of the following MCIA exemptions
apply?:

(i) Was Mayor McCallion’s deemed financial interest an interest
in common with electors generally?; or

(ii) Was Mayor McCalli0n‘s deemed financial interest remote and
insignificant such that it cannot reasonably be regarded as
likely to have influenced her?; or

(iii) Were the Transitional Provisions a benefit offered on terms
common to other persons?

(e) If Mayor McCallion contravened the MCIA, was the contravention
committed through inadvertence or an error in judgment such that
she should not be removed from office?

(f) Did Mr. Hazineh commence the application in time?

The Witnesses

[4] The witnesses and their affiliations are as follows:

Applicant

Elias Hazineh  Applicant
Carolyn Parrish  Supporter and friend

Respondent

Hazel McCallion  Mayor

The City

Edward Sajecki                Commissioner of Planning and Building
Marilyn Ball                     Director of Development and Design
Angela Dietrich               Manager, City Wide Policy Planning
Bentley Phillips               Development Planner

Region of Peel

Robert Elliott                  Manager of Development Financing

WCD

Leo Couprie                    Lender, Trustee of shares
Scott Walker                   Planner, N. Barry Lyon Consultants

Other

Marolyn Morrison         Mayor of Caledon
Susan Fennel                  Mayor of Brampton
Ken Lusk                         Representative of land owner


-5-

 

The Municipal Conflict of interest Act

[5] Section 3 provides that if the child of a member of council has a financial
interest (the MCIA refers to “pecuniary interest”, however, I will use the more
familiar expression “financial interest”) that is known to the member, the member
is deemed to have the same financial interest as the child.

[6] Section 5 provides that if a member has a financial interest in a matter that
is considered at council the member shall disclose the interest, not take part in
the discussion or vote on the matter and not attempt to influence the voting.

[7] Section 4 provides that s. 5 does not apply to a financial interest in any
matter that the member may have:

(a) by reason of the member being entitled to receive on terms common
to other persons any benefit offered by the municipality (s.4(b));

(b) by reason of the member having a financial interest that is an interest
in common with electors generally (s.4(j)); and

(c) by reason only of an interest of the member that is so remote or
insignificant that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to
influence the member (s.4 (k)).

-6-

 

[8] Section 10 provides that if a judge determines that a member has
contravened s. 5, the judge shall order that the member be removed from office
unless the judge finds that the contravention was committed through
inadvertence or by reason of an error in judgment.

[9] Section 9 provides that an elector may apply to a judge for a determination
of whether s. 5 has been contravened within six weeks after it comes to the
knowledge of the elector that the member may have contravened s. 5. Any
application must, however, be brought within six years of when the alleged
contravention occurred.

The Mississauga Judicial lnquiry

[10] On November 11, 2009, City Council passed a resolution requesting a
judicial inquiry (“the Judicial lnquiry”) into matters including whether Mayor
McCallion had a conflict of interest in matters related to WCD and Peter. The
resolution requesting the Judicial lnquiry did not refer to any issues related to
Regional development charges.

[11] The Public Inquiries Act, S.O. 2009, ch. 33 sch. 6 provides that no
answer given by a witness, such as Mayor McCallion, can be used against her in
a subsequent hearing. The transcript of the evidence of other Judicial lnquiry
witnesses is also not admissible as it is hearsay.


-7-

 

OVERVIEW OF THE FACTS

[12] There is undoubtedly much that I do not know about this saga. None of
the WCD decision makers provided evidence although they could have been
compelled to do so. It remains that I must decide the case based upon the
evidence before me.

[13] The parties filed over 5,000 pages of affidavits and documents and 2,500
pages of transcript of out of court examinations and cross-examinations. Mr.
Hazineh and Mayor McCallion also testified in court.

[14] l first provide an overview of the essential facts as l find them. Most are
not in dispute. Without such an overview it would be difficult to comprehend the
discussion of the individual legal issues that follows.

[15] Mayor McCallion has served as Mayor for 34 years. As of 2005, she had
three significant outstanding projects she wished to accomplish, one of them
being the building of a first class hotel adjacent to the City’s Living Arts Centre to
accommodate conferences, tourists and business travellers.

[16] On February 22, 2005, Peter incorporated WCD. According to Mayor
McCallion, in 2005 Peter told her that he was the real estate agent for WCD
which was interested in developing a hotel and convention centre adjacent to the


-8-

 

Living Arts Centre. The lands were owned by OMERS and the Alberta Pension
Fund. l will simply refer to the owner as OMERS.

[17] In March 2005, WCD offered to purchase the OMERS lands. Peter did
not have the funds to pay a substantial deposit. There is little evidence as to
what resulted from this initial offer.

[18] In 2006, Peter approached Leo Couprie (“Couprie”), a business man that
he and Mayor McCallion had met on a trade mission trip to China. By August,
2006, Couprie agreed to lend WCD $750,000 for the purpose of making a
deposit on the purchase.

[19] Couprie gave evidence that Peter brought in Murray Cook (“Cook”), a
businessman and McCallion family friend as a 20 per cent shareholder in WCD.
Peter authorized Cook to negotiate with OMERS.

[20] Mayor McCallion intervened and pressured OMERS to sell the land to
WCD. Mayor McCallion’s evidence is that she did so because this was an
essential first step to realize her objective of a first class hotel and conference
centre. Mayor McCallion’s evidence, which was not challenged, was that she
recommended to OMERS that it stipulate that hotel construction must precede
any condominium development.


-9-

 

[21] By agreement dated January 29, 2007 Couprie agreed to lend WCD
$750,000. WCD agreed to repay Couprie $750,000 and pay an additional
$750,000 fee to him if the land purchase was completed. Peter guaranteed the
payments to Couprie. It was further agreed that the WCD shares would be
registered in Couprie‘s name although a Declaration of Trust was signed in which
Couprie promised Peter that he would hold 80 per cent of the shares of WCD for
Peter as “the beneficiary”.

[22] WCD entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”) dated
January 31, 2007 to purchase the OMERS lands. The purchase price was
$14,492,500. Peter authorized Cook to sign the agreement on behalf of WCD.

[23] On February 28, 2007, WCD, Couprie and Cook entered into a
Shareholders Agreement that provided that even though Couprie held 80 per
cent of the WCD shares, and Cook 20 per cent, they would jointly make
decisions as if each held 50 per cent of the shares. Couprie’s evidence,
however, is that he had little interest in the affairs of WCD. Couprie had no
expertise in land development. He deferred to Peter in relation to all significant
decisions affecting WCD. This makes sense as Couprie’s only economic interest
was in either doubling his money if the APS was completed (meaning the
development was proceeding) or getting a return of his $750,000 deposit if it was
not completed.


-10-

 

[24] Mayor McCallion’s evidence was that at all material times she understood
that Peter‘s only interest was as a real estate agent. The evidence is
overwhelming and, as later explained, l find as a fact that Peter was an owner of
WCD.

[25] On July 31, 2007, WCD filed a “Master Site Plan Application” that
included a hotel, conference centre and eight high-rise condominium buildings
and paid a $50,000 fee being 10 per cent of the ordinary site plan application fee.

[26] Couprie gave evidence that there was a dispute between Peter and Cook
that led to Peter replacing Cook with Tony DeCicco (“DeCicco”). DeCicco was a
developer known to Peter and Mayor McCallion. By agreement dated August 1,
2007 between Couprie and Landplex lnc. (DeCicco’s company), Couprie agreed
that he held 80 per cent of the shares in WCD in trust for Landplex. it was
always recognized that for the development to proceed WCD would have to
secure a major developer-investor and a hotel operator.

[27] Municipalities have the power to impose development charges to assist in
paying for the increased infrastructure necessitated by development. The
philosophy of the Mayor, and the Region of Peel, (“the Region”), was that “growth
should pay for growth”.


-11-

 

[28] The Region initiated a periodic review of its development charges in
2006. On August 13, 2007, Regional staff recommended an 85 per cent
increase in development charges with a transition period whereby the increased
charges would not be payable by developers who had:

(a) submitted a site plan application by September 13, 2007;

(b) submitted a building permit application by February 1, 2008; and

(c) obtained a building permit by April 1, 2008.

[29] At the General Committee Meeting of The Regional Council on
September 6, 2007, a motion was made to adopt the staff recommendation.
Caledon Mayor Morrison’s evidence, which I accept, was that she told Mayor
McCallion that Caledon would benefit from a one month extension of the time to
obtain a building permit. Mayor McCallion offered to move a motion as a favour
to Mayor Morrison given the belief that, as the senior Mayor in the Region, Mayor
McCallion’s views would be given greater weight. The motion, which was
adopted, extended the time to obtain a building permit to May 1, 2008.

[30] Brampton had a particular concern that the imposition of increased
development charges would impede its downtown development initiatives.
Brampton Council passed a resolution on September 12, 2007, asking the
Region to amend the transition provisions to allow developers in downtown


-12-

 

Brampton an additional 18 months, to November 1, 2009, to obtain a building
permit.

[31] On September 13, 2007, Mayor Fennell of Brampton presented a motion
at Regional Council based on the wording of the Brampton resolution the
previous day. Mayor Fennell’s evidence was that the Regional clerk
“regionalized” the wording of the Brampton specific resolution. As presented at
Regional Council the motion provided that developers, in any area designated by
an area municipality (Mississauga, Brampton or Caledon), would have an 18
month extension of the transition period. Mayor McCallion seconded this motion
which passed.

[32] There is no evidence that Mayor McCallion played any role in the
decision to “regionalize” the language of the motion presented at the Regional
Council, or that suggests to me she viewed the 18 month extension proposed by
Mayor Fennell as a fortuitous opportunity to help WCD. l find as a fact that
Mayor McCallion seconded this motion as a matter of routine and to be
supportive of Mayor Fennell.

[33] Regional staff were quite surprised by this motion and requested an
opportunity to report back on the cost implications. On September 14, 2007, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Region wrote to the senior planning officials of the


-13-

 

three Regional municipalities indicating he believed the intention of Regional
Council was to extend the transition period for “identified areas of intensification”.
He also requested a map showing areas of intensification and a list of pending
site plan applications in those areas.

[34] By letter dated September 19, 2007, Edward Sajecki (“Sajecki”), the
Commissioner of Planning for the City, listed the WCD project as one of eighteen
projects within the area the City had previously identified as its Urban Growth
Centre.

[35] l do not construe the Sajecki letter as purporting to bind the City as to the
area of intensification. Sajecki was simply advising of the projects in an area the
City had already determined to be an area of intensification. If the Regional by~
law had passed in that form, it would still have been up to the City Council to
identify areas of intensification within the meaning of the by-law.

[36] On September 24, 2007, Marilyn Ball (“Ball”) the Director, Development
and Design of the City emailed staff at the Region indicating that WCD had only
filed a “Master Site Plan” and not a standard site plan. She advised that the
Master Site Plan “will not be sufficient to satisfy the condition for site plan
approval to obtain a building permit for the hotel or any other buildings”.


-14-

 

[37] At the September 27, 2007, Regional General Committee meeting staff
presented an array of concerns about the extended transition period including
that it would cost $25-$30 million and be contrary to the Regional policy that
“growth should pay for growth.”

[38] On October 4, 2007, Regional Council passed a by-law (“the Transitional
Provisions”) that adopted the transition period originally recommended by staff,
plus the one month extension moved by Mayor McCallion. (Regional Council did
enact an exception for Brampton in accordance with the City of Brampton
resolution of September 12, 2007.) The Transitional Provisions applied to
developments for which:

(a) “an application for site plan approval that is complete” is made by
October 7, 2007;

(b) “an application that is complete” for a building permit is made by
February 1, 2008; and

(c) a building permit is issued by May 1, 2008.

[39] ln November 2007, WCD decided to accelerate its efforts in order to
enable it to qualify under the Transitional Provisions. WCD took the position that
its Master Site Plan filed July 31, 2007, met the first Transitional Provisions
requirement, that being a complete application for site plan approval by October
7, 2007.

-15-

[40] WCD worked feverishly toward addressing various planning issues that
needed to be resolved before building permits could issue. WCD met the second
requirement by filing building permit applications for phase one of its
development which included the hotel and conference centre. WCD went to the
extent of requesting that a special meeting of council be convened on April 30,
2008, in the hope it would meet the May 1, 2008, deadline for issuance of
building permits. WCD could not, however, satisfy all of the City’s requirements
and withdrew the request for a special meeting.

[41] WCD effectively strung the City along to the last minute and circumvented
the by-law requirement that site plan applications not be processed prior to
payment of the application fee. WCD never paid the complete site plan
application fee of $440,000 or even a lesser fee related to the phase one
development. WCD never found a major developer-investor or hotel operator.
The project did not proceed. OMERS remained the owner of the land.

[42] l now turn to the issues that must be decided and make further findings of
fact on contentious matters.

DID MAYOR MCCALLION HAVE A DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST IN
WCD?

The Law

-16-

[43] Section 3 of the MCIA provides that if the child of a member has a
financial interest, known to the member, the member is deemed to have the
same financial interest as the child.

The Financial Interest of Peter McCallion in WCD

[44] in support of her position that Peter was not an owner, Mayor McCallion
placed considerable reliance on a series of answers given by Couprie in cross-
examination. Couprie agreed that, as of September-October, 2007, Peter was
not a shareholder, director or officer of WCD and that he had no other financial
relationship with WCD. Mayor McCallion made further reference to Couprie’s
evidence that Peter’s only financial interest was contingent, being the possibility
that the developer might agree to retain Peter as the listing agent for the
condominiums. On that basis, Mayor McCallion submitted that Peter was not an
owner and any financial interest was remote and insignificant.

[45] Couprie is a businessman not a lawyer. His legal conclusion that Peter
had no ownership interest in WCD does not follow from the evidence he gave.
As Couprie himself described, l would control the shares and wouldn’t give
them back to Peter until such time l got the money [$750,000] back and l
wouldn’t give them to anyone else”. In other words, they were Peter’s shares

-17-

held by Couprie as security. On that basis, alone Peter had a beneficial
ownership interest in WCD as of September-October, 2007.

[46] The evidence is overwhelming, and l find, that Peter was an owner of
WCD:

(a) Peter caused WCD to be incorporated.

(b) Peter recruited Couprie to fund the required $750,000 deposit to
purchase the OMERS lands.

(c) Peter and Couprie entered into the January 29, 2007, Declaration of
Trust in which Couprie agreed that he held 80 per cent of the shares
of WCD in trust for his “beneficiary” Peter.

(d) Peter recruited Cook to play a leading role in WCD, including
negotiating and signing the APS.

(e) While the February 28, 2007, agreement between Couprie and Cook
provided that they would jointly make all decisions, Couprie’s
evidence was that Peter decided “who was staying and going” and
brought in DeCicco to replace Cook.

(f) Peter deposited over $100,000 into the WCD bank account to pay
WCD consultants and withdrew certain amounts for personal

-18-

purposes. Couprie took no objection to this because WCD funds
were Peter’s money.

[47] After the APS was signed, the hunt was on for a major developer who
could fund and/or finance a development in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The developer would have to do a deal with WCD. It is contrary to common
sense and experience to think that the deal with the developer would not reward
Peter for his equity in WCD. Whether this was a lump sum payment for his WCD
shares, a consultancy agreement and/or as a real estate agent for condominium
sales is immaterial. lf this development went ahead, Peter was going to have a
big pay day.

What did Mayor McCallion know about Peter’s Interest in WCD?

[48] Mayor McCallion‘s evidence was that, at the time of the Votes, she
understood that Peter’s only interest in WCD was as a real estate agent. In
deciding what Mayor McCallion knew I will consider:

(a) her relationship with Peter and long-standing interest in the
development of a hotel and conference centre;

(b) that in January 2007, she witnessed documents signed by Peter and
Couprie which indicated clearly that Peter was an owner of WCD;
and

-19-

(c) that within one month after the Votes, she was engaged in the
internal affairs of WCD to the extent that documents to do with the
shareholdings of Cook and DeCicco in WCD were faxed to her
home, and DeCicco solicited her advice and assistance to resolve
issues he had with Cook.

[49] Mayor McCallion was enthusiastic about attracting a first-class hotel to
the City centre as this was a long time goal. She acknowledges intervening to
encourage OMERS to sign the APS with WCD. Mayor McCallion said she had
regular contact with OMERS representatives. The signing would inevitably have
been raised at such meetings. Mayor McCallion must have known of the APS by
February-March 2007.

[50] This was not only a project near and dear to Mayor McCallion’s heart. lt
was also clearly a transaction that would generate a large commission for the
real estate agent. As a matter of common sense and experience, it would be
natural for Mayor McCallion to inquire about WCD. Mayor McCallion had
frequent contact with Peter. He often drove her to events. Given their close
relationship, it would be natural for Peter to want to tell her about his pivotal role
at WCD.

-20-

[51] Mayor McCallion, however, denies that she ever discussed the status-
progress of the WCD project with Peter. Couprie’s evidence was that Peter did
not want his mother to know too much about the deal until it got closer to fruition.

[52] l appreciate that how people usually act can only take the analysis so far.
Each family dynamic is different. l, therefore, turn to documentary evidence and
admitted facts.

[53] Mayor McCallion admits that she witnessed the Peter~Couprie Loan
Agreement and the Declaration of Trust at a restaurant in late January 2007.
She said the restaurant was dimly lit and she witnessed the signatures without
reading any part of the documents.

[54] The slightest glance at the documents would have revealed that Peter
had an interest in WCD beyond that of a real estate agent. On the “Loan
Agreement” her signature ends less than two inches from the description of Peter
as “Guarantor” and WCD as “Borrower”. On the “Declaration of Trust” her
signature ends less than two inches from the description of Couprie as “trustee”
and Peter as “beneficiary”.

[55] Couprie’s evidence was that the documents were passed across the table
and Mayor McCallion did not read them before signing. Obviously only Mayor
McCallion can say what she did or did not notice when signing. If, however,


-21-

Peter was concealing his ownership interest in WCD, it is highly unlikely that
Peter would allow Couprie to pass these documents to her.

[56] Next l turn to what transpired only one month after the Votes. l regard
this as relevant because Mayor McCallion’s evidence was that, both before and
after the Votes, she had no specific knowledge of the ownership or internal
arrangements at WCD. This is, however, contradicted by the following evidence.

[57] An unsigned Shareholders Resolution and Transfer Agreement between
Cook, Couprie and WCD was faxed by a lawyer representing DeCicco to Mayor
McCallion at her home on October 26, 2007. This agreement is two pages long.
A cursory review reveals that it provides that, in return for $28,000 and
reimbursement for all reasonable consulting fees of Lyon Consulting incurred by
WCD, Cook is to resign as a director and officer of WCD and transfer his WCD
shares to Couprie. Reference is also made to a “Put and Call Agreement”.

[58] Couprie gave evidence that he attended a meeting at Mayor McCallion’s
home because Peter wanted him to give Mayor McCallion his opinion regarding
the Cook-DeCicco dispute.

[59] DeCicco left Mayor McCallion three voicemail messages on November 5,
2007, as follows:


-22-

 

(a) 8:52 A.M. — indicating that he had spoken with Barry [Lyon] at length
about his outstanding accounts and “when Peter comes back we’ll
look at the budget and move fon/vard [ . . . ] thanks for your help”.

(b) 9:03 A.M. — “Were you able to or have you considered getting Murray
[Cook] to sign the agreement terminating the call. The sooner we get
it the better off we are”.

(c) 11:36 A.M. — “I just wanted to keep you updated on this . . followed
by reference to Murray [Cook] and outstanding amounts, budgets and
bills.

[60] Mayor McCallion testified that she does not recall reading the agreement
faxed to her home. She does not recall if she ever responded to DeCicco’s
voicemail messages. The content of the voicemail messages, however, makes
clear that Mayor McCallion was in the loop. DeCicco thanked her for her help
and referred to looking at the budget when Peter gets back. DeCicco spoke of
terminating the “call” which obviously references the “Put and Call” referred to in
the agreement faxed to Mayor McCallion.

Analysis and Conclusion

[61] Taking into account the totality of the evidence including:

(a) The close relationship between Mayor McCl|lion and Peter and her
interest in what he and WCD were doing.

(b) The fact that Peter was prepared to have her witness documents
which clearly disclosed he was an owner of WCD.

-23-

(c) That she witnessed documents which indicated clearly that Peter
was an owner of WCD.

(d) That within one month of the Votes, Mayor McCallion was provided
with draft agreements and effectively asked to inten/ene in a WCD
shareholder dispute.

l find as a fact that, at the time of the Votes, Mayor McCallion knew that Peter
had an ownership interest in WCD. As such, according to s. 3 of the MCIA,
Mayor McCallion had a deemed financial interest in WCD.

COULD WCD QUALIFY UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS?

Introduction

[62] To qualify under the Transitional Provisions “an application for site plan
approval that is complete” had to have been filed by October 7, 2007. Mayor
McCallion submitted that the Master Site Plan application was not “a site plan
application that is complete” and so WCD was not eligible under the Transitional
Provisions. If correct, then WCD had no financial interest in the by-law and so
Mayor McCallion cannot have contravened the MCIA.

The Evidence

[63] Ball’s evidence was that a Master Site Plan is sometimes used for large
developments, to be built over many years, to identify the locations of buildings,

-24-

access points and the general attributes of the site. A general layout for the
entire property is necessary before the planning department will consider a site
plan for any one building. A site plan application is then required before a
building permit can be obtained.

[64] A City by-law governed the fees payable for various applications. The fee
for a site plan application for the entire WCD development was initially estimated
by the City to be $500,000. The by-law further provided that no site plan
application shall be processed until the fee is paid. Master Site Plans are
sufficiently rare that the by-law, which appears to be directed to providing a
comprehensive list of fees for the processing of applications under the Planning
Act R.S.O. 1990, ch. P. 13 (“Planning Act”), does not even refer to Master Site
Plans.

[65] WCD retained N. Barry Lyon Consultants (“Lyon Consulting”). Scott
Walker (“Walker”) of Lyon Consulting was the WCD project manager. WCD and
Lyon Consulting engaged other consultants to assist.

[66] On July 12, 2007, Ball emailed Carol Munroe (“Munroe”), a planner
working for WCD, advising that the City would charge 10 per cent of what would
be the total site plan application fee to review the Master Site Plan.

-25-

[67] On July 24, 2007, Bentley Phillips (“Phillips”), the City planner handling
the WCD file, emailed Munroe explaining the City‘s position that the Master Site
Plan was not itself a site plan under s. 41 of the Planning Act because its
purpose was to serve as the basis for future site plan applications. Phillips made
a note of a conversation the same day in which Walker indicated that legal
counsel for WCD understood that other GTA municipalities had approved Master
Site Plans under s. 41 of the Planning Act subject to an agreement requiring
detailed site plan applications prior to any building permit applications.

[68] On July 25, 2007, Munroe confirmed that no building permits would be
sought based on the Master Site Plan. Further, on July 25, 2007, Phillips
emailed Munroe confirming the position of the City that a Master Site Plan would
not be considered for site plan approval under s. 41 of the Planning Act.

[69] On July 31, 2007, WCD filed a Master Site Plan Application. A place for
the City planner to list the “general requirements” of the plan and the “building
elevations” was not completed. Phillips’ evidence was that it was given a site
plan number because the City had no numbering system for a Master Site Plan.

[70] The City kept a running list of pending site plan applications. WCD did
not appear on that list prior to September 19, 2007. The list submitted by Sajecki
to the Region with his letter of September 19, 2007 listed WCD, but, unlike all

-26-

other entries, the floor area was not specified. This caused Robert Elliott
(“Elliott”) the Manager of Development Financing of the Region to inquire about
the WCD project. Ball advised Elliot on September 24, 2007, that WCD had only
filed a Master Site Plan, and that was not sufficient to obtain a building permit.
Effectively Ball was communicating that WCD could not qualify under the

Transitional Provisions.

[71] Walker‘s evidence was that, when Cook was leading the project, WCD
was not attempting to qualify under the Transitional Provisions. Cook thought
WCD could not reasonably meet the requirements. A financial analysis indicated
that the project was viable even with the increased development charges.
Further, given that it would be built over many years, large parts of the project
would be subject to increased development charges regardless. When DeCicco
took over he thought differently, and the push was on to have at least pan of the
project qualify under the Transitional Provisions.

[72] WCD and its consultants held a meeting on November 21, 2007. The
minutes record that its goal was now to submit building permit applications for the
hotel site by January 31, 2008. WCD was going to try to use the “existing site
plan application” (being the Master Site Plan application) to attempt to qualify
under the Transitional Provisions.

-27-

[73] lt was not until a meeting on January 11, 2008, that WCD advised City
staff that it was seeking to qualify under the Transitional Provisions. This change
in position on the part of WCD led to a Januaiy 25, 2008, legal opinion from the
Assistant City Solicitor which concluded that the July 31, 2007, Master Site Plan
application was a complete application for site plan approval under both s. 41 of
the Planning Act and the Transitional Provisions. Ball’s evidence was that she
did not agree with “the way the opinion was set out” because, in fact, it was only
by January 2008, that WCD had submitted the detail required in a site plan
application.

Analysis and Conclusion

[74] l have had the benefit of reviewing extensive document briefs,
approximately 600 pages of transcript evidence from City planning officials and
hearing extensive legal submissions. l have relatively little information as to the
factual basis for the opinion of the Assistant City Solicitor. ln any event, l am
obliged to reach my own conclusion.

[75] For the reasons that follow, l find that as of October 7, 2007, WCD had
not filed a “site plan application that is complete” within the meaning of the
Transitional Provisions.

-28-

[76] Neither the Planning Act, nor the by~law incorporating the Transitional
Provisions, define the terms “site plan” or “site plan application that is complete”.

[77] The City distinguished between “site plan” applications that require
payment of a fixed fee before being processed and “Master Site Plan”
applications that can be filed on major projects based upon a fee to be
negotiated. The two types of applications are radically different in terms of the
level of detail. The City charged, and WCD paid, only 10 per cent of the site plan
application fee because the work required of City staff to process WCD’s Master
Site Plan application would be roughly 10 per cent of that required to process a
site plan application.

[78] At issue is the proper interpretation of the Transitional Provisions which
require “an application for site plan approval that is complete”. Mississauga is
the largest of the three municipalities in the Region. Mississauga recognized a
clear distinction between site plan applications and Master Site Plan
Applications. (There is no evidence as to Brampton and Caledon). Just prior to
the vote on the Transitional Provisions, the City had advised the Region that
WCD had filed a “Master Site Plan”. The distinction between a “Master Site
Plan” and a site plan was, therefore, evident to the Region. l, therefore, conclude
that if the intent of the Transitional Provisions was to allow a “Master Site Plan” to
qualify that would have been specified. Put differently it defies common sense, in

-29-

the context of the Transitional Provisions, to include in the definition of site plan
application a conceptual plan containing roughly 10 per cent of the detail of a site
plan application.

Further, and in any event, the Transitional Provisions require an application for
approval “that is complete”. Those words can and should be given meaning. The
“City Application for Site Plan Approval” form lists what the application is to
“consist of’. One listed requirement is a checklist completed by the City planner
at the time of submission. (Part of the process is that a City planner reviews the
application at the time of submission). Counsel for Mr. Hazineh agreed that this
checklist had to be completed to constitute a “complete” application.

[79] On the WCD application, all of the checklist boxes under the headings
“general requirements” and “building elevations” were left blank. Phillips, the City
planner, simply noted this was a “Master Site Plan”. The only three boxes ticked
off were under the heading “Floor Plans Note”. Counsel for Mr. Hazineh
submitted that this was sufficient to constitute this as a “complete” application. l
do not agree. When Phillips made the notation “Master Site Plan” and wrote
“okay” beside the unticked boxes, I conclude he did so to indicate that the form
was not complete but that was “okay” because it was a Master Site Plan
application. Phillips‘ evidence was that he would have ticked off the appropriate

-30-

boxes if he regarded this as a site plan application. If this was a site plan
application, WCD would be required to pay the full $440,000 fee.

[80] Counsel for Mr. Hazineh made the point that the APS contained a
provision requiring that WCD file a “full and complete” site plan application by
July 31, 2007. What constituted a “full and complete” site plan application within
the meaning of the APS might well be different from a “site plan application that
is complete” within the meaning of the Transitional Provisions. ln any event
OMERS had no obligation to terminate the APS due to non-compliance with a
condition. The fact that OMERS proceeded with the transaction, following the
filing of a Master Site Plan, is of little or no significance in interpreting the
Transitional Provisions.

[81] The fact that the City allowed WCD to use a site plan application form,
and assigned a site plan application number, is relatively weak evidence that the
Master Site Plan application is a site plan application within the meaning of the
Transitional Provisions. As Phillips explained, there simply was no form for a
Master Site Plan application.

[82] While that is sufficient to reach my conclusion, l add the following. Mayor
McCallion testified, and common sense supports, that the rationale for a
transitional period is that at some point a developer is so far along in the process

-31-

that it would be unfair to impose the higher development charges. As the staff
presentation to Regional Council on September 27, 2007 stated: “The purpose of
a transition is to recognize applications that are imminently proceeding to
approvals stage and thus have difficulty in absorbing notable rate increases.”
This underlying rationale has little application to WCD which, as of October 7,
2007, had only filed a conceptual Master Site Plan and paid 10 per cent of the
site plan application fee.

[83] I, therefore, conclude that WCD could not qualify under the Transitional
Provisions since it had not filed a “site plan application that was complete” by
October 7, 2007. As such, WCD had no financial interest in the development
charges by-law adopted by the Region. On that basis alone Mr. Hazineh’s
application must be dismissed.

[84] ln case l am in error in reaching that conclusion, l will consider whether
certain exceptions and defences in the MCIA are applicable.

WAS MAYOR MCCALLlON’S DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST AN INTEREST
IN COMMON WITH ELECTORS GENERALLY?

The Law

[85] Section 4(j) of the MCIA provides an exception to the conflict of
interest prohibition if the financial interest of the member is one “which is an

-32-

interest in common with electors generally”. Section 1 provides the following
definition:

“interest in common with electors generally” means a pecuniary
interest in common with the electors within the area of jurisdiction
and, where the matter under consideration affects only part of the
area ofjurisdiction, means a pecuniary interest in common with the
electors within that part”;

[86] In Tuchenhagen v. Mondou, 2011 ONSC 5398 (CanLll) (Div. Ct.), the
court referred to the fact that the ordinary interpretation of “generally” means “in
most cases” or “widely”.

[87] The fact that electors generally have an interest in common relating to the
level of development charges and taxes does not preclude Peter and WCD
having a distinct interest. For example, in Kizell v. Bristol, [1993] O.J. No. 3369
(Gen. Div.), the respondent councillors were owners or employed in retail
businesses. They voted on matters to do with the granting of exemptions under
the Retail Business Holidays Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.30. O‘Flynn J. concluded
that, although the general public had an interest in the proposed exemptions, the
respondents had contravened the MCIA because they had a financial interest
that was distinct from the interest of electors generally.

[88] The jurisprudence clearly shows that even though a by-law may apply to
the entire body of electors — what Mayor McCallion’s counsel termed a “by-law of

-33-

general application” — this does not preclude an elected official from having an
additional or distinct personal interest in a matter. Indeed, both can be present.

[89] In Kizell, O’Flynn J. also quoted from Edwards v. Wilson (1980), 31 O.R.
(2d) 442 (Div. Ct.) in which Callaghan J. considered whether councillors who
owned or were associated with businesses near a proposed shopping mall had
acted in a conflict of interest when they voted on two proposals which ultimately
defeated the mall project. Though the mall would have equally served all
residents of the town, this did not preclude these councillors from having an
additional interest. Callaghan J. wrote:

while it is true that all ratepayers were interested in the economic
and social development of the community in a general sense, the
respondents had an “added” interest as persons who might be
expected to benefit directly from the failure of the project

The Evidence

[90] WCD stood to save several million dollars in development charges if even
phase one of its proposed development qualified under the Transitional
Provisions.

[91] In cross-examination Mayor McCallion testified that she would not have
declared a conflict of interest even if she understood that WCD could save $11
million in development charges as a result of the Transitional Provisions.

-34-

Analysis and Conclusion

[92] Mayor McCallion’s first submission was that voting on development
charges can never give rise to a conflict of interest. This is because higher
development charges (assuming prospective developers do not opt to go
elsewhere) tend to reduce taxes and lower development charges tend to
increase taxes. Because all residents have an interest in tax levels, development
charge by-laws are of general application. Thus it was not possible for Mayor
McCallion, or anyone else, to have an interest in the vote on the Transitional
Provisions other than the interest that was shared with electors generally.

[93] l put to counsel the following. Assume a council member is a developer.
Development charges are going up. lf a three month transition period is allowed
the developer cannot qualify. lf, however, a six month transitional period is
allowed the developer can qualify. Can the member move a motion to allow for a
six month transitional period? On behalf of Mayor McCallion it was submitted
“yes”. My conclusion is “no”.

[94] lt is necessary to first identify the financial interest of the member. In my
example, the financial interest of the member is as a developer who stands to
save a substantial amount of money depending on the wording of the transitional
by-law. The proper question is whether this financial interest, namely money
riding on whether the transitional period is three or six months, is an interest “in

-35-

common with electors generally”. To ask the question is to answer it. it is
obviously not an interest in common. The developer has a specific financial
interest quite different from electors generally.

[95] Mayor McCallion further submitted, and l agree, that generally
development charges get passed on to the ultimate purchaser. it is elementary
that to stay in business people need to sell products at a price in excess of the
cost. That does not mean, however, that a developer has no financial interest in
qualifying under a transitional provision. For example, take a condominium
developer who is close to the line in terms of being far enough advanced in the
planning process to qualify under a transition provision. If the developer qualifies
under the transition provision, the condominiums are sold at market prices and
the savings in development charges is money in the pocket of the developer. if
the developer is delayed one month, and fails to qualify under the transitional
provision, the condominiums are sold at the same market prices and the
developer absorbs the increased charges.

[96] The alternative submission on behalf of Mayor McCallion is that WCD
had an interest in common with all other developers who might qualify under the
Transitional Provisions. l do not accept that an interest in common with other
developers in the Region qualifies as an interest in common with electors
generally.

-36-

[97] Counsel for Mayor McCallion raised at the hearing the further argument
that s. 4(b) of the MCIA, which provides a member is not in a conflict by reason
of the member being entitled to receive any benefit offered by the municipality on
terms common to other persons, was applicable. A charge or tax would certainly
not ordinarily be characterized as a “benefit”. Similarly, a transition or delay in
implementing an increased charge or tax is not, in my opinion, a “benefit”.

WAS MAYOR MCCALLION’S DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST REMOTE AND
INSIGNIFICANT?

The Law

[98] Section 4(j) of the MCIA provides an exception if the interest of the
member is so remote or insignificant that it cannot reasonably be regarded as
likely to affect the member.

[99] The parties agree that l should apply the objective test formulated by
Mackenzie J. in Whiteley v. Schnurr, [1999] O.J. No. 2575 (Gen. Div.) as follows:

10. […] Would a reasonable elector, being apprised of all the
circumstances, be more likely than not to regard the interest of the
councillor as likely to influence that councillor’s action and decision
on the question? In answering the question set out in such test,
such elector might consider whether there was any present or
prospective financial benefit or detriment, financial or othenivise that
could result depending on the manner in which the member
disposed of the subject matter before him or her.

-37-

The Evidence

[100] l now turn to the circumstances that might be considered by the
reasonable elector in determining whether Mayor McCallion’s deemed financial
interest in WCD was likely to influence her vote.

[101] l focus first on the plans and preparedness of WCD as of the Votes.
While no one from WCD testified, there is reliable evidence from Walker of Lyon
Consulting. The project could only move fon/vard by securing the necessary
planning approvals. Effectively Lyon Consulting was driving the bus and WCD
was providing directions. Walker gave direct evidence as to WCD’s instructions
which effectively dictated whether and how the project proceeded.

[102] A July 19, 2007 meeting was attended by 11 City staff and 11 WCD
representatives. Cook and Munroe, on behalf of WCD, advised that a detailed
site plan application for phase one, including the hotel and conference centre,
would likely be filed in the spring of 2008 with “hopes” of securing a building
permit by fall 2008.

[103] Walker stated that DeCicco first mentioned the proposed increase in
development charges in September-October, that being about the time of the
Votes. Minutes record that, at the start of a meeting on November 21, 2007,
attended by 13 WCD owners and consultants, a plan to try to use the Master Site

-38-

Plan application to try to qualify for the lower development charges was
announced. Walker’s evidence was that he had been informed of this intention a
number of weeks before. Given the urgency, it would only make sense that this
change in plan would be communicated to the entire WCD team as soon as
possible. As such, l find that it was only in November that WCD decided to
accelerate its efforts.

[104] As of the Votes, WCD did not plan to file a site plan application until
the spring of 2008. In that event, WCD would not meet the second requirement
of the Transitional Provisions, namely a complete building permit application, by
February 1, 2008. (As discussed, the Master Site Plan, as of the Votes, lacked
detail and so could not be the basis to apply for or receive a building permit.)

[105] Secondly, WCD lacked money. ln this regard:

(a) Couprie made it clear he would not advance funds beyond the
deposit amount.

(b) Peter lacked resources. Couprie said he had previously loaned
money to Peter, secured by Peter’s house. When Peter defaulted,
Couprie assumed ownership of the house. Peter borrowed the
entire $50,000 that WCD paid to the City as an application fee for
the Master Site Plan.

(c) Lyon, the principal of Lyon Consulting, took a “sliver” of equity
presumably in lieu of some portion of fees.

(d) Walker said that the unwillingness of WCD to pay the requisite City
fees was the main stumbling block to obtaining the necessary
approvals.

 

-39-

(e) As of April 30, 2008, Walker said it became apparent Lyon
Consulting might not get paid for its services. it started to do work
for WCD on a handshake agreement between Lyon and Cook, who
knew one another, and then failed to “paper” the financial
arrangements when Cook stepped aside.

(f) When Cook was taking the lead, his intention was to seek not only a
hotel operator but also a developer partner with deeper pockets.

Analysis and Conclusion

[106] The parties agreed that, applying the test from White/y, a reasonable
elector apprised of all the circumstances would take into account that:

(a)As of the Votes, the intention of WCD was to not apply for building
permit until the spring of 2008, which would not meet the second
requirement of the Transitional Provisions.

(b) As of the Votes, the Master Site Plan was not sufficiently detailed to
allow building permits to issue.

(c) As of the Votes, WCD did not have in place a hotel chain or a major
financial investor.

(d) WCD itself lacked the resources to pay the site plan application fee
and proceed to the building permit stage.

-40-

[107] Counsel for Mr. Hazineh, however, submitted that the reasonable
elector would also take into account that:

(a) WCD’s plan from the outset involved moving from the Master Site
Plans to a more detailed plan.

(b) The process of seeking planning approval commenced in 2006,
even before the APS, and considerable progress had been made by
WCD’s planners, architects and lawyers.

(c) The existing official plan and zoning permitted the proposed
development subject only to removal of the “H” (hold) designation.

(d) The APS had been signed.

(e) This project was supported by Mayor McCallion, Council and staff.

(f) The considerable efforts by WCD after the Votes nearly put it into
position to qualify under the Transitional Provisions.

[108] While l accept that the additional circumstances identified by counsel
for Mr. Hazineh should be considered, the primary focus must be on the situation
as of the Votes. At that time there were multiple layers of improbability. WCD
had no intention of taking the steps necessary to meet the second and third
requirements under the Transitional Provisions. No hotel operator was on board.

-41-

No major financial investor was on board. WCD lacked the funds to pay the site
plan application fee.

[109] A reasonable elector would also consider that Mayor McCallion had
demonstrated greater concern for the public’s interest than for Peter’s interest by
suggesting that the APS contain a provision requiring that the hotel be built first.
This provision caused, or contributed to causing, the project to not proceed.

[110] ln my opinion, a reasonable elector, apprised of all of the
circumstances as of the Votes, would not regard the deemed financial interest of
Mayor McCallion as likely to have influenced her vote. As of the Votes, the
chance that WCD would qualify under the Transitional Provisions was miniscule.
A reasonable elector would have concluded there was no likelihood that Mayor
McCallion’s deemed financial interest would influence her vote.

[111] Lastly, l consider the fact that Mayor McCallion also seconded and
voted on Mayor Fennel’s September 13, 2007 motion which recommended an
extension of the transition period to November 1, 2009, for areas to be identified
by each municipality. l consider this separately as the proposed 18 month
extension arguably presents a different set of circumstances for the reasonable
elector to consider. As passed, the resolution stated it was to amend

-42-

“Recommendation GC-174-2007” contained in the Minutes of the General
Committee of Council held September 6, 2007.

[112] The actual wording of the September 13, 2007 resolution is
ambiguous; it simply refers to the transition period being extended to November
1, 2009. lt would certainly not make sense to change all three milestone dates to
fall on November 1, 2009. The Regional staff presentation to Council on
September 27, 2007, is, however, crystal clear. Under the heading
“interpretation of Proposed Amendment”, staff interpreted the intention as being:

(a) to maintain the requirement to have submitted a site plan
application by September 13, 2007; but

(b) to extend the date to obtain a building permit to November 1,
2009.

[113] While Brampton staff may have had a different intention, the
considered interpretation of Regional staff is reasonable. it was based upon the
wording of the resolution and informed by experience. l find that a reasonable
elector would so interpret the resolution. On this interpretation, the resolution
required a site plan application by September 13, 2007, even earlier than the
Transitional Provisions date of October 7, 2007.

[114] As previously discussed, WCD had not filed a complete site plan
application as of October 7, 2007. if l am wrong, and if WCD can be considered

-43-

as having filed a complete site plan application on July 31, 2007, the September
13, 2007 resolution presented additional layers of improbability.

[115] The distinction between a resolution and a by-law was discussed by
Bielby J. in Tanner v. The Municipality of Brockton, 2011 ONSC 6329 (CanLll).
The Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, ch. 25, provides that a municipality must exercise
its power by by-law. A resolution is usually employed to indicate the intention of
council relating to a particular matter of a temporary nature.

[116] The reasonable elector would have to consider the likelihood of the
recommendation to extend the transition period to November 1, 2009 ever being
enacted. In this regard:

(a) The resolution was akin to a trial balloon proposed with virtually no
advance notice to council members.

(b) The sole impetus for the resolution was a Brampton-specific concern
and the wording was “regionalized” by the clerk according to routine
practice.

(c) The financial implications of the resolution had not been analyzed.

-44-

(d) Regional staff, drawing on Regional Council policy that ‘growth
should pay for growth”, were strongly opposed to implementing the
resolution.

[117] Considering all the circumstances, l conclude that the likelihood that
the September 13, 2007 recommendation would be incorporated in a by~law was
remote. Even if it was, it remained uncertain whether the City would identify an
area that included the proposed WCD development.

[118] As previously discussed, a reasonable elector would also consider
that Mayor McCallion’s suggestion that the APS require the hotel be built first put
the public interest ahead of the interest of WCD.

[119] ln my opinion, a reasonable elector would not regard the deemed
financial interest of Mayor McCallion as likely to have influenced her in seconding
Mayor Fennel’s motion and voting on September 13, 2007.

[120] As such, l conclude that Mayor McCallion did not contravene the
MCIA. l will, however, for the sake of completeness address whether the
defences of error in judgment and inadvertence would be available to her.

-45-

WAS ANY CONTRAVENTION DUE TO INADVERTENCE OR BY REASON OF
AN ERROR IN JUDGMENT?

The Law

[121] The MCIA, s. 10(2) provides that if a contravention was committed
through inadvertence, or by reason of an error in judgment, the member is not
subject to having his or her seat vacated.

[122] in Magder v. Ford, 2013 ONSC 263 (CanLll), the court stated that
inadvertence and error in judgment are “two distinct lines of inquiiy”. As to error
in judgment the court stated:

[90]. . . in order to obtain the benefit of the saving provision in s.
10(2), the councillor must prove not only that he had an honest belief
that the MCIA did not apply; he must also show that his belief was
not arbitrary, and that he has taken some reasonable steps to
inquire into his legal obligations.

[123] As to inadvertence, in Baillargeon v. Carroll, [2009] O.J. No. 502
(S.C.J.), Kelly J. stated:

The defence of inadvertence applies where the breach can be linked
to an oversight of fact or law that was not reckless or wilfully blind.
(See Benn v. Lozinski, [1982] O.J. No. 3356, 1982 CarswellOnt 772
at paras. 33-34 (Co. Ct) and Re Blake and Watts et al (1982), [1973]
O.J. No. 2225, 1973 CarswellOnt 372 at pars. 24-31 (Co. Ct.)

[124] ln Re Blake and Watts et al. [1974], 2 O.R. (2d) 43 (Co. Ct.) Killeen
J. stated:

-46-

The weight of authority, in fact practically all the authorities, are to
the effect that “inadvertently” is a wide enough term to include
ignorance of the law, carelessness, negligence, or inattention… The
dictionaries give various meanings for the word, including
inattention, carelessness or negligence, and for the purpose of this
decision l shall hold that the term “inadvertently” includes ignorance
of the law, inattention, neglect or carelessness, on the part of the
deputy returning officer.

The Evidence

[125] Mayor McCallion knew that Peter was an owner of WCD. She knew
that she had a deemed financial interest in WCD. WCD had proposed a major
development that had been in the City planning process for many months.
Mayor McCallion’s evidence, which is supported by other City witnesses and l
accept, was that she was not briefed on the details or even the status of the
WCD project. She decided that she did not want to know anything.

[126] When Mayor McCallion participated in the Votes she did not know
whether or to what extent a transitional period would benefit WCD. She
participated in the Votes based upon her interpretation of the MCIA which was
that a development charge by-law, and transitional provisions in particular,
cannot give rise to a conflict of interest.

-47-

Analysis and Conclusion

[127] As discussed, l reject the argument that the MCIA permits a member
with an actual or deemed financial interest in a development to vote on the
development charges applicable or potentially applicable to the development. In
my opinion, the belief by Mayor McCallion that she could vote is “arbitrary” within
the meaning of Magder. First, such a belief is contrary to common sense. It
does not pass the “smell” test. Secondly, Mayor McCallion testified she had
attended many municipal education sessions, and read many publications, on
the subject of conflict of interest prior to the Votes. Nothing from these sessions
or publications was cited as supporting her interpretation of the MCIA. As such,
the defence of error in judgment is not available.

[128] Further, having a deemed financial interest in WCD, Mayor
McCallion states that she made no inquiry as to the status of WCD’s application
for planning approval. In my opinion, this constitutes wilful blindness. For all she
knew, the WCD project might have been far enough along that the Transitional
Provisions could have saved WCD several million dollars on the initial phase of
the project.

[129] In my opinion, the defence of inadvertence is also not available.
Mayor McCallion’s evidence was that she deliberately participated in the Votes
based upon herjudgment that there can be no conflict in relation to a

-48-

development charge by-law. Further, as discussed, Mayor McCallion was wilfully
blind in relation to what WCD was doing which also precludes reliance on the
defence of inadvertence.

DID MR. HAZINEH COMMENCE THE APPLICATION IN TIME?

The Law

[130] Section 9 of the MCIA provides that an elector has six weeks to
commence a court application after it comes to the elector’s knowledge that a
member may have contravened the MCIA.

The Evidence

[131] Mr. Hazineh‘s affidavit indicates that in the fall of 2009, he became
interested in allegations of conflict of interest against Mayor McCallion. He
generally followed the Judicial inquiry that took place from December 14, 2009 to
February 11, 2011. The Judicial Inquiry Report was released October 3, 2011.
He read an October 11, 2011 article in the Mississauga News written by Clay
Connor, a municipal lawyer, entitled, “McCallion may not be out of the woods”.
From the article he learned that, in 2007, Mayor McCallion had voted at Regional
Council on transitional development charge provisions which had the potential to
save WCD $9 million. Mr. Hazineh commenced this Application on November
21, 2011.

-49-

[132] At an out of court cross-examination on his affidavit, Mr. Hazineh
was shown an article in the National Post dated July 17, 2010, which reported
that Parrish and six other councillors alleged that Mayor McCallion had violated
the MCIA when, in 2007, she voted at Regional Council on transitional provisions
which could save Peter $11 million on the proposed WCD development. Ms.
Parrish was quoted as saying “l’m absolutely convinced there was a conflict of
interest there . . The article went on to note that Ms. Parrish and the
councillors have a six week window, following their discovery of the conflict of
interest, to launch a legal action.

[133] Mr. Hazineh was asked a number of questions about the article over
five pages of transcript. Mr. Hazineh was then asked:

Q. Did you read this article at the time?

A. l’m sure l did. The picture looks familiar, so l probably read it.

[134] Mr. Hazineh testified in court. He was directed to the apparent
conflict between his affidavit evidence indicating that he first learned about Mayor
McCallion’s conflict of interest from the October 11, 2011 Connor article and his
evidence when cross-examined on his affidavit that he had read the July 17,
2010 National Post article at the time it was published.

-50-

[135] Mr. Hazineh explained that he had come across the National Post
article during the preparation of his court application and incorrectly assumed
that he had read it at the time. He went on to state that he did not read the
National Post on principle given its editorial stance on the Middle East. He said
that his evidence when cross-examined on his affidavit was a mistake, and that
he had not been aware of any possible conflict on the pait of Mayor McCallion at
Regional Council prior to the October 11, 2011 article. He also cited the fact that
in filing his Court Application he used the $9 million figure used in the 2011
article, and not the $11 million figure used in the 2010 article, as additional
evidence that he had not read the 2010 National Post article.

[136] Mr. Hazineh and Parrish could not be much closer. They have been
friends since 1991. He worked as a special assistant to her while she was a
federal M.P. He managed campaigns for her federally and provincially. Their
families socialized. ln July 2010, Mr. Hazineh was managing her election
campaign for municipal council.

Analysis and Conclusion

[137] Let me first consider the two matters Mr. Hazineh identified as
supporting his explanation for the discrepancy in his evidence.

-51-

[138] First, his aversion to the National Post. When Mr. Hazineh was
cross-examined on his affidavit, the July 17, 2010, article was reviewed at length
before he was asked if he had read it at the time. He knew it was from the
National Post. If Mr. Hazineh in fact had a principled objection, and so never
read the National Post, he would have said so. l conclude the National Post
aversion was an after the fact rationalization to explain the discrepancy in his
evidence. Further, while a person might refuse to purchase a particular paper
on principle, it does not make sense that Mr. Hazineh would refuse to even read
an article featuring a picture of his close friend and political ally.

[139] Secondly, his use of the $9 million figure in his Application. l accept
that Mr. Hazineh read the October 11, 2011 article, and it was utilized as the
triggering event beginning the six week period. it follows that he would use the
$9 million figure from that article. Mr. Hazineh would not want to use the $11
million figure from a July 2010, article as it would tend to prove he was out of
time to bring the application.

[140] The two reasons suggested to prefer Mr. Hazineh’s corrected
evidence in court, over his evidence when he was cross-examined on his
affidavit, carry no weight for the reasons discussed. I find it more probable that
Mr. Hazineh’s evidence when cross-examined on his affidavit was true than his
evidence in court. By the time he testified in court, he appreciated that his earlier

-52-

evidence might doom his application to failure. As such, l find as a fact that Mr.
Hazineh read the National Post article in July 2010.

[141] The National Post article contained essentially the same information
as the Connor article. As such, the fact that Mayor McCallion may have
contravened the MCIA came to Mr. Hazineh’s knowledge in July 2010. He
commenced this application long after the six week period prescribed by s. 9 of
the MCIA. Mr. Hazineh’s application must, therefore, also be dismissed on this
ground.

SHOULD THERE BE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST MAYOR
MCCALLION?

[142] For the sake of completeness, l will explain why in assessing the
evidence l have not drawn an adverse inference against Mayor McCallion on the
basis that she did not call evidence from Peter, Cook and DeCicco. Whether to
draw an adverse inference must be assessed in light of the issues to be decided.

[143] Peter could have provided evidence regarding his interest in WCD
and whether Mayor McCallion had knowledge of it. For the reasons provided, I
have concluded that Peter was an owner of WCD, and that Mayor McCallion
knew that, without the necessity of resorting to an adverse inference.

-53-

[144] Cook and DeCicco’s evidence would have been most relevant to
WCD’s plans and preparedness as of the Votes. Walker was managing the
project for WCD. Walker was relatively independent and provided detailed
evidence in that regard. At its highest, Mayor McCallion had a friendly relation
with Cook and DeCicco. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to draw an
adverse inference due to her failure to call these witnesses.

CONCLUSION

[145] The application is dismissed. I would like to thank all counsel for
their thorough and helpful submissions.

[146] If costs cannot be agreed upon Mayor McCallion shall make written
cost submissions within 14 days. Mr. Hazlneh shall respond within 14 days. Any
reply by Mayor McCallion shall be filed within a further seven days.

__________________________Sproat J

Released: June 14, 2013

CITATION: HAZINEH v. MCCALLION, 2013 ONSC 2164
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-1130-O0
DATE: 2013-06-14
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
RE: ELIAS HAZINEH
Applicant
V.
HAZEL McCALLlON
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Released: June 14, 2013
Sproat J.

Hazel McCallion Conflict-of-interest case dismissed. Her City Hall press conference Jun 14 2013 (24:56 min)


ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Justice Sproat’s Decision


MISSISSAUGAWATCH court notes

 

Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest Press Conference. The Press: Rick Drennan, San Grewal, Louise Rosella

Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest Press Conference. The Press: Rick Drennan, San Grewal, Louise Rosella

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

ELIAS HAZINEH v. HAZEL McCALLION SUMMARY OF A DECISION OF MR. JUSTICE JOHN R. SPROAT (released June 14, 2013)

June 17th, 2013  

What follows is video of Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion’s June 14, 2013 Conflict of Interest press conference and then Justice John Sproat’s “Hazineh vs McCallion” decision.

Hazel McCallion Conflict-of-interest case dismissed. Her City Hall press conference Jun 14 2013 (24:56 min)

 

The Decision released June 14, 2013

 Justice John R. Sproat’s “Hazineh vs McCallion” decision scanned from the Hazineh v McCallion – Summary of Decision_June 14, 2013 (PDF) file. We’ve done our best to ensure that our scan matches Justice Sproat’s original text. Any errors are ours and we’d appreciate being advised as well.

ELIAS HAZINEH v. HAZEL McCALLION

SUMMARY OF A DECISION OF MR. JUSTICE JOHN R. SPROAT

(released June 14, 2013)

INTRODUCTION

[1] This is an application brought by Elias Hazineh (“Mr. Hazineh”) seeking to
have Hazel McCallion (“Mayor McCallion”), the Mayor of the City of Mississauga
(“the City”), removed from office for violating the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act
(“the MCIA”).

[2] in brief, Mr. Hazineh alleges that:

(a) Mayor McCallion’s son Peter McCallion (“Peter”) incorporated and
was an owner of World Class Developments Inc. (“WCD”). WCD
agreed to purchase land for the purpose of constructing a hotel,
conference centre and condominium towers. (The completion of this
transaction was subject to WCD attracting a four star hotel and
obtaining all required planning approvals.)

(b) Mayor McCallion knew Peter had a financial interest in WCD. As
such, the MCIA deems her to have the same financial interest as
Peter for conflict purposes.

(c) Mayor McCallion cast a number of votes at Peel Regional Council
(“Regional Council”) in September-October, 2007 (“the Votes”),
related to increased development charges. As enacted, the by-law
contained provisions (“the Transitional Provisions”) by which
developers who filed a complete site plan application by October 7,

-2-

2007; a complete building permit application by February 1, 2008;
and who obtained a building permit by May 1, 2008, continued to be
eligible to pay the lower rate.

(d) WCD was eligible to qualify under the Transitional Provisions. As
such WCD and Mayor McCallion had a financial interest in the
Votes.

(e) It was not until reading an October 11, 2011 article by municipal
lawyer Clay Connor that Mr. Hazineh learned of Mayor McCallion’s
conflict of interest at Regional Council. As required by the MCIA, he
then commenced a court application within six weeks of learning of
the conflict.

[3]   The issues are as follows:

(a) What was Peter’s interest in WCD? What did Mayor McCallion know
about Peter’s interest in WCD?

(b) Had WCD filed a complete site plan application prior to October 7,
2007, such that it was eligible to qualify under the Transitional
Provisions?

-3-

(c) If WCD was eligible, and so had a financial interest in the
Transitional Provisions, do any of the following MCIA exemptions
apply?:

(i) Was Mayor McCallion’s deemed financial interest an interest
in common with electors generally? or

(ii) Was Mayor McCallion’s deemed financial interest remote and
insignificant such that it cannot reasonably be regarded as
likely to have influenced her?

(d) If Mayor McCallion contravened the MCIA, was the contravention
committed through inadvertence or an error in judgment such that
she should not be removed from office?


DID MAYOR MCCALLION HAVE A DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST IN

WCD?

[4] Section 3 of the MCIA provides that if the child of a member has a financial
interest, known to the member, the member is deemed to have the same
financial interest as the child.

-4-

[5] The evidence is overwhelming that Peter was an owner of WCD. For
example, he caused WCD to be incorporated, arranged for a $750,000 loan to
pay a deposit and decided who would be the shareholders and officers.

[6] Mayor McCallion’s evidence was that, at the time of the Votes, she
 understood that Peter’s only interest in WCD was as a real estate agent.

[7] Having regard to the following:

(a) that Mayor McCallion had a close relationship with Peter and a long-
standing interest in the development of a hotel and conference
centre;

(b) that in January 2007 she witnessed documents signed by Peter and
Couprie which indicated clearly that Peter was an owner of WCD;
and

(c) that, within one month after the Votes, she was engaged in the
internal affairs of WCD to the extent that documents to do with the
shareholdings of Cook and DeCicco in WCD were faxed to her home
and DeCicco solicited her advice and assistance to resolve issues
he had with Cook.

 

-5-

 

I find as a fact that, as of the Votes, Mayor McCallion was aware that Peter was
an owner of WCD. Section 3 of the MCIA, therefore, deems Mayor McCallion to
have the same financial interest as Peter.

COULD WCD QUALIFY UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS?

[8] To qualify under the Transitional Provisions “an application for site plan
approval that is complete” had to have been filed by October 7, 2007.

[9] WCD had only filed a Master Site Plan which is conceptual in nature and
identifies the location of buildings, access points and the general attributes of the
site.

[10] A City by-law required that a site plan application shall not be processed
until the application fee was paid. In the case of WCD the application fee for the
entire project was initially estimated to be $500,000. WCD paid only 10 per cent
of this amount on the filing of the Master Site Plan.

[11] The Master Site Plan application left blank parts of the form intended to
 list the “general requirements” of the plan and the “building elevations”.

[12] I, therefore, conclude that the Master Site Plan application was not a “site
plan application that is complete” within the meaning of the Transitional
Provisions. WCD could not, therefore, qualify under the Transitional Provisions.


-6-

 

As such, WCD had no financial interest in the development charges by-law
adopted by the Region. On that basis alone Mr. Hazineh’s application must be
dismissed.

WAS MAYOR MCCALLION’S DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST AN INTEREST
IN COMMON WITH ELECTORS GENERALLY?

[13] Section 4(j) of the MCIA provides an exception to the conflict of interest
prohibition if the financial interest of the member is one “which is an interest in
common with electors generally”.

[14] WCD stood to save several million dollars in development charges if even
phase one of its proposed development qualified under the Transitional
Provisions.

[15] Under s. 4(j) of the MCIA, it is necessary to first identify the financial
 interest of the member. In this case, the deemed financial interest of Mayor
McCallion was that of an owner of WCD. Depending on the wording of the
transitional by-law WCD could save a substantial amount of money. The proper
question then is whether this financial interest, namely money riding on the
wording of the transitional by-law, is an interest “in common with electors
generally”. To ask the question is to answer it. it is obviously not an interest in


-7-

common. Peter and WCD had a financial interest, and Mayor McCallion had a
deemed financial interest, quite different from electors generally.

WAS MAYOR MCCALLlON’S DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST REMOTE AND
INSIGNIFICANT?

[16] Section 4(j) of the MCIA provides an exception if the interest of the
member is so remote or insignificant that it cannot reasonably be regarded as
likely to affect the member.

[17] The parties agree that l should apply the objective test formulated by
Mackenzie J. in Whiteley v. Schnurr, [1999] O.J. No. 2575(Gen. Div.) as follows:

10. […] Would a reasonable elector, being apprised of all the
circumstances, be more likely than not to regard the interest of the
councillor as likely to influence that councillor’s action and decision
on the question? ln answering the question set out in such test,
such elector might consider whether there was any present or
prospective financial benefit or detriment, financial or othen/vise that
could result depending on the manner in which the member
disposed of the subject matter before him or her.

[18] The reasonable elector would focus on the plans and preparedness of
WCD as of the Votes, and its financial ability at that time to implement its plans.

-8-

[19] The parties agreed that, applying the test from Whitely, a reasonable
elector apprised of all the circumstances would take into account that as of the
Votes:

(a) the intention of WCD was to not apply for a building permit until the
spring of 2008, which would not meet the second requirement of the
Transitional Provisions.

(b) the Master Site Plan was not sufficiently detailed to allow building
permits to issue.

(c) WCD did not have in place a hotel chain or a major financial
investor.

(d) WCD itself lacked the resources to pay the site plan application fee
and proceed to the building permit stage.

[20] A reasonable elector would also consider that Mayor McCallion had
demonstrated greater concern for the public interest than Peter‘s interest by
suggesting to OMERS, the owner of the land, that the agreement of purchase
and sale require that the hotel be built first. This provision caused, or contributed
to causing, the project to not proceed.

-9-

[21] in my opinion, a reasonable elector, apprised of all of the circumstances
as of the Votes, would not regard the deemed financial interest of Mayor
McCallion as likely to have influenced her vote. As of the Votes, the chance that
WCD would qualify under the Transitional Provisions was miniscule. A
reasonable elector would have concluded there was no likelihood that Mayor
McCallion’s deemed financial interest would influence her vote.

WAS ANY CONTRAVENTION DUE TO INADVERTENCE OR BY REASON OF
AN ERROR IN JUDGMENT?

[22] The MCIA, s. 10(2) provides that if a contravention was committed
through inadvertence or by reason of an error in judgment the member is not
subject to having his or her seat vacated.

[23] If, contrary to my conclusion, Mayor McCallion contravened the MCIA,
her participation in the Votes cannot be characterized as an error in judgement or
inadvertence.

[24] Mayor McCallion participated in the Votes intentionally having formed the
opinion that a vote on development charges cannot give rise to a conflict of
interest. Mayor McCallion went so far as to testify that she would not have
declared a conflict of interest even if she understood that WCD could save $11
million as a result of the Transitional Provisions. This understanding of her legal

-10-

obligations is contrary to common sense. Mayor McCallion was not able to refer
to any municipal law educational seminar or publication prior to the Votes that
supported this interpretation.

[25] Further, Mayor McCallion was wilfully blind to the status of the WCD
development. For all she knew the Transitional Provisions could have saved
WCD millions of dollars on the initial phase of the project. Wilful blindness
precludes reliance upon the defence of error in judgment or inadvertence.

DID MR. HAZINEH COMMENCE THE APPLICATION IN TIME?

[26] Section 9 of the MCIA provides that an elector has six weeks to
commence a court application after it comes to the elector’s knowledge that a
member may have contravened the MCIA.

[27] Mr. Hazineh stated in his affidavit filed in support of his application that he
first learned of Mayor McCallion’s 2007 conflict of interest, related to a
development charge by-law at Regional Council, from an October 11, 2011
article. When cross-examined out of court, however, he stated that he had
probably read a July 17, 2010 article in the National Post which reported the
same allegations.

-11-

[28] Mr. Hazineh testified in court and was directed to this discrepancy. He
testified that on reflection he was in error in stating he had read the National Post
article in 2010. He explained that he did not read the National Post on principle
because of its editorial stance on the Middle East.

[29] lf it was true that Mr. Hazineh never read the National Post it is only
logical he would have stated that when first asked about the National Post article
at his cross-examination. l conclude Mr. Hazineh’s evidence that he never read
the National Post on principle was an after the fact rationalization to explain the
discrepancy in his evidence. l find it more probable that Mr. Hazineh’s evidence
when cross-examined on his affidavit was true than his evidence in court. By the
time he testified in court, he appreciated that his earlier evidence might doom his
application to failure. As such, I find as a fact that Mr. Hazineh read the National
Post article in July 2010.

[30] The National Post article contained essentially the same information as
the October 11, 2011 article. As such, the fact that Mayor McCallion may have
contravened the MCIA came to Mr. Hazineh’s knowledge in July 2010. He
commenced this application long after the six week period prescribed by s. 9 of
the MCIA. Mr. Hazineh’s application must, therefore, also be dismissed on this
ground.

-12-

CONCLUSION

[31] The application is, therefore dismissed.

Hazel McCallion's Councillors, Pat Mullin, Ron Starr, Katie Mahoney and Jim Tovey react to the Mayor's lawyer declaring, "Mayor McCallion won this case and she won it big time."Hazel McCallion’s Councillors, Pat Mullin, Ron Starr, Katie Mahoney and Jim Tovey react to the Mayor’s lawyer
declaring, “Mayor McCallion won this case and she won it big time.”

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Justice Sproat’s Decision


MISSISSAUGAWATCH court notes

Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest Press Conference. The Press: Rick Drennan, San Grewal, Louise Rosella

Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest Press Conference. The Press: Rick Drennan, San Grewal, Louise Rosella

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest press conference –and “Hazineh vs McCallion” Summary of Decision pdf files

June 16th, 2013  

What follows is video of Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion’s June 14, 2013 Conflict of Interest press conference. And then Justice John Sproat’s “Hazineh vs McCallion” decision.

Hazel McCallion Conflict-of-interest case dismissed. Her City Hall press conference Jun 14 2013 (24:56 min)


ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Justice Sproat’s Decision


MISSISSAUGAWATCH court notes

 

Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest Press Conference. The Press: Rick Drennan, San Grewal, Louise Rosella

Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest Press Conference. The Press: Rick Drennan, San Grewal, Louise Rosella

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Let’s play WHERE’S PROL? Can you find someone photographed with David Suzuki who perhaps is a printer?

June 11th, 2013  

In our June 1, 2013 blog, we introduced Mississauga News online commenter “Prol” who also used the alias “AV8R” until he accidentally outed himself.

Why is Prol of interest? For lots of reasons but mostly because Prol co-designed and printed the “Friends of Hazel” rally poster —The very poster that Carolyn Parrish ripped up in a restaurant back in December 2009.

For the record, here is Prol’s complete comment as posted on December 28, 2010

Prol

Dec 28, 2010 10:21 PM——-

TO REALLY SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!

It is NOT a myth. YOU DID IT! It is YOUR actions that made it a “legend”. It was NOT a “postcard” it was a poster. I would know as I co-designed it and printed it. What does it matter whether the poster had the Mayor’s picture on it? (That’s MAYOR with a capitol M btw) There may be some minor embellished elements to the story floating about. So what? The truth is still that you continually expose your classless side and try to mitigate it by redirecting attention and blame it on others. The voters of Ward 6 had enough of it and you lost. Now step aside. It’s time to move on!

Agree 5     Disagree 3                           Report Abuse 3

Here are just a few hints that Prol shared about his true identity in his Mississauga News online comments.

1. He co-designed and printed the Friends of Hazel Rally poster –the very poster that Ron  Starr “gifts” Hazel McCallion at the official opening of his campaign headquarters.

2. Prol implies that he’s attended at least one Mississauga Summit.

3. Best of all he announced that there are photographs with him and David Suzuki. Prol wrote, “There are pictures of me at an event celebrating with David Suzuki.”

As we all know, the word “pictures” implies more than one photo.


So for fun, let’s play WHERE’S PROL?

Can you find someone photographed with David Suzuki (below) who perhaps is a printer?….

Can YOU find Mississauga News commenter Prol in these photos of David Suzuki at Mississauga Summit 2009?

To examine these David Suzuki photographs more closely, see page 5 at:   www.flickr.com/photos/unitedwaypeel/sets/72157618922827112/page5  Enjoy!

Next. In yet another comment Prol also announced that he’s “a private pilot” —and something of an aviation buff….

More to follow…

 

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Mississauga News online comments, "I worked for Bonnie (Crombie), but not on the front lines."  -- Prol. "The LAST thing a politician can do is tell the straight up truth." -- Prol

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Mayor Hazel McCallion’s Mississauga News online commenter, Mantis. “[My father] was a Toronto police officer”…

June 3rd, 2013  

Last blog, we announced that the Mississauga News changed its website design on May 24, 2013 and deleted all readers comments. In that entry, we introduced Mississauga News online commenter “Prol” who also used the alias “AV8R” until he accidentally outed himself.

I will state again for the record that I have not posted comments at the Mississauga News since Summer 2011. The few exceptions were those times when one of the commenters would claim that I was “ForTheTruth” or some new alias to the site.

We-here can never quite decide who is Mayor Hazel McCallion’s #1 online supporter —Prol or Mantis.

But it’s Mantis who defies the laws of Probability. Here’s why.

Believe it or not, two males exist, both the same age, both growing up in Mississauga, both having a father who was a Toronto Police officer patrolling the streets for looters during the 1979 Mississauga Train Derailment. That’s actually not the tough part to believe —that both hide behind the alias “Mantis” is.

Mantis at the Mississauga News:

Mantis

May 4, 2013 10:05 PM

@katt62

It was a great example. My father was on the scene that night too and his assessment is very different from that of RocketRoger. He was a Toronto police officer – living in Mississauga – who was one of hundreds seconded to Peel Regional Police during the emergency. He was one of those patrolling the deserted streets keeping looters out and he talks about encountering pockets of chlorine gas miles away from the derailment site – clinging to ditches and other low lying areas. There was at least one chlorine tanker that was ruptured and leaked a sizeable cloud of chlorine gas into the air. That gas posed a very serious risk to people and the only sensible decision was the one that was made – the evacuate anyone who could possibly be in the way of that cloud.

Agree       Disagree        Report Abuse

And Mantis at zombiehunters.org

Re: Pulling the Trigger: have you ever bugged out?

Postby mantis » Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:17 pm

I did as a child – just over 33 years ago in an event that became known as “The Mississauga Miracle” or the “Mississauga Train Derailment”….

…At the time, my father was a police officer with the Toronto Police Service and he was sent to Mississauga to aid in patrolling for looters (there were none amazingly) and assisting with evacuations. I remember my mother waking us kids up in the middle of the night and getting us dressed and having us throw somes clothes and toys into suitcases. We were a good 20 miles from ground zero but the sky was bright red and there were police vehicles going up and down the streets with bull horns telling people to evacuate the area immediately. We headed north to my grandparents house in Erin, Ontario and spend the next three days watching the disaster unfold on TV. For an 8 year old, it was pretty scary but it was fun having three or four days off school!

The Mississauga News Mantis and the Zombiehunters Mantis --a comparative

That’s not all.  Both these Mantises also made the front page of the 1979 Mississauga News posing with their brother, a string of fish —and Mayor Hazel McCallion!

Here’s Mantis at the Mississauga News with his fish tale.

Mantis

Feb 13, 2011 9:08 PM

Happy Birthday Mayor McCallion!

That was quite the event today and I’m glad to it did such a thorough job of exposing the lies and delusions of that band of idiots around here, one of whom just the other day claimed that there was a massive groundswell against the mayor! I shook hands with the mayor again today and I gave her a copy of an old Mississauga News picture from 1979. It was a franed front page newspaper clipping that showed my younger brother and I posing with the mayor holding a whole stringer of fish caught during the Lake Acquataine fishing derby. My mother had saved the photo and I scanned it, printed it and framed it for her. She was quite pleased with it.

Agree        Disagree 6     Report Abuse 3

And then there’s the same two Mantises who both had an altercation with a driver flashing a fake police badge at a Mississauga Tim Hortons!…

And of course there’s more….

Here’s an example of an email that Mike “Mantis” Webster sent me back on Tuesday, September 23, 2008.

Author : Mike Webster (IP: 99.229.10.189 , CPE0080c80bc00d-CM0019474d4a10.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com)
E-mail : webstermr@rogers.com
URL    :
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=99.229.10.189
Comment:

You can’t even come up with a cogent reply to my comment – more disjointed rambling nonsense on par with the really hilarious wacky stuff on the Torstar site!

See Mantis’ reference to the Toronto Star?

Mike Mantis Webster also uses the alias “Mantis” at the Toronto Star as well.

And both the Mantises who comment at the Mississauga News and the Toronto Star are 15th generation Canadian! Imagine the odds!

Mike "Mantis" Webster (Toronto Star) "15th generation Canadian" and Mantis Mississauga News 15 generations

Follow the link and you will see Mantis comment on a Mother’s Day letter he wrote as Mike Webster:  www.thestar.com/life/parent/2013/05/09/mothers_day_messages_of_love_for_mom.html

Prol and Mantis are Mayor Hazel McCallion’s most ardent supporters —even as they hide behind their aliases. Both also regard themselves as shining examples of the kind of exemplary citizens that the Mississauga Mayor attracts to her fold.

And once again, here’s Prol (aka AV8R)…

Cheers,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

"It was NOT a 'postcard' it was a poster. I would know as I co-designed it and printed it." -- Prol, Mississauga News online commenter

 

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Mississauga News online comment, “TO REALLY SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!” ….”I would know as I co-designed it and printed it.”

June 1st, 2013  

The Mississauga News changed its website design on May 24, 2013 and deleted all readers comments. For the record, I have not posted comments at the Mississauga News since Summer 2011. The few exceptions were those times when one of the commenters would claim that I was “ForTheTruth” or some new alias to the site.

So how could I go from being a prolific commenter at the Mississauga News to not commenting at all? It was surprisingly easy.

Today we introduce Mississauga News online commenter “Prol” who also used the alias “AV8R” until he accidentally outed himself.

Why is Prol of interest? For lots of reasons but mostly because Prol co-designed and printed the “Friends of Hazel” rally poster —The very poster that Carolyn Parrish ripped up in a restaurant back in December 2009.

For the record, here is Prol’s complete comment as posted on December 28, 2010


Prol

Dec 28, 2010 10:21 PM——-

TO REALLY SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!

It is NOT a myth. YOU DID IT! It is YOUR actions that made it a “legend”. It was NOT a “postcard” it was a poster. I would know as I co-designed it and printed it. What does it matter whether the poster had the Mayor’s picture on it? (That’s MAYOR with a capitol M btw) There may be some minor embellished elements to the story floating about. So what? The truth is still that you continually expose your classless side and try to mitigate it by redirecting attention and blame it on others. The voters of Ward 6 had enough of it and you lost. Now step aside. It’s time to move on!

Agree 5     Disagree 3                           Report Abuse 3

The following image includes photographs of Ron Starr giving Mayor Hazel McCallion an “unrippable” copy of the “Friends of Hazel” Rally poster during his campaign headquarters Open House.

A beaming Lorry Smith applauds as Starr presents this gag gift to the Mayor. Then Smith poses with both Starr and McCallion —and the “unrippable” Rally poster.

A quick Google search easily confirms that Lorry R Smith is President of Proactive Print Management and Councillor Ron Starr’s election financial statement confirms that Lorry Smith’s Proactive Print printed $1,370.00 worth of election signs for Starr in the 2010 municipal election.

Imagine. Both Prol and Lorry Smith are printers…. whodathunkit…

"It was NOT a 'postcard' it was a poster. I would know as I co-designed it and printed it." -- Prol, Mississauga News online commenter

Is the Lorry Smith who left this “the dark one” message at stopcarolynparrish.com the same Lorry Smith of Proactive Print Management, Ron Starr’s election sign printer?

Is the Lorry Smith who left a comment at stopcarolynparrish.com Ron Starr's Lorry Smith (Starrs' election sign printer?)

Cheers,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Marijuana March was quite the Toronto Police Community Fun Day as Potheads Toke the Higher Ground

May 13th, 2013  

Every May since 2006 I’ve been going to Peel Police Community Fun Day at the Emil Kolb Centre. So this year I tried something (almost) completely different. Instead of going to Saturday’s Peel Police Community Fun Day, I went downtown and took in Toronto’s 15th Annual Global Marijuana March!

And in a way the May 11, 2013 Global Marijuana March was quite the Toronto Police Community Fun Day!

Marijuana March Toronto. Police officer shares laugh with march organizer, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. Police officer shares laugh with march organizer, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. Police officer discussing plans with march organizer, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. Police officer discussing plans with march organizer, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. Police officers share laughs, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. Police officers share laughs, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. Police officers at Queen's Park before the march, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. Police officers at Queen’s Park before the march, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. Man poses with two marijuana plants as Toronto Police look on... May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. Man poses with two marijuana plants as Toronto Police look on… May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto, PEACEful demonstration, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto, PEACEful demonstration, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. 60's hippies and Toronto Police, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. 60’s hippies and Toronto Police, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. Guy Fawkes mask and Toronto Police, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. (Ghost of G20) Guy Fawkes mask and Toronto Police, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. After the crowds, Toronto Police, horses and bikes, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto. After the crowds, Toronto Police, horses and bikes, May 11, 2013

And of course, after one of these events, there’s always a video…

MARIJUANA MARCH TORONTO 2013 –Potheads Toke the Higher Ground…

And yes, there really was a Naked News reporter!

Last. Thank you Toronto and march organizers! And especially Toronto Police Services!

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Marijuana March Toronto, Hemp Entrepreneurs, May 11, 2013

Marijuana March Toronto, Hemp Entrepreneurs, May 11, 2013

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Hazel McCallion confirms Liberals “clearly indicated” Lakeview Plant not needed as early as February 2008.

May 9th, 2013  

Comes a time when the best blogs just let the politicians do all the talking.

Hazel McCallion confirms Liberals “clearly indicated” Lakeview Plant not needed as early as Feb 2008.!

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council meeting, February 27, 2008

I would hope that maybe the discussion this morning will be shortened in view of the memo that I have sent to members of Council that the Province has clearly indicated that the Lakeview site is not required for electricity generation.

And I had a letter from the Minister last night, I received at 10:30. I—

[Applause]

It’s something that I’ve been pressuring the Province to make a decision to the point that I told Enersource Board yesterday, that I think he was avoiding me every time I saw him.

He [sic] said when are you going to make up your mind as to whether Lakeview is required or not?

Anyway, I want to compliment Charles De [sic] Sousa —the MPP that [sic] has worked with me on this in getting an answer from the Minister.

[Bigger Applause]

Therefore, I would hope that the presentation —I would welcome the presentation of the Lakeview citizens, that have done an outstanding job, in looking at their area. Very impressed. Very—

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

LAKEVIEW POWER PLANT, "...in view of the memo that I have sent to members of Council that the Province has clearly indicated that the Lakeview site is not required for electricity generation." Mayor Hazel McCallion, February 27, 2008

I would hope that maybe the discussion this morning will be shortened in view of the memo that I have sent to
members of Council that the Province has clearly indicated that the Lakeview site is not required for electricity
generation.

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Metrolinx: The Big Move. Mississauga on Transit Polls and Taxes, “Well, surprise, surprise…”

May 8th, 2013  

Comes a time when the best blogs just let the politicians do all the talking.

Mississauga Councillor Nando Iannicca on the fallacy of transit polls. May 2, 2007 General Committee video

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

Councillor Nando Iannicca, Mississauga General Committee, May 2, 2007

Coming back to your issue, one of the propositions was, “Should we spend more on public transit?”

Well, surprise, surprise. 99 percent cohort response. Who would say no? So it came back with 99 percent.

The legislators sat down. They said “The public spoke. We’ve got to do this.”

One of the smarter legislators said, “That’s easy. It’s a motherhood. Who’s gonna say no? Nobody knows what it costs. So we gotta go back and run the models, go back and tell the public what it costs.”

So they did that.

Came back and said, “Here’s what it’s going to cost. On your home, it’s a 20-billion dollar project for the city. On your home, it’s an extra $5,000.

They went and did surveys and the public said, “Hurry up and do it! Well then, the public’s chosen now what they want. They know what it costs. Let’s hurry up and implement it.”

The smartest legislator of all says, “I’m still not buying it.”

“Well, what do you mean? We had the referendum. They said, do it. We told them what it costs —they said hurry up and do it. It must be time to do it.”

“No, you still haven’t asked the right question. Follow me!”

Went into his constituency, went up to a door and knocked on the door and said, “Mr. Stevens.”

“Yuh.”

“I know you’ve said you want transit.”

“Absolutely!”

“You know on your house it’s $10,000 more a year.”

“I’ll give you the cheque right now! Hurry up and go do it!”

“But I have just one last question.”

“What’s that?”

“Well, I see you’ve got four cars in the driveway. Are you going to get rid of a couple of them and take transit?”

Of course not!

“So why are you supporting it?”

“Cuz I want everyone else to do it so I can zip along.”

And we all do that to a degree…

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

MISSISSAUGA TRANSIT SNOW DAY WESTWOOD MALL (January 28, 2009)

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Hazel McCallion, October 22, 2008 “A big development in the City Core, I know —and I’m not going to mention the name, is having trouble getting financing”

May 1st, 2013  

I have video of Mississauga Council going back to October 2006.

And just the other day I was flitting through them just to see if I could find Mayor Hazel McCallion making any references to her son’s World Class Development hotel/convention centre project.

As someone who followed the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry and the Hazineh vs McCallion Region of Peel conflict of interest case, finding this brief clip is like discovering a historical jewel.

It’s Mayor McCallion referring to “a big development in the City Core” during the October 22, 2008 Council meeting.

Was Hazel McCallion talking about son Peter’s hotel “big development” in October 22, 2008?

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council, October 22, 2008

I mean, the Province is —got some real challenges. We all have challenges. So I think we have to really button down the hatches —as the old saying goes, in regard to the future.

A big development in the City Core, I know —and I’m not going to mention the name, is having trouble getting financing, and could defer it. So —and it’s going to happen in many areas —so, I just hope Metrolinx is not affected and the Fiscal Review Committee is not affected. [Emphasis mine]

If not, then we’re going to have to wait for some time before money starts pouring.

So we are in serious problems [sic].

But, we shall overcome! You know. Everything. We always do and we always will.

So we’ll move now into in-camera.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

This got me curious, so I checked the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry archives to see what else might have been happening around October 22, 2008, and this email popped up:

WCD Request to Drop Hotel Conditions

From: John Filipetti </o=oxfordproperties/ou=toronto/cn=recipients/cn=j_filipetti>
Sent: Fri Oct 24 2008 14:31:33 EDT
To: Grant Charles </o=oxfordproperties/ou=toronto/cn=recipients/cn=gd_charles>;
Craig Coleman </o=oxfordproperties/ou=toronto/cn=recipients/cn=c_coleman>

CC: Michael Mayville </o=oxfordproperties/ou=toronto/cn=recipients/cn=m_mayville>

Subject: WCD Request to Drop Hotel Conditions
Attachments: Document.pdf
Importance: Normal
Priority: Normal
Sensitivity: None

This was delivered during our meeting with Peter McCallion yesterday. Verbally Peter
suggested WCD might agree to increasing the selling price by $2.5 million (ie the LC Amount)if
the hotel conditions were dropped.

The retail conditions would remain in place although they are looking for some ‘flexibility’ on
the restaurant.

Peter has advised us that he has spoken to the ‘Key people’ at the City who are apparently OK
with these restrictions being removed. We will do our own checking on this if this is our
agreed direction. [Emphasis mine]

130 Adelaide Street West
Ste 1100
Toronto Ontario M5H 3P5

T: (416) 865-5359
F: (416) 865-8307

So… Who were the “‘Key people’ at the City who are apparently OK with these hotel restrictions being removed”?

Mayor Hazel McCallion&#39;s October 22, 2008 reference to "a big development in the City Core" historical record.

 

 

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

« Previous Entries