Graffiti, StreetArt, Public Spaces/Private Spaces —“We’re starting to learn from the European example.”
April 29th, 2013
On Tuesday April 16, 2013 I attended a town hall meeting at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Topic: War on graffiti. Making more public spaces available to art.
Those present tackled such questions as:
Does an owner have the right to put-up their idea of art on their property?
Do we need to give more public spaces for people to express themselves through art?
“Is street art criminal?
The speaker who impressed me most that evening was John Kiru, Executive Director, Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas.
I believe his comments relating to Graffiti/StreetArt and Business are so important that I’ve transcribed them here for the record.
John Kiru (Toronto Association of B.I.A.s) on Graffiti as Art –Public (and Private) Spaces
[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]
John Kiru, Executive Director, Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas, on Graffiti and Street Art, Ontario Gallery of Art, April 16, 2013
You know when we talk about public spaces, there seems to be a disconnect. Yet we talk about engaging the business people. The minute you engage the business people, it’s actually private spaces that we’re talking about. Literally.
The fact is with the BIAs across this city —74 of them, every year, and we have for years, allowed and opened up these private spaces to become canvasses for murals.
We’ve engaged hundreds, if not thousands of walls across this city, where we encourage local artists to come out and work with us. To either depict the community, the neighbourhood, the history. So we continue to support this.
I can tell you that the BIAs spends thousands and thousands of dollars seeking out artists to continue to develop this program.
BIAs have hung their brands on it. The Village of Islington —The Village of Murals. Church-Wellesley has just launched 12 new murals that they’re going to be putting out there.
So there continues to be the opportunity —and it is not just public spaces, there’s plenty of private spaces, if you will. Space that is sort of entrusted to Business Improvement Areas where they are turning that space into canvasses.
John Kiru, in response to “How do we open up private spaces for Art”?, Ontario Gallery of Art, April 16, 2013
….I’d probably like to run with the TTC idea, a little bit. And I think that we all agree that getting off at any number of the stations through the system, through the subway system, is blah at best.
I think there are some opportunities. I can think of the fashion district in New York when you get out and you have hats animating the floor.
I think there’d be an opportunity for —many BIAs would love the opportunity to help —create an atmosphere that is reflective of what’s above ground. So as you pull into that station, you would know that you’re coming in to the Spadina District and it has that as a reflection.
So I think there’s some opportunities. There’s some canvasses that are out there [inaudible] that are significantly better [inaudible].
That is an area that certainly worked very hard in terms of “Let’s not turn them into the Coca Cola station and the Pepsi Station” and some of the stuff that’s been going on.
Let’s turn them into something that will give us a preamble into what’s above the ground.
John Kiru, in response to “What’s legal? Who determines what is acceptable”?, Ontario Gallery of Art, April 16, 2013
You know I really think that the last couple of years we’ve moved light-years ahead of where we were. There’s no question. The program has worked. The program has set a foundation that we all understand.
Ultimately from our members’ perspective obviously is, it still requires permission. You wanna use my wall, let me know what you’re doing, we’ll work [inaudible] whether it’s BIA that’s negotiating that or the private property owner.
We no longer need the toilet seat approach to it. It’s up. It’s down. It’s up. It’s down.
If we reach a consensus, we move forward. Quite frankly, you know, and again, the term was used up here. “One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor. What is Art?” And maybe there are [inaudible] at City Hall that can figure that out somewhere along the line.
But the bottom line is, we’ve moved forward. There are some great opportunities that we’re getting here. And we’ll continue to work with the people out there that are doing this stuff.
You know, what we don’t need is, this graffiti on our windows. That is moved beyond that. That is the distinction. And I think that is the area that continues to trouble us. When you come out there and have your windows scratched out, it just means dollars that are going to have to be spent —to do that. So, there is that distinct difference.
We’ve made massive progress —massive progress. Business people, BIAs that would never want to see that stuff out there, or engage in that stuff. So. It’s there.
We’re getting there.
John Kiru, closing remarks, Ontario Gallery of Art, April 16, 2013
And if I can, just to carry on.
And I think one of the things that this has done for the councillors that are out there —and if you don’t know, councillors sit on the boards of management of the BIAs. So they’re very involved in the process and the operations of BIAs.
And what this has done is [inaudible] been a cause to an end in terms of it certainly beats the hell out of violation notices that are out there. People are putting up their walls because they don’t want to deal with that sort of issue.
So it’s caused an opportunity for people to move forward, animate those walls, animate the neighbourhoods and get away from that. So from that perspective I can tell you that there are a number of councillors who are very grateful because they’re not, you know, hearing about victimizing the victim. The issues of that —I need an extension to that —we need to change that policy, and everything else.
Here is an opportunity —here is a way of dealing with an issue that was problematic. And I think we’re that much closer —and again, is it perfect? Probably not. But we’re a hell of a lot closer to where we need to be than we were two years ago.
John Kiru, final words of the evening, Ontario Gallery of Art, April 16, 2013
Thank you. And again, thanks for having us out here folks. This is the proverbial “Rome wasn’t built in a day”. And if any of you guys remember some of the cigarette commercials way back when when cigarettes were still sold and advertised —”We’ve come a long way, Baby”. And, we have. We absolutely have. There is no question about that.
Keep on engaging us though, guys. We don’t like surprises.
So. We’ll work with ya. We want to animate those spaces because that’s what brings customers out onto those streets. So if you-guys can make us unique —where we become a destination, be it for tourists, be it for locals, be it for anybody else that’s out there.
Some of that art that I saw that you’ve got out there, we could certainly work with a number of BIAs that will draw the people that we want. The people that we want to spend time with.
This city, with the development that’s out there, we need to animate our outdoor spaces. We’re building pigeon coops that people are living in —6,400 square foot units etc.
Outdoor space is becoming more and more important. We’re starting to learn from the European example where people are spending time on the street.
And I’m beyond my 30 seconds —I’m seeing a twitch over there. So, keep it up. But engage us. That’s all we ask.
[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]
“We’re starting to learn from the European example….”
“War on graffiti” Art Gallery of Ontario townhall meeting. Making public spaces available to Art. (includes Elicser)
April 26th, 2013
On Tuesday April 16, 2013 I attended a town hall meeting at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Topic: War on graffiti. Making more public spaces available to art.
Those present tackled the issue on how best to address the issue of graffiti. They pondered such questions as:
Does an owner have the right to put-up their idea of art on their property?
Do we need to give more public spaces for people to express themselves through art?
“Is street art criminal?
Gary Taxali, one of the panelists believes “there are exponentially more artists creating brilliant works that have contributed to shaping the world of contemporary art beyond gallery walls and respected art publications.”
The panelists and host were:
– David Grosfield, Host
– John Kiru, Executive Director, Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas
– Kristyn Wong-Tam, Councillor, City of Toronto, Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale
– Gary Taxali, Award winning illustrator.
First, three highlights from the evening. Elicser was a graffiti artist. I say “was” because I define graffiti like the dictionary does —”unauthorized writing or drawing”. Elicser is now a highly regarded aerosol artist.
In fact, he was commissioned for one of the murals inside the skateboard plaza at Mississauga City Hall.
Elicser explains Graffiti at “War on Graffiti –Public Spaces” meeting (Art Gallery of Ontario)
Scott Mills is the social media officer for Toronto Police Services. He’s on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and his goal is to “build bridges between cops and communities through technology.” I follow
@GraffitiBMXCop on Twitter because Officer Mills takes a positive approach to graffiti.
Scott Mills, Toronto Police @GraffitiBMXCop talks about Graffiti as Art in Public Spaces.
And by far the person I learned the most from that evening was John Kiru, Executive Director of the Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas. I really really liked him! He gets the business advantages of Street Art.
John Kiru (Toronto Association of B.I.A.s) on Graffiti as Art –Public (and Private) Spaces
Last, for anyone truly interested in all the presentations and debate, here’s the entire evening from the host’s “Good evening” to the panelists’ good-bye handshakes.
“War on graffiti” Art Gallery of Ontario townhall meeting. Making public spaces available to Art.
(entire meeting 1:24:44 hrs)
For the record, I began researching graffiti back on April 19, 2009. It was supposed to have been a two-year study…
Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing. Elias Hazineh’s Testimony. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 15, 2013
April 25th, 2013
What follows is a summary of notes taken during the Hazel McCallion conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house on April 15, 2013 —Elias Hazineh testifying. If anyone finds any errors I’d appreciate being advised.
COURT NOTES DAY 8 April 15, 2013 Elias Hazineh testimony
10:00 am Judge John Sproat, like me (and later Hazineh) went to the wrong courtroom…
10:05 am Judge Sproat enters. He asks for a register of exhibits/documents –an exhibit list.
Thomas Richardson (lawyer for Elias Hazineh) is up first.
Regarding Hazineh’s knowledge of Region of Peel votes refers to the New Castle court case and the issue of conflicting affidavits.
Richardson points out the dispute is between Hazineh evidence in his affidavit versus those in his cross-examination. He points out that affdavit/testimony is not a situation of two or more affidavits conflicting.
Richardson then refers to Imperial Tobacco class action case where the issue turned to “Credibility and Bias”. That case determined that weighing affidavit evidence not as good as actual testimony and looking the witness straight in eye.
Sproat then asks Richardson to finalize his position. Did his client, Elias Hazineh read the National Post article or not?
Richardson says he’ll get to that and returns to credibility being an issue. Richardson reminds Judge Sproat that cross-exam is intended to challenge contradictory evidence.
Richardson says “must have knowledge member was present at a meeting…” etc.
Richardson consents to Hazineh going on stand with his knowledge, attendance at Stephen D’Agostino’s office, attendance at October 3, 2011 Judicial Inquiry report release and his review of Inquiry transcripts. Richardson says they’ll consent to having Hazineh take the stand.
Regarding imputed knowledge by Carolyn Parrish. He reminds Judge Sproat if that the respondent (Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyers) want to explore Hazineh’s relationship with Parrish, that was explored in original cross-examination. Richardson calls this a “fishing expedition”. So he’ll consent to imputed knowledge cross-examination if questions are limited to Hazineh’s knowledge of the Peel vote.
Judge Sproat explores what the procedure would be.
Elizabeth McIntyre (lawyer for Mayor Hazel McCallion) responds, “We appreciate Mr. Richardson’s agreement.”
McIntyre says that she’s “concerned about the limitations” and that once the issue of credibility is raised one would explore impugned knowledge based on his relationship with Parrish.
Judge Sproat asks for an estimate of the time this cross-examination would take. McIntyre says she can’t imagine more than 45 minutes.
Sproat then says to Richardson what harm does it do to restrict McIntyre questioning to the Peel vote. And then suggests such a restriction could be an issue in an appeal.
Richardson says the issue is the National Post article, that is, when Hazineh first had knowledge. And now using the Post thing and using it as a springboard to reopening the entire matter on how Hazineh got his knowledge.
Sproat rules that Hazineh is to give all evidence –and that he will hear that evidence to assess Hazineh’s “credibility and reliability”.
RECESS UNTIL RECALLED
10:40 am COURT RESUMES
Richardson now calls his client, Elais Hazineh to the stand. Hazineh declines the Bible or any other religious book and instead affirms.
Richardson asks Hazineh what he has with him. Hazineh has his application record, affidavit, Clay Connor’s article and one from National Post.
Richardson gets his client to go to Notice of Application and scan to the word “amended” December 13, 2011.
Richardson asks how Hazineh came to amend it. Hazineh says that new evidence came about. That during investigation, there was discovery of another Peel vote to extend the Development Charges transition provision by 18 months. And that it was discovered by Richardson’s law firm.
Richardson asks Hazineh if at the time he initiated the Application if he were aware of the additional Peel vote. Hazineh responds emphatically, “Absolutely not”.
Richardson refers to par 19 tab b in Hazineh’s affidavit. In there Hazineh states that around October, 2011 in the Mississauga News, he learned that Hazel McCallion may have been in breach of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act in a Peel Region vote. Hazineh says that while reading this article, he also learned that investigating Peel Region was outside the mandate of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.
Richardson par 21. states that prior to that October 2011 Mississauga News article Hazineh wasn’t aware of a potential Peel vote conflict.
Richardson refers to page 56 Q 323 in Hazineh’s original cross-examination.
Question: Did you read this article at the time. Hazineh says yes. National Post July 17, 2010.
Richardson tells Hazineh that there’s a conflict between affidavit and cross-examination. Hazineh explains that he read many articles and thought the photo looked familiar. Hazineh then responds, that upon reflection, he does not read the National Post. That Conrad Black takes slanted view of Muslims and Arabs. Particularly Palestinians.
Richardson points out that Hazineh originally suggested that his first knowledge was the National Post article. Hazineh replies that he was obviously mistaken.
Richardson asks Hazineh when he first became aware of potential conflict of interest at Peel Region. Hazineh replies with Clay Connor article. Hazineh points out that he used the $9M development charges figure and not the $11M in his affidavit.
Richardson asks where he got the numbers. Hazineh says Connor’s “McCallion may not be out of woods” article. Hazineh reads “…WCD stood to save roughly $9M”.
Hazineh says in the National Post article, it says “…saved her son’s development company $11M”.
If he read the Post, Hazineh says, he’d have definitely used the $11M figure from the National Post in his application.
Richardson asks if Hazineh if he had seen the Regional Council meeting minutes. Hazineh responds that he saw them in his lawyer’s office and not through the Inquiry.
Richardson points out that the Clay Connor article makes mention of extending the transition provision by 30 days.
Richardson questions Hazineh about a meeting with Stephen D’Agostino. Hazineh says it happened some time in Summer 2011 —either July or August. Meeting at D’Agostino’s office.
Hazineh says he drove Carolyn Parrish there. Those at the meeting, Parrish, D’Agostino, a young lawyer —and him.
Richardson asks the purpose of the meeting. Hazineh says that Parrish was delivering documents. Explains that he didn’t take part in the meeting. That he was not party to the meeting. That he sat at one end of the table. And that it was a very short meeting, maybe 15-20 minutes at most.
Richardson asks Hazineh if he were aware of the results?
Richardson then asks if Parrish shared outcome with him.
Richardson again asks if Parrish shared anything about development charges? Hazineh replies that he doesn’t know and wouldn’t have cared at the time.
[Ed. Missed something about two meetings –Toronto, was on summation on recommendations to Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. And something about Parrish and Hazineh left around lunch.]
Richardson explores how Hazineh got his knowledge of the Inquiry. Hazineh explains that he occasionally watched the Judicial Inquiry on TV.
Richardson asks if he got any knowledge through the Inquiry website. Hazineh responds that he didn’t look, that he might have glanced once –but it wouldn’t have interested him.
Richardson asks if he examined any exhibits/transcripts. Hazineh responds, “I glanced”.
Asked if he read the Inquiry Report, Hazineh says yes —says “Yeah, took long time” and adds it was the “most boring thing I’ve ever read”.
Richardson asks how soon after Release of Report did Hazineh read the Connor article? Hazineh says about 8 days later. Richardson asks if any of these sources put Hazineh to file Regional Council. [Ed. Seems I didn’t write down Hazineh’s answer… ]
Richardson asks Hazineh about his relationship with Carolyn Parrish.
Hazineh says that he first heard about Parrish in 1985. That she ran for school board. That they both served on the Canadian Spectrum Board of Directors.
Then in 1991 he offered to help Parrish run a campaign for City councillor. He says after that they became friends. He adds that Parrish was very upset at the 1991 loss. That it was less than 300 votes separating her from the winner.
Hazineh says that he then suggested Parrish try for the Federal Liberals. She won the nomination and also the election. Hazineh says that he was on the Parrish payroll from 2004 to 2006.
Hazineh says that he also worked on her 2006 municipal campaign and adds, “We were friends, very close friends”.
Hazineh says that Parrish is a good listener but “she knew little about Palestinians –like most Canadians”.
Hazineh says that he went with Parrish to inspect refugee camps and adds “She’s done a great job on the issue of Palestine and I’m grateful for that.”
He says that Parrish was also concerned about the Enersource case. And other issues that came out in the news, like the minutes –that somebody was tampering with those minutes. Hazineh then adds that “Politicians should be held to the highest standards possible”.
Hazineh then says that he got most of his information from news sources. Hazineh insists that Parrish “never” discussed the Regional vote with him.
Richardson then asks the nature of Hazineh’s contact with Parrish at the time of the Inquiry. Hazineh responds that they’d gone to restaurants, dinner at her home –here and there…
Richardson asks if Carolyn Parrish ever discussed the possibility of a McCallion conflict of interest at Peel Region. Hazineh: No.
Richardson asks whether Hazineh was present at the October 3, 2010 press conference. Hazineh replies yes, but that he was on his own and that he later joined her.
Richardson asks whether Hazineh heard anything at the Mississauga Inquiry press conference regarding the Peel vote. Hazineh: No.
Richardson asks whether Hazineh he talked to Parrish about the Inquiry Report. Hazineh says yes, that Parrish was frustrated about the timing. That the release of the Report was delayed until after the vote. That Parrish felt that cost her the election.
Richardson asks whether Hazineh had any inkling prior to reading the October 2011 Connor article that there might be a Peel conflict.
Richardson asks Hazineh what papers he reads. Hazineh replies Globe and Mail and Toronto Star. He says that he also reads the Mississauga News, “when it has something relevant. Most of the times it does not.” Also the New York Times, Israeli and Arab press.
Elizabeth McIntyre, Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer, now up.
McIntyre states that Hazineh helped Parrish in her 2006 and 2010 campaigns and in the 2011 by-election. McIntyre suggests then that he’d be familiar with how municipal councils work.
McIntyre asks Hazineh if he ever attended Council meetings or watched them on TV. Hazineh replies he only ever watched just one —where they were to name a street after him. That was the only time.
McIntyre says that Hazineh would have understood generally how resolutions, motions and the municipal process worked.
McIntyre goes on to say that she assumes that when he ran Hazineh would know that he’d be bound of Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. That he would have known a councillor would have to declare conflict.
McIntyre asks whether he aware of development charges. Aware they’d apply to undeveloped land.
McIntyre asks Hazineth whether he knew there was a City Council and Regional Council. Hazineh: Yes. And that development fees applied at both levels. Hazineh: Yes, but he didn’t know specifics.
McIntyre refers now to his original affidavit. Page 10, par 4. January 18, 2012 where it says that Hazineh “developed an interest in Conflict of Interest and Mayor” McIntyre assumes he read media reports around 2009. And that Hazineh followed at least some of the Inquiry. Hazineh: Yes.
McIntyre par 8. “refers to resolution of City Council requesting Inquiry”. She asks Hazineh if he were aware of this. Hazineh: “Could be”… “At the time, possible, might have, I don’t know”.
McIntyre suggests that Hazineh would have definitely looked at it when preparing his Application. Hazineh: At the lawyer’s office he had all these documents.
McIntyre asks Hazineh if he recalled hearing July 26, 2010 evidence of John Zingaro (former Assistant City Solicitor).
McIntyre now gives Hazineh Zingaro’s Inquiry transcript.
McIntyre asks if Hazineh if he had a chance to look at Zingaro’s transcript. McIntyre gets Hazineh to look at the mention of development charges and also the reference to the regional charges in Fall 2007.
Exhibit 174 in Zingaro testimony.
McIntyre says that the Zingaro transcript mentions grandfathering. That there’s reference to “long list of site plan applications” and reference to World Class Developments.
Hazineh appears to be seeing this for the first time now.
McIntyre asks when Hazineh reviewed this Zingaro transcript. Hazineh says that he didn’t see it. Either then or after reviewing transcripts.
McIntyre now deals with Hazine’s cross-examination and focuses on Hazineh’s statement today that he made a mistake about having read the National Post article.
McIntyre now refers him to page 51 of his cross-examination. She has Hazineh refer to the July 17, 2010 National Post article. “Mississauga melee nears nadir”.
McIntyre read before that Parrish felt McCallion was replacing councillors with her people. [Ed. Sorry but I can’t recall what McIntyre meant by this…] Hazineh says he could have read that from other sources or heard it.
Referring to Hazineh’s January 22 2013 cross-examination, Kristjanson took him through those very paragraphs.
McIntyre reminds Hazineh that not only did he read the reference to Stephen D’Agistino, he attended the D’Agistino meeting. McIntyre says that there are no other articles referring to Stephen D’Agistino.
Hazineh responds saying if McIntyre thinks there is no other article containing reference to D’Agistino she’s wrong. [Ed. I Googled “Stephen D’Agistino” and “Parrish”. The only article prior to November 2011 is “Mississauga melee nears nadir”… ]
McIntyre continues reading from the article. It mentions D’Agistino and a motion at Peel Region [Ed. Specifically, “The seven dissident councillors, using this money, have hired lawyer Stephen D’Agostino to work on their behalf. Now Mr. D’Agostino has uncovered documents that, according to Ms. Parrish, fall under the scope of provincial legislation. These documents pertain to a motion Ms. McCallion moved three years ago, asking for a delay in implementing new development charges. That motion would have saved Peter McCallion $11-million on a hotel and conference centre his company wanted to build in the city centre, Ms. Parrish said.”]
McIntyre now reads through Hazineh’s January 22, 2103 cross-examination testimony.
Q: Did you read the article at the time?
A: I’m sure I did. The picture looked familiar so I probably read it.
In response, Hazineh tells McIntyre, “You are brilliant at deciphering people’s minds”. Then adds, if he read the July 2010 National Post article, given the relevant Peel information were there, he did not catch it.
McIntyre squeezes Hazineh to talk about time limit and insists that if he read it, his Application is out of time. Hazineh responds that she’s asking him a legal question about term limits.
McIntyre repeats that if Hazineh knew that McCallion had a conflict back in July 2010, his Application is out of time.
Hazineh counters with “I had a perfect explanation for you today and it’s the truth”.
COURT RESUMES AT 12:05
[Ed. I arrive a bit late.]
McIntyre still up and asks Hazineh to refer to the Application record. Tab F. Mississauga News November 17, 2011 “Man to charge Mayor” article.
McIntyre gets Hazineh to admit it’s fair to conclude that he read the entire article. McIntyre now refers to what she said in the article about the Mayor not having a conflict of interest in Peel Region. [Ed. The article actually states, “McCallion’s lawyer, Liz McIntyre, said last week that any such conflict charge brought to a judge would have little merit.”]
McIntyre also points out that Inquiry Commissioner counsel William McDowell maintained that he and his Staff conducted a thorough investigation and that the development charges transition provision applied to 80 site applications and not just World Class Developments. So even McDowell didn’t think the Mayor could be regarded as in conflict. [Ed. The article actually states, “‘(The inquiry’s) Commission counsel (William McDowell) and his staff did a thorough investigation regarding the Regional Council vote and concluded that the mayor could not be regarded as having a conflict of interest,’ McIntyre said. ‘In light of that, one has to question the motives of anyone continuing to pursue the issue.'”]
McIntyre points out that despite this, Hazineh’s January application says the Peel vote/issues “were not considered by Judicial Inquiry”. Hazineh responds that though Commission Counsel William McDowell may have made that statement, that does not make it true.
Richardson stands up and says that Inquiry didn’t consider the Peel Region vote and it’s unfair to extend William McDowell’s opinion to be that of the Inquiry.
Judge Sproat says it seems to him that there is a distinction between findings/opinions of the Inquiry and William McDowell.
McIntyre continues saying that William McDowell said that he and his Staff conducted an investigation and 2 that he and his staff discovered that what McCallion did or didn’t do couldn’t be regarded as conflict of interest.
Hazineh replies that he has no idea if McDowell’s info was accurate or that his investigation was thorough or that any of it was cross-examined.
McIntyre asks Hazineh if he doubts that McDowell/Staff conducted the Peel investigation. Hazineh responds that the only thing he knows for sure is that McDowell said that he did conducted an investigation. McIntyre then asks Hazineh if he doubted the Peel investigation whether he asked McDowell directly.
McIntyre revisits the July 17, 2010 “Mississauga melee nears nadir” National Post article and now asks “I take it it’s quite possible Carolyn Parrish showed you the article”. McIntyre points out that in July 2010 that he’s running her campaign at that point and that all media reports are a critical part of any election campaign.
McIntyre adds that this National Post article was “that biggest splash” that Parrish had for some time.
Hazineh counters that the “National Post in all of Mississauga doesn’t sell more than a hundred papers”. [Ed. Not the wisest thing to say if you’re intent of selling the Judge on your credibility…]
Hazineh adds that “I do not read the National Post period for the reasons I’ve outlined earlier”.
McIntyre continues her pursuit asking whether it’s possible that Carolyn Parrish to have shown it to him at the very time they were involved in the election campaign. Hazineh digs in: “I have not seen it prior to the application. That is the truth.”
McIntyre shows Hazineh a “supplementary application”. Pages 13 and 14. [Ed. I’m not sure what this means.]
McIntyre refers to the October 17, 2011 Clay Connor Mississauga News article and asks Hazineh if he remembers seeing it at the time. Hazineh offers that it’s possible and asks to read it. Then says that he can’t recall the article –that he doesn’t remember specifically, yet that he recognizes the information from other articles.
McIntyre now refers Hazineh back to his cross-examination. Article says McDowell conducted a “thorough investigation”. [Ed. Actually when you read the article, it is actually McIntyre who states that McDowell did a thorough investigation!]
McIntyre says that in his cross-examination, Hazineh, when asked if he read the article at the time responded “I’m sure I did”.
McIntyre probes did Hazineh not follow the news on the issue he was interested in. She asks why did you say on January 22, 2013 “I’m sure I did.”
McIntyre doesn’t wait for an answer, rather alleges, “I put it to you these were the honest answers at the time”.
McIntyre now deals with Hazineh’s relationship with Carolyn Parrish. Tab 1 in [Ed. I’m not sure what document].
McIntyre refers to par 10. Six weeks prior to actual election. McIntyre suggests that one of the issues on Parrish’s mind was the Inquiry and whether the Report would be released before the elections.
McIntyre gets Hazineh to admit he was with Parrish a lot during that time —and that Parrish has very few “unvoiced thoughts”.
McIntyre reminds the court that Hazineh drove Parrish down to see D’Agistino. She asks how much time it takes to drive to Toronto and back. Hazineh replies that at no time was it a one-way conversation. That he and Parrish talk about everything the weather, kids, grand-kids… [Ed. The weather?…]
Hazineh then says that Carolyn Parrish did a lot of the work on Peel Regional Council. Donated her time. And that he donated hundreds of hours on her campaigns.
McIntyre asks whether Parrish herself contributed money to the cost of this Application.
Judge Sproat objects on behalf of Richardson.
McIntyre says the question is relevant because if Hazineh is not a straw man, then at least he and Parrish are co-venturers in the application.
Judge Sproat admits that he has imperfect recollection of any test cases relating to legal fees/costs what with such a question being under client/solicitor privilege.
McIntyre says she now has only one other document. Blue volume, application record of the respondent. Tab H.
Article Mississauga News Feb 2, 2012. “We’re on the right track” with picture of Hazineh and Parrish. Hazineh says that the purpose of visit to Richardson’s office. That Parrish was with me when he was there. McIntyre observes that the photo shows Parrish leading him about four feet.
McIntyre reads “We’re on the right track” and the part about Hazineh saying “We’re on the right track and we have all the evidence we need to get a conviction.” McIntyre asks if that is a correct quote. McIntyre then asks who is “we”. Hazineh reponds, “Lawyers”.
McIntyre counters with is “we” not Parrish?
Hazineh replies, “I already responded. Me and my lawyers.”
By now McIntyre is essentially calling Hazineh a liar. Hazineh: “I am not afraid of you.”
And that pretty much ends it.
Richardson will not re-examine.
Judge Sproat says he will look into McIntyre’s financing question about how much Parrish donated to Hazineh’s application.
Sproat says let’s break a bit later, until 2:15, because he has to attend a meeting over the lunch hour.
Freya Kristjanson, Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer, now up.
Right off the bat she retracts her question about Parrish’s contribution to Hazineh. [Ed. I suspect McIntyre/Kristjanson just flung “contribution” onto the court floor because they (correctly) expected the media would run with it.]
Content, Kristjanson sits down. Richardson now up.
Richardson starts with supplemental evidence, article by Megan O’Toole, National Post. Richardson says this case requires the Applicant have full and complete knowledge –and reminds the judge that a member of public has a “daunting and risky task” when it comes to laying conflict of interest charges. Richardson insists that the six week time limit should only apply once there’s a degree of certainty.
Richardson points out that otherwise an applicant is required to act on the basis of meager information and even speculation.
Richardson now refers to the July 17, 2010 article, “Mississauga melee nears nadir” and impugned paragraph, “The councillors are alleging a direct violation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, dating back three years, when the Mayor introduced a motion that would have saved her son’s development company $11-million.”
Richardson states that there’s no indication in that sentence whether the violation was City or Region. And the only reference is on the second page, par “Freya Kristjanson, one of Ms. McCallion’s lawyers, disputes any conflict with the 2007 motion, passed by Peel Regional Council. ‘This was a bylaw of general application. It was not targeted at World Class Developments. It affected all development in Brampton, Caledon and Mississauga,’ Ms. Kristjanson said. ‘So it certainly was not targeted at WCD and that would be a most unfair targeting were that not made clear.’”
Richardson maintains that this article is not sufficient here to trigger alarm by a ratepayer of any wrong-doing.
Sproat mentions the paragraph about six weeks, specifically, “Since discovering the latest conflict allegation, councillors have a six-week window in which to launch legal action.” Richardson counters that the sentence refers to Councillors. And that it’s just insufficient information for citizen-watchdogs to respond.
Richardson states, that by contrast, the Connor article has more detail. That we read for first time “transition provisions”. Richardson reads “grandfathering” saving “$11M” [Ed. $11M? not sure…] and that forms the basis of the application and their case. It’s the information in the Connor article that came to Elias Hazineh’s attention.
Richardson now focuses on the statement “probably read it” that Freya Kristjanson failed to mention.
Richardson reminds the court that Hazineh’s application was modified to address this second amendment. Richardson gets Judge Sproat to look at the application record of the respondent. Refers to application record of Ms O’Connor. Tab 1 page 6.
The characterization of the Peel meeting on September 13, 2007. Richardson says that Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell requests revisiting the transition provision matter. Par G. Fennell moved an amendment seconded by McCallion to extend the provision to May 1, 2008.
Richardson says that’s not correct! That’s not what Fennell and McCallion moved. Richardson explains that when the two mayors initially prepared the application they were not aware of the 18-month transition.
Richardson says he sees no reference indicating that Mayor McCallion was involved in extending provision by 18 months.
Richardson now returns to the July 26, 2010 Zingaro Inquiry testimony. Richardson states that there is nothing in Zingaro’s testimony that identifies that there was conflict of interest in Peel.
Richardson says that there’s no conflict in his affidavit/cross-examination. [Ed –missed it. Talking too fast.]
Richardson now turns his attention to Hazel McCallion. Says he will highlight details not put in affidavit.
Richardson states that:
- The Mayor was involved with the WCD cast of characters
- She had expressed frustration transaction taking so long
- McCallion was involved in the Purchase of Sale
- That in her most recent testimony that the Mayor recanted what she said in her affidavit regarding her instructions to staff
- The Mayor admitted that she did not consider the financial implications of the Peel amendments
- That the Mayor did not talk to Council or seek advice
- That she would’ve moved same motion had she known it would benefit World Class Developments
- That McCallion did not indicate her actions were the result of inadvertence
- That transition provision revenue loss would come out of the City’s reserve
- Knew the site in official plan was for the hotel and knew about H designation
- Knew it would require building permits which wouldn’t be issued until the development charges were paid
- Knew World Class Developments had to pay these charges
- Knew that losing hotel had negative implications for the City
- Acknowledged that conflict of interest does not prevent her of having knowledge of status of site plan application
- Knew that there was serious disagreement between World Class Developments Murray Cook and Tony DeCicco
- Went on a tour of the Marriott with City Staff,
- Stated that McCallion/Fennell motion to extend the transition provision for 18 months would be for Brampton only
- Stated that it was usual practice for the Peel Clerk to “regionalize” what affected just one municipality to apply to all three
- Asserted that she did not know her son Peter had ownership of World Class Developments until it was revealed through the Inquiry
Richardson says that Peter McCallion was there from the beginning. That he had a relationship with the World Class Developments “characters”.
Richardson then states that it is “beyond belief” that Mayor Hazel McCallion did not know that World Class Developments had a site plan application until the Inquiry.
Richardson continues that it’s unbelievable that McCallion didn’t see that newspaper article that her dream hotel was proceeding. Or that Director of Planning Marilyn Ball offered a briefing but didn’t tell her. Or that McCallion was not aware that Ed Sajecki went on Rogers TV announcing the imminent start of her favourite project. Or, especially, that during all those meetings involving World Class Developments no one told her.
Richardson suggests that one can infer a great deal from the messages left by Tony DeCicco, the meetings entered into her diary, the Agreement of Purchase of Sale, the Marriot viewing. That McCallion had general knowledge of the process and/or knew the process in detail. That World Class Developments would require building permit and payment of development charges.
Richardson submits that the mere frequency of McCallion’s phone messages show that she was well aware (apprised) of the process and status of World Class Developments
Richardson states there’s the “unavoidable conclusion that she (McCallion) was well aware of her dream hotel”, the development charges transition provision and that she the ample opportunity to inform herself. Richardson says that there were enough clues that would trigger the Mayor to investigate and raise questions.
Richardson reminds that court that there is no affidavit of Peter McCallion, nor any effort to involve witnesses from World Class Developments, no effort on the part of the Mayor’s defense team to corroborate her side of the story.
Richardson introduces the concept of an adverse inference.
He says that:
- The Mayor acknowledges World Class Development charges
- Would have voted for an extension period even if she knew
- And that McCallion’s voting on these matters was not inadvertent
Richardson returns to the defense that the by-law was one of general application. He states that the pecuniary interest of Peter McCallion is deemed to be pecuniary interest of the Mayor. That Peter McCallion’s interest is viable —and that the pecuniary interest of Peter McCallion is not an interest in common “with the electors generally” as defined by the Act.
Freya Kristjanson, Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer, now up.
Kristjanson takes on Issue 1, the interest of Hazel McCallion. She states that the onus on the applicant is to establish that Peter had a pecuniary interest that was known to his mother and that that pecuniary interest was present at Peel Region when matter came up.
Kristjanson explains that the time frame is important. She focuses on September 6, 13 and October 4, 2007. Kristjanson says that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act requires actions to be taken.
Kristjanson addresses the Mayor’s knowledge of son Peter’s pecuniary interest during those times.
Kristjanson says that pecuniary interest will be addressed in three parts.
Did World Class Developments have a pecuniary interest at the time of the Peel votes? Kristjanson says even assuming that Peter was a principal, WCD did not have a pecuniary interest in the transition period in Peel because World Class Developments did not have a complete site plan application within the meaning of the Regional by-law.
Regarding the alleged pecuniary interest in the development charges, Kristjanson states that WCD had filed a master site plan and to their knowledge such a plan did not allow for the issuance of building permits.
Kristjanson states that the Zingaro opinion was incorrect. That Marilyn Ball has testified that his opinion was based on information he acquired after the September/October 2007 Peel votes.
Kristjanson then talks about site plan application [Ed. This going way over my head…] Kristjanson insists that since the site plan application was never paid, there was no complete site plan as of October 4, 2007.
Kristjanson tells the judge that the real consideration was what were Peter’s actual pecuniary interests as to the day of the Peel vote in relation to the development charges. She then insists that Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interests were speculative and “too remote” to be affected by the vote.
Kristjanson states that the “evidence is clear” that Peter did not have an existing real estate agreement.
Kristjanson then goes on to Issue 1C: What did the Mayor know Peter’s pecuniary interest to be. Was his interest known to her.
Kristjanson states that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act Section 3, requires “knowledge of an actual pecuniary interest”. [Ed. “Interest of certain persons deemed that of member 3. For the purposes of this Act, the pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, of a parent or the spouse or any child of the member shall, if known to the member, be deemed to be also the pecuniary interest of the member. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 3; 1999, c. 6, s. 41 (2); 2005, c. 5, s. 45 (3).”]
Kristjanson then asks what the Mayor did for actual knowledge. Kristjanson says Hazel McCallion asked her son and he told her that he was an agent for Leo Couprie. Kristjanson says that this is consistent with what Peter McCallion told both Ed Sajecki (Commissioner of Planning and Building) and Marilyn Ball (Director of Development and Design).
Kristjanson tells the court that Peter McCallion had only ever been a real estate agent. And that the Mayor knew her son didn’t have the financial ability to invest in World Class Developments. And that Hazel McCallion also knew he didn’t have the technical expertise to take on a hotel project.
Kristjanson says that it was only in August 2009 that Hazel McCallion learned for the first time that son Peter was more than an agent. Kristjanson then states that the Mayor has to have knowledge of her son’s actual pecuniary interest for it to be a deemed her interest as well.
Kristjanson then moves to Issue 2 the Exemptions in Section 4 of the Act.
Kristjanson states that if found in violation, they will rely on four of the exceptions in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
- Interest in common. Also called “general application”. Kristjanson states that William McDowell used that term as did Mayors Fennell and Morrison.
Kristjanson maintains that the Mayor had an interest in common with other electors. Kristjanson argues that if Peter had an “indirect interest” and it was found to be known to Hazel McCallion, then they argue that the Mayor had an interest in common with all those who had an interest “in stream”.
Kristjanson says there were 80 such site plans –and the Peel transition provision vote affects them all equally.
[Ed. Missed what Kristjanson said. Her drone is getting to me…]
Kristjanson goes on about:
- Section 5. Pecuniary interest “common to other persons” offered by municipality or local board.
And that the development charges transition period is a benefit offered to all other persons in the community. That they’re like transit increases, dog licenses….
Kristjanson now address the defense of Remoteness
Kristjanson says that test of remoteness is, would a reasonable elector apprised of all the circumstances conclude the Mayor’s interest was remote. That is, if a reasonable person were informed of everything on October 4, 2007, —remoteness is an objective test.
Kristjanson then introduces Issue 3, the savings provisions under the MCOIA.
Kristjanson defines inadvertence as an oversight of fact or law, and that it is not willful or recklessly blind.
Kristjanson observes that Mayor McCallion didn’t ask Staff about World Class Developments. Kristjanson says that the Mayor could’ve threatened to fire all the staff –stating threat-to-fire “doesn’t seem to be prohibited by this Act.”
Kristjanson then explores whether the Mayor showed a good faith error in judgement.
Kristjanson says McCallion took steps. [Ed. Kristjanson is going too fast…]
Kristjanson now introduces Issue #4. The Time Limitation.
Kristjanson insists that the applicant, Elias Hazineh was out of time. That he applied some five years and two months after the event in question. Kristjanson reminds that Judge that the MCOIA states that there is a six week limitation after facts come to their knowledge and that Hazineh was well aware of necessary facts before limitation.
Kristjanson insists that the facts were “discoverable by him” given relationship between Hazineh and Parrish.
Kristjanson reminds the court Hazineh and Parrish were “driving to Inquiry together”, “meeting together” and that given Parrish’s knowledge of the facts of this case, her knowledge should be imputed to him. She then goes on to states that the “Case should be dismissed on this basis alone.”
Kristjanson says that she will now look at three aspects of the applicable law.
Kristjanson refers to Peel Regional bylaw Tab 32.
Kristjanson focuses on Requirement under the Regional by-law: that there had to be an application for complete site plan approval on October 4, 2007.
Kristjanson draws attention to the back of the factum. Sub 4. Approval of plans or drawings. [Ed. I can’t follow this. I sure hope Sproat can.]
Kristjanson suggests that everything Council wants has to go into site plan considerations including servicing agreements that cities can require. Kristjanson says that where there’s an upper tier municipality that upper tier has to be advised.
Kristjanson presents a case relating to high rise structures. Ontario Court of Appeal 1992. Re Section 40 of the Planning Act.
[Ed. By this time my notes say “My brain wants OUT! Don’t know how much Sproat makes but it’s not enough!”]
Kristjanson now refers to City’s Fees and Charges by-law. Pursuant to the Planning Act.
Kristjanson maintains tath the Region does not control site plan applications —that it’s up to the three lower-tier Councils as to what kind of drawings/plans are required to be complete.
Sproat’s question suggests he’s not entirely sure where Kristjanson is going either. Sproat says Master Site Plan is conceptual and thought Kristjanson was arguing …. [Ed. I don’t get it.]
Kristjanson says whatever was there in Oct 2007. [Ed. I don’t get what I wrote here either.]
COURT RESUMES AT 3:55
Kristjanson now turns to Marilyn Ball’s evidence. Page 3, Question 8. Kristjanson explains that a master site plan is for a large complex sites to be worked over several years and will be used for future site plan applications.
Master site plans, Kristjanson says, help people understand the overall vision of a project but not the details.
Kristjanson refers to Page 10 and states that 10% would’ve been the required fee –complete site plan $520,000. And 10% for Master Site Plan. Why didn’t City have fees for Master Site plans. [Ed. Checking my court notes, it’s clear my attention at this time of day is badly flagging… I write, “She’s reading again. Brain foggy blah blah blah…”]
Now evidence of Scott Walker. Page 51.
Now refers to Ben Phillips, worked for Ball and was planning in charge of WCD file.
I stopped taking notes… this actually hurts….
[Ed. After 3:55 my notes become meager, interspersed with personal comments and “I stopped taking notes… this actually hurts….” was the last entry of the day. For the record I tried my best to record what was said and now to flesh the material out and polish it. I had no idea that when I committed to summarizing Hazel McCallion’s testimony and those of Elias Hazineh, what a tedious chore this would turn out to be. By far the greatest difficulty was not seeing the documents/exhibits that both set of lawyers were referring to. Anyway. Done.]
Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing. The Mayor’s Testimony Day 2. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 12, 2013
April 20th, 2013
Hazel McCallion leaves courtroom after conflict of interest testimony (April 12, 2013)
What follows is a summary of notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s 2nd day of testimony during her conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house on April 12, 2013 —Hazel McCallion testifying. If anyone finds any errors I’d appreciate being advised.
COURT NOTES DAY 5 April 12, 2013 2nd day of Hazel McCallion’s testimony
McCallion jokes with court staff. Confident, up-beat, ain’t no big thing.
10:04 am Judge Sproat enters. Court in session. Hazel McCallion on the stand.
Thomas Richardson (Elias Hazineh’s lawyer) up.
Richardson refers to buff booklet and the Mayor’s January 24 and 25, 2013 cross-examination. Richardson asks McCallion whether since that time what she’s prepared since. Richardson asks what other documents did McCallion review in preparing to testimony today? Richardson asks if she reviewed her affidavit as well as those of Mayor’s Fennell and Morrison.
Richardson mentions that he was provided a booklet yesterday and in there is new evidence that was not provided on application record.
Richardson refers the Mayor to Tab 3 in the booklet. It’s a February 2, 2009 letter to Pat Bennie. Richardson asks McCallion what motivation did she have to provide this letter at this stage in the hearing?
Richardson asked why she inserted that letter now. Richardson claims to have read many articles in Municipal World. Neatly avoiding Richardson’s question.
Richardson notices her avoidance and rephrases his original question. He asks McCallion what import does this letter have to the proceedings today? Ask why did she present the letter as new evidence? [McCallion dances again.]
McCallion states that “Conflict of Interest Act may be interpreted in different ways”. And that she’d been on the AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) Board for 30-some years and that she’s “very aware of the history of the Conflict of Interest Act.”
McCallion states that the letter was triggered by WeirFoulds… [Ed. missed it.]
McCallion says it highlights the fact of her concern regarding the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. [Ed. still avoiding question]
Richardson lets her talk but eventually calls McCallion out and says it’s Paragraph 2 that motivated her to write letter. Paragraph 2 states that a member can’t always know what their family is up to and asks how do you know what dealings your children are having?
Richardson reminds McCallion that earlier she’d testified that she did not know Peter’s dealings with World Class Developments (WCD).
Richardson suggests McCallion’s February 2, 2009 letter was triggered because she suspected that her son Peter didn’t reveal his relation with WCD. McCallion asks what do parents do when they have very poor relations with their children and do not communicate?
Richardson asks McCallion whether the letter was triggered by her realization that Peter didn’t inform her adequately as to his involvement in WCD. McCallion: No. Denies.
Richardson asks whether McCallion was aware that Peter was involved in WCD/OMERS, knew he was acting for Leo Couprie. When did you become aware that Leo Couprie became involved in WCD? McCallion says “Can’t recall”.
Richardson said McCallion testified she was not aware of details of any financial arrangements. McCallion said she assumed that Peter would be compensated as a real estate agent. Richardson then asked McCallion if Peter had been involved as a real estate agent in other $14M real estate transactions.
Richardson asks whether McCallion the degree to which she was aware that the process was a complex one? McCallion replied that she estimated that the hotel project would take 2-3 years for approval —maybe even more.
McCallion added that she knew the hotel would “obviously” come before Council.
Richardson asks McCallion if she were aware of the financing arrangements? McCallion: Not at any time was she aware of the financing.
Richardson got McCallion to admit WCD/hotel would come before Council once the financing was in place.
Richardson says site plans don’t come before Council. McCallion agrees.
Richardson asks McCallion whether she expected a project of this complexity to come before Council as a site plan? McCallion: It could…
Site had “H” –for Council to have control.
Richardson asks whether the removal of the H was conditional on the site plan approval? Richardson says the H symbol would only be removed after site plan had been granted.
Richardson asks what requirements that had to be met for the H designation to be removed? McCallion: “I’m not sure.”
Richardson asks establishes that McCallion knew the project required building permits? McCallion Yes. And that to get a permit they must pay development charges. McCallion Yes.
Now considering any transition provisions, WCD would have to pay either new charges or old –applicable at the time it got its building permit. And depending on date either new or old.
Richardson asks if McCallion would agree that for any project, paying less charges would help viability of the project. McCallion: First said “not necessarily”.
Richardson now tries that it would be the developer that would “reap the savings”.
Richardson adds that new development charge could “can the deal”. The benefit of the savings would go to the developer. McCallion: Yes.
Richardson then states that the benefit of a reduced development charge would not benefit the electorate. McCallion agrees.
The court is told that when a developer pays a reduced development charge, the loss of revenue would negatively impact the capital budget. Loss of revenue means there’s a loss of money for capital projects. McCallion keeps emphasizing “projection”.
Richardson points out that any revenue deficit must be made up on the tax levy to the electors at large. McCallion says it would not necessarily affect the tax rate —it can come out of the reserve.
Richardson asks McCallion if she disagrees with the opinions of LeBreque that reduced developmental fees revenue would affect taxes? McCallion dances and offers, “I guess if you take it out of the reserve fund, yes.”
McCallion says the only condition she knew about was that the hotel had to be built first. Repeats her comments that residential development comes quickly and non-residential takes a long time “or never”.
McCallion then says that she was concerned the residential would go ahead and the hotel “would never come”.
The court was told that the Sept 6, 2007 approved permits must be acquired from April 1st to May 1st. McCallion says that both Fennell and Morrison concerned and to extend the date.
McCallion also says that elected officials usually aren’t aware of the status of a project unless the developer tells them.
Richardson asks McCallion that it’s her evidence today is that the transition provision was brought up by Mayors Fennell and Morrison.
Richardson asks McCallion whether she had a resolution from Council to seek the amendment. Or Staff. Asks whether she had a recommendation from Regional Staff. McCallion says that the amendment was strictly from Fennell and Morrison. Richardson asks McCallion if she were aware of the fiscal implications to the Region re extension.
McCallion responds that “Transition is a usual policy” —like planning fees, transit, user fees… [Ed. same song as yesterday.]
The transition provision requires that a developer must have a site plan in by [Ed. —missed the date.]
Richardson asks McCallion if she would agree that the transition provision would not apply to citizens of Mississauga but only to apply for site plan approval by September 2007.
Richardson observes that the financial interest of the developer by September 13, 2007 would save the increase of 85% increase in fees.
Richardson now moves to September 13, extending transition period by 18 months. That there was no resolution. That McCallion didn’t discuss this with Councillors. Didn’t discuss with Mississauga Staff.
McCallion responds that this was a Peel matter not Mississauga.
McCallion adds, “We sometimes lose and sometimes win.” McCallion mentions “team approach”.
Richardson then revisits that McCallion didn’t discuss with Peel Staff either. [Ed. So much for team approach.]
Richardson asks McCallion that when she seconded Fennell’s 18-month extension, whether she considered fiscal implications. McCallion: “Don’t recall the discussion”.
Richardson later pointed out that the Regional staff said $28M. It’s strictly an estimate.
Richardson: You have reputation of running a very tight fiscal ship, why approve transition? McCallion: “Very good question” [Ed. —here’s her prep.]
McCallion says that residential usually doesn’t pay its way and she’s worried she might lose industrial/commercial –a tough balancing act.
[Now she’s dancing about her role in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and concerns regarding infrastructure, stimulus programs –and whether you’re going to lose your economic base. McCallion then states that losing a hotel was a “major, major loss” to Mississauga.
Richardson says that by September 13, 2007 the Development review had been going on for a year and a half and that Staff and Council had addressed the balancing act she was worried about. Richardson then asks McCallion what infformation she had on September 13, 2007 —what new information the Mayor got to prod her to extend the transition provision.
Richardson then asks McCallion had she known on September 13, 2007 that the provision she approved would save World Class Developments (WCD) $11M would she have declared a conflict of interest? McCallion responds with a swift, firm, “No” and that she feels very strongly that the development charge is like a tax and applies to everybody.
Richardson asks McCallion if her evidence was that she was not aware of WCD’s status? McCallion agrees, not aware. Then he mentions that McCallion expected Staff to keep her apprised of the progress of the WCD site plan application. McCallion replies no, that her instructions to Staff was that she did not wish to be aware of any part of when World Class Developments put anything in the hands of the City. Whether site plan or whatever.
Richardson then asks McCallion to turn to her January 25, 2013 cross-examination, page 248. Question 1172.
Richardson reads her testimony…
Q You were aware that WCD has filed a master site plan application.
Q Would it not have been prudent of you to have read the Sajecki letter to ask “If the Staff had drawn to my attention, there was no discussion”
On January 25, 2013 McCallion said, “Anything to do with WCD I want you to draw my attention”. Now, on the stand, McCallion takes that back! The Mayor clarifies that she did NOT wish to be informed. McCallion says that Marilyn Ball approached her and McCallion had said sorry, I don’t wish to be involved whatever it was (application, plan etc).
And she did this worried it might be seen as having influence on Staff.
Richardson continues to read from the Mayor’s January 2013 cross-examination. [If I can rely on this sentence… ] At some point, McCallion states that Ball told her that WCD was now active at the City.
January 2013, McCallion cross-examination shows that Council and Staff were conscious of a conflict with WCD. [Notes, say “Amazing! McCallion now retracts even more of her cross-exam re Ball and Staff all knowing. Cross-examination said even the public knew Peter was involved!”]
Hazel McCallion then states, “I have to apologize that is not the direction I gave to Staff.”
Richardson then asks whether McCallion made any inquiries as to the status of the hotel project? Richardson lobs out the names, Sajecki? Or Ball? McCallion offers, “Not that I recall” “And I made no inquiries.”
Richardson turns to exhibit booklet tab 2. Journal entries of the Mayor’s daily appointments. Fast out the gate McCallion says that her schedule is changed frequently —and now says she’s not sure if a meeting actually occurred. [I think, “Well played Moriarty!”]
Richardson then asks whether they could agree that the meetings MAY have occurred? Or occurred at another date? McCallion avoids a yes and no and goes with saying that meetings are deferred and some never happened.
Richardson now skims through the Mayor’s schedule as it relates to her son’s World Class Developments cast of characters. Richardson lists the following:
February 12, 2003: Peter McCallion and Tony DeCicco to meet with her.
November [missed date] 2003: Peter and Tony again at her home.
Richardson asks whether Peter and Tony were involved in business in 2003? McCallion now takes the opportunity to repeats her Olympic Flame problem story and finally gives Richardson a “Not sure.”
Richardson then asks McCallion why Tony DeCicco would go through her son to meet with her when it’s common for developers to contact The Mayor directly?
Richardson asks McCallion if Peter and Tony involved in Derrydale? McCallion responds, “I don’t know.”
Richardson then refers to another meeting in the Mayor’s schedule. May 1, 2004. A meeting with Peter, Digasperus [sp?] and David O’Brien (City Manager at the time) [Note also, husband of the City’s Director of Development and Design Marilyn Ball, trustee of McCallion family trust, OMERS/Enersource director etc etc].
Richardson lists off more meetings from the Mayor’s schedule.
June 3, 2004 meeting: Peter McCallion and Leo Couprie with President of Seneca College in development of Seneca.
July 13, 2004 lunch with Peter and Tony at Ruth/Chris steakhouse.
[Ed. missed the date.] Dinner with Peter and Tony.
Jan 29, 2004 lunch Peter and Tony. [Ed. out of order.]
March 14, 2004 Peter and her at dinner at father’s home.
April 14, 2004 Peter, Tony breakfast meeting “at Peter’s urgent request”.
Oct 30, 2004 breakfast with Tony and Peter.
Richardson then asks the Mayor why there were so many meetings with Tony DeCicco and her son in 2004? McCallion responds that there were lots of problems with the Region –something about a road, that she didn’t remember the details. And then mentions that Hwy #10/Derry was a major problem.
McCallion adds, “I get calls on a lot of developers”…
Richardson gets her to admit she was “familiar” with Tony. The Mayor clarifies, “I had no special relationship with Tony DeCicco” and that she didn’t know his activity in rest of the GTA.
Richardson then turns his attention back to the Mayor’s journal entries.
September 22(?), 2004.
Jan 17, 2005, Peter, Tony dinner at Peter’s request.
May 18, 2005 Peter and Murray Cook. Meeting WCD.
Richardson asks if these meetings were around the time that Murray Cook would get involved in World Class Developments. McCallion says that she can’t recall, but assumes so. And that Peter knew that she knew Murray Cook because of his experience. [Ed: Murray Cook was a longtime friend of the Mayor’s husband, Sam McCallion.]
Richardson asks the Mayor if she encouraged Cook to get involved. McCallion responds, no. She states that she seemed to recall Peter told her in advance that Murray Cook was already involved.
[Ed. there was mention of a dinner with Peter, DiPocce etc. But notes too brief and I can’t recall in what reference.]
Richardson turns to page 15. Says there’s a note on in-camera issues regarding OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) that came up at the AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) conference. Richardson asks if McCallion arranged for a meeting.
Dec 18, 2005, dinner meeting, Leo, wife etc. The Mayor says the dinner was social.
[Ed. Missed hearing what came next.]
May 29, 2006 at Delta Meadowvale hotel.
July 9, 2006 Peter barbecue at Peter’s home. McCallion says she can’t recall.
Sept 22, 2006 Peter and Murray at the Mayor’s house.
Lunch at Zorro’s. McCallion says she doesn’t recall.
[Ed. re Dec 2006 –missed what was said.]
Jan 25, 2007, Dinner with son, Peter, Leo Couprie , and Leo’s wife at Pier 4. This was the witness document session.
Richardson says that a review of the Mayor’s journal entries indicates “substantial number of meetings” with Tony, DeCicco, Leo Couprie and Murray Cook.. Meetings at the Mayor’s home, Saturdays and Sundays… McCallion agrees and then says, “if they all occurred” She adds that she can’t recall which ones did occur or even that they all did.”
Richardson says that these journal entries end with a meeting re January 25, 2007.
Nov 20, 2007 Peter and [Ed. missed name.]
Dec 14, 2007 Peter, Tony DeCicco and John DiPocce.
Richardson asks if this means that there were no meetings in between. McCallion responds that doesn’t mean there were meetings that weren’t entered in a journal. It was and still is, standard practice that if her family wants dinner they have to go through City Staff.
March 19, 2008 Mayor has a meeting with Tony DeCicoo, Steve Gupta and Ed Sajecki in Toronto. Richardson reminds the Mayor that she’d testified this meeting was the one occasion the she attended with people involved in WCD. McCallion replies that Ed Sajecki urged her to go.
Richardson asks as of that date, March 19, 2008, whether the WCD site plan was still in process. The Mayor says No.
Richardson then asks the Mayor why she would examine a hotel for a World Class Development site. Th “I guess i was so enthused in the project” and “Obviously Ed had convinced me…”
Richardson says that it seems The Mayor had a substantial number of meetings both socially and otherwise. Then asks if it’s her testimony that at no time did any of the World Class Developments people inform her as to the progress of WCD/hotel matters. McCallion responds that the hotel was the “mission of the City Council”.
[Ed. From there, Hazel McCallion went into her Hotel/Misssissauga pitch —that Mississauga is the 6th largest city, that its city core will never move to the extent that it should until they have a convention centre etc etc… ]
SPROAT BREAK TIL 11:50.
COURT RESUMES 11:52 AM
Richardson still up.
Richardson refers to a document on November 2007. Context, one month after the introduction of deadlines and World Class Developments was scrambling
Re December 2007 Richardson asks McCallion if she was able to get Murray Cook to sign the agreement terminating the call —and about the sooner we get it the better we are. McCallion says she didn’t recall what the agreement was.
Richardson continues and asks the Mayor why she would be involved in getting Murray Cook to sign the agreement. Richardson also asked if the Mayor recalled the agreement being sent to her. McCallion responds, No. Never sent.
Richardson refers to exhibit 50. He says that the document referred to above is the Shareholder and Transfers Agreement.
Richardson presents a FAX transmittal sheet 905-813-XXXX —the Mayor’s Home Fax number. McCallion tells Richardson “The FAX doesn’t always work, I can assure you. I’ve had great problems with the FAX machine. I’ve advised my lawyers to fax to City Hall.”
Richardson refers to FAX status 14:29 Job Status is OK. McCallion insist that though the FAX status says “OK” she didn’t receive it.
Richardson refers to terminating the call and asks that Mayor what efforts she made when she received the phone message from Tony DeCicco about “the sooner we get it”. McCallion simply replies that she’s not sure.
Richardson then refers to page 29 and another message. The November 5th message would come in shortly before the 9:03 one. That message said, “I spoke with Barry at length. We can resolve this….etc Thanks for your help. I thought we were being ransacked.”
Richardson asks the Mayor, “Who is Barry?” McCallion answers, Barry Lyons.
Richardson asks McCallion, if it would it be fair to say this message related to the WCD budget?
Elizabeth McIntyre objects to Hazel McCallion being asked what might be in the mind of Tony DeCicco.
Judge Sproat coaches Richardson to rephrase the question. Richardson then asks the Mayor to relate HER understanding of the DeCicco’s message. McCallion answers, “I don’t recall the message, I really don’t.” And then McCallion adds or whether I took any action on it. And declares “I’m known for not doing it.” [Ed. helping developers]
Richardson refers to small booklet tab 2 page 29. November 5, 2007 message at 8:52 am. “…when Peter comes back”. McCallion replies re who is Peter, “I assume it was my son.”
Richardson asks, what were the bills? McCallion responds I don’t know.
Richardson asks the meaning of “thanks for your help?” How did McCallion help? The Mayor responds, “I can’t recall. I don’t know.”
Richardson says that two messages came in on November 5th from Tony DeCicco. DeCicco left a message that essentially said that he’d just spoke with Sol. If Murray knew of outstanding amount…I’ve asked Sol to forward everything, budget/bills.
Richardson asks the Mayor, Who is Sol? McCallion responds, “I don’t know”
Richardson then asks the Mayor if she knew what this message was about McCallion offers “I guess it was outstanding fees…”
Richardson asks why Tony DeCicco would share such information with her. McCallion cleverly offers, “I don’t know. I get a lot of funny calls.”
Richardson then turns to Application Record vol 4. Additional message not in the thin book. Telephone March 19, 2008. Tony “We just finished with Ed. Did a tour etc…Need answer soon…”
Richardson asks who is Ed? McCallion says Sajecki.
Richardson then asks what this message was about. [McCallion really tap-dances here Lots of words but not answering his question.]
Richardson asks McCallion what her understanding was of the phrase “in order to move forward…” McCallion serves up, “Guess he was trying to get me to decide on the hotel.”
Richardson now introduces another message. April 25, 2008. Tony DeCicco left a long, detailed message. Advised that he has met with City officials. Richardson asks McCallion what she understood met with City officials to mean. McCallion responds, “Don’t know.”
Richardson asks if the Mayor followed up. McCallion says, “I don’t know.”
Richardson then asks if McCallion listened to the very long mobile phone message. McCallion counters that she seldom listens to mobile messages. She says, “I don’t check it. In fact I get criticized for it. I’m not a technical person.” [Ed. I believe that. I have hundreds of text and likely voice messages on my mobile phone…]
Now the Mayor appears to be trying to get judge to swallow that World Class Developments is just any developer.
The Mayor at this point offered up an observation Ed Sajecki made about Tony DeCicco’s reputation…
Richardson is now onto the thin book.
Richardson asks the Mayor if the emails of 2007 resulted in her holding a meeting with Peter and Leo Couprie? McCallion responds, “I don’t recall” [Ed. How many is that now?…]
Re: November 20, 2007. Richardson asks whether it was possible that the Mayor met as a result of the telephone messages DeCicco had left on November 5th? McCallion responds “I don’t remember.”
Richardson then asks, whether the Mayor had a meeting with Tony and Peter as a result of these messages? McCallion responds “Don’t remember. 2007 is a long time back”.
Richardson then refers to the cross-examination of Leo Couprie (December 2012).
Q 372. In the fall of 2007 did you have any discussion re Murray and DeCicco.
Richardson follows up asking, what the problem was. McCallion: A question of who would put the money up.
In further cross-examination Couprie was asked if Peter wanted Leo to consult his mother. Couprie responded that it was a disagreement between Murray and Tony and that he didn’t know either one very wel. Couprie said that he let McCallion know that. Peter arranged the meeting. Couprie said it was a two-minute meeting with McCallion and then he left.
McCallion still denies remembering this meeting.
Richardson now turns to witnessing of signatures. [Ed. 11:18 am. I really think McCallion is enjoying this!]
Richardson asks McCallion if she recalled attending a meeting with Leo and Peter at Pier 4? What was understanding was the purpose of the meeting? McCallion responds it was about going to China. They were asking advice re contacts in Hong Kong and getting investment for the city core hotel.
Now McCallion slips into a song and dance about “the wonderful benefits of the City of Mississauga…. etc etc”. Richardson lets her soar…
McCallion says that she also suggested Peter and Leo approach the principals of the Shangri-La.
Richardson asks if McCallion was aware beforehand that there’d be a witnessing of documents. McCallion: No.
Richardson asks the Mayor if she were informed of the purpose of the documents. McCallion: No.
Richardson asks about the number of copies signed. McCallion: Don’t recall.
Richardson asks if McCallion’s understanding was that Peter was a realtor, why would he need such a document? McCallion says that Peter and Leo explained some arrangements had to be prior to their Asian trip.
Richardson asks McCallion if she were interested in what Peter was signing? McCallion: No. [Ed. Yet The Mayor moans about how little information son-Peter shares with her…]
Richardson now refers to the affidavit.He tells McCallion that Peter probably had made her aware that the Agreement of Sale had been finalized.
McCallion replies “I did not see the Agreement of Sale” but that she did become aware. McCallion observes that she did not learn about Agreement of Sale at that meeting. McCallion speculate that it could’ve been OMERS telling her. Could’ve been Peter….
Richardson then suggests that by January 2007 that at least then, the Mayor knew about the agreement had been finalized. Richardson’s point being she was aware, just not when.
Regarding the January 25/26 Pier 4 meeting, Richardson asks McCallion if they were celebrating the finalization of the meeting. Documents signed on the 29th around the same time as the Pier 4 meeting was. Then McCallion responds, “As I say, did it occur?”
Richardson refers to the slim volume provided yesterday Tab 2, page 23. Dinner January 25, 2007 at Pier 4. That was the dinner where McCallion witnessed docs.
Richardson asks for Mayor’s affidavit to be put in front of her. Page 51 par 167. “I also knew from Peter or Murray that it was a condition of the agreement was a hotel, or certain size, amenities etc.”
Richardson asks if Murray Cook also informed her that the hotel would be connected to the LAC by walkway. Richardson then asks if Cook informed her of any other terms of the agreement of sale?
Richardson asserts that in Spring 2008 the Mayor became involved in the negotiation of the Agreement of Sale. McCallion justifies this with they were having difficulty…
McIntyre objects saying that the time frame is beyond May 31, 2008.
Richardson then asks McCallion if she were involved in negotiations before May 31, 2008? McCallion: “I don’t recall.”
Richardson asks McCallion if she met with Mr. Fillipetti (Oxford) in March 2008. And whether it were possible that she were involved prior to May 31, 2008. He also asks if she knew about the nature of the proposed amendments McCallion replies “I did not know the details.”
Richardson then asks McCallion why she was called upon to be involved in the terms of the agreement. McCallion insists that she doesn’t recall meeting with Fillipetti. Exact quote, “I don’t recall. I’m sorry.”
Richardson asks if McCallion made contact with OMERS on or before May 31 2008. McCallion, yet another “I don’t recall.”
Richardson asks for break now.
RESUME AT 2 PM. PREDICTS FINISHING AT 4.
COURT RESUMES 2 PM
Richardson refers Aug 29, 2007 Mississauga News. Headline “City Centre gets second major hotel”. Richardson reads opening four paragraphs and the article clearly mentions World Class Developments.
McCallion says that she doesn’t recall seeing the article. Richardson not quite believing, tells the Mayor that the article was an announcement that her long-held dream of a hotel is to be fulfilled —and no one brought it to her attention?
McIntyre objects to any further questions on the clip. Judge Sproat tells Richardson to go ahead because it could be relevant.
Richardson asks several question, if any person brought this article to McCallion’s attention. Anyone advise her that WCD was commencing the project. Mayor replies no to both. Richardson then comments, “So no one informed you that your dream project was about to commence?”
Richardson then asks McCallion if she was informed around October 3, 2007 that Ed Sajecki appeared for an interview on Rogers TV announcing commencement of World Class Developments project. McCallion replies “I very seldom watch TV.”
Richardson now refers to the Ed Sajecki letter. McCallion acknowledges that Sajecki’s letter was removed from the file and had not returned.
Richardson, says that there were attachments. However as far as McCallion recollects the attachments were not attached to the letter. McCallion says that staff conducted very thorough search –and far as they know only two copies were made of the document (of the list of 84 site plan applications).
Richardson now refers to two maps. City of Mississauga Urban Growth Centre. And second page entitled Community Approvement…
[Ed unable to make sense of the next entry of my notes.]
The Sajecki letter describes the area affected as an Urban Growth Centre (UGC). Richardson asks whether the WCD lands located in that UGC? McCallion reads the paragraph and then answers, “I’d assume it would, yes.”
Richardson reminds McCallion she indicated Sajecki’s letter was not sent to Council. Richardson reminds Peel resolution wasn’t either.
Richardson is trying to understand…formulate his question –but McCallion can’t follow Richardson [Ed. neither did I!]
Richardson suggests that within City’s UGC areas, special transition provisions would apply.
Richardson says that he’s trying to understand the effect of the motion she seconded. McCallion asks to see the resolution. [Ed. 2:17 pm. Hazel calm, confident]
Richardson refers to application record Vol 3, Tab 21. Page 1252.
Richardson explains that it was moved by Fennell, seconded by McCallion. That the resolution be amended to include medium-high density residential and mixed use project be extended to November 1, 2009. This xtension would apply to all three area-municipalities? McCallion admits, Yes.
Richardson asks McCallion and this resolution is to apply in these three municipalities only to areas identified by each municipality
Richardson asks whether that was the intent of Sajecki’s letter.
McIntyre objects. She says that the Mayor can’t speak for Sajecki.
Richardson rephrases and asks whether the effect of the Sajecki letter showed the Urban Growth Centre areas that could benefit from transition provisions.
Richardson suggests the second paragraph in Sajecki’s letter directs Staff. McCallion agrees this paragraph gives direction to Staff.
Richardson goes back to the first paragraph. With your resolution and the Sajecki letter, if those two resolutions had succeeded on the October 4, 2007 vote, the transition provisions would apply to WCD lands.
Richardson explains that Fennell introdcued the resolution to address her Brampton-specific concerns. That she understood the resolution only applied to Brampton. Brampton is exempt.
Richardson reminds that with McCallion’s resolution the provision was extended to all three municipalities.
McCallion responds that any policy Peel tries to approve applies to all municipalities.
Richardson manages to get McCallion to admit that she passed a resolution that was not of concern to Mississauga.
McCallion offers that “We (Regional Councillors) don’t see bylaws” “Copies of the bylaw are not provided…” So the resolution of Council is then not reflective of will of Council.
Richardson then says that Mayor Susan Fennell said that the Region Clerk “regionalized” the Brampton resolution. Richardson asks McCallion if it is her experience that the Regional Clerk “regionalizizes” resolutions from area municipalities.
Richardson raises the issue if McCallion would expect a resolution passed by Mississauga Council to be regionalize at Peel Council…
McIntyre up. No questions.
NOTE: When I set to editing all my court notes to publish as separate blogs, I had absolutely no idea how detailed each day’s court notes were. Polishing my notes did not only became a daunting task but one that I did my all to avoid.
Jotting down notes during court testimony is interesting. But taking those point-form scribbles and fleshing them into sentences after the fact is indescribably tedious.
The next set of notes is the Hazineh court appearance. His are the toughest of all to transcribe. At one point during Hazineh’s testimony Judge Sproat interrupted, telling him to wait until McCallion’s lawyers were finished asking their question. Sproat explained that the court clerk was was having a difficult time recording what was being said —getting everything down. And that’s someone experienced!
Since Hazel McCallion and Elias Hazineh were the only two witnesses called to testify at this Superior Court conflict of interest case, it’s important that I also transcribe my Hazineh court notes.
But after that, I’m not prepared to commit what would amount to days-on-endless-end on something I could just buy as court transcripts!
Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing. The Mayor’s Testimony Day 1. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 11, 2013
April 14th, 2013
What follows is a summary of notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house on April 11, 2013 —Hazel McCallion testifying. If anyone finds any errors I’d appreciate being advised.
COURT NOTES DAY 4 Thursday, April 11, 2013 1st day of Hazel McCallion’s testimony
9:50 am Mayor Hazel McCallion arrives and goes straight to the stand (upbeat, confident, laughing with court staff.)
9:55 Diane Kalenchuk, Fran Rider arrive (both involved in December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally opposing Judicial Inquiry) .
10:07 am court session begins.
Elizabeth McIntyre (lawyer for the Mayor)
McIntyre calls McCallion to the stand. McCallion swears on Bible with a “So help me God.”
McIntyre refers to a document and includes an “accumulation of documents” extracted from other parts of the record (to be presented in chronological order).
McCallion swore an affidavit and states that she stands by evidence in that affidavit. [Ed. On Friday, Day 2 of her testimony, she will retract statements made in her sworn affidavit that she stood by today.]
McIntyre now refers to McCallion’s biography. McIntyre highlights that McCallion was first elected Mayor of Mississauga in 1978. Re-elected all the way to 2010. Involved in municipal politics for an extended period of time. Prior to that McCallion was involved in working for Canadian Kellogg. Worked for Kellogg for 19 years and left in 1967.
McIntyre relates that McCallion started off her political career on the Streetsville Planning Board. There she served as Chair, then became Deputy Reeve of Streetsville and then Mayor of Mississauga.
McIntyre then requests the Mayor to turn to paragraph 8 and reads that Mississauga was once a small collection of towns blah blah etc etc –and one of priorities of the Mayor was to “create a dynamic downtown city core”.
McIntyre then prompts McCallion to give Judge an idea of her list of challenges.
McCallion states that when she first moved into City Hall, cows and horses were grazing across the field when she went into her office. Square 1 started in a hayfield. McCallion said that she was successful in making “some progress” towards a city core. They built City Hall and Central Highway for example. Then they built the YMCA. McCallion said, “We tried to demonstrate that the City core had a future.”
McCallion states that office development has been a challenge. That she wanted 12 million sq ft of office space in the City core –and that has not been accomplished.
Then McCallion started on a favourite subject —about the number of Fortune 500 companies in Mississauga etc etc….
McCallion claimed that with these companies, Mississauga needed a convention centre. She stated that the main mission of Council and Staff was to get a convention centre tied in with Living Arts Centre.
But they had no success.
McCallion continued that the ideal location of hotel would be right next to Living Arts Centre along with a reasonably-sized convention centre. That, the Mayor claimed was the mission of Council and Staff —a 4 or 5-star hotel.
McIntyre asks McCallion what time frame. For how long has this hotel/convention centre been a goal.
McCallion says 10 or 15 years or longer. The Mayor explains that Mississauga’s Fortune 500 companies were drawn here by the airport. But they would have to stay in downtown Toronto hotels and then get carted to Mississauga.
McCallion claims she had received “a lot of complaints” about no hotel/convention centre.
McCallion then goes on to say that she’s been the Chair of Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and wanted to invite AMO conventions to Mississauga but can’t.
McIntyre asks, so goal of Council was to have convention centre next to LAC. McCallion responds, yes, goal was to accommodate 1500 delegates to a conference.
McCallion revealed that “OMERS owns a lot of land around City Hall” (including Square 1).
McCallion says the City called for a proposal for a convention centre but got no response. They went to Hong Kong, China on trade missions hoping to get hotel owners –ie Shangri la (a lot of regurgitation of Inquiry material…).
“Toronto beat us out on it” (re the Shangri la) McCallion says.
McIntyre asks McCallion if the official plan in question pre-dates 2005.
McIntyre refers to McCallion’s affidavit. McIntyre asks McCallion to tell the court what she recalls she was advised by Peter during this time.
McCallion recounts that Peter knew the City was “anxious” to get a hotel and convention centre. So he approached his mother and said he had an investor to build a hotel/convention centre.
McCallion said that in all this time, Peter’s investor was the only one to express interest at any time.
McCallion said she knew the investor to be Leo Couprie.
McIntyre asks McCallion that In 2005 to what degree was she familiar with Leo Couprie. McCallion responds that she was invited to dinner at his home. But that she didn’t meet that many times with him.
McCallion knew Couprie’s background to be strictly importing.
McIntyre based on what you knew about Couprie did you have any reason for him not to invest?
McCallion said she had no idea how much money Leo Couprie had. She said that Couprie would put down the money (deposit) to buy the City core land.
McCallion states that in 2005 she knew nothing of the details regarding how much money Couprie would put up in this venture.
McCallion understood Peter would be Leo Couprie’s legal representative as real estate agent.
McIntyre asked the Mayor it came as a surprise to her. McCallion said yes and that maybe it was the opportunity to get what City wanted.
McIntyre asks what came as a surprise. McCallion says the surprise was that Peter was able to convince someone to invest in the City core.
McIntyre then relates a short biography on Peter McCallion. She asks the Mayor when Peter was born. 1953. His occupational history. Residential real estate to industrial/commercial real estate.
McIntyre then asks McCallion, In 2005-2007, what extent would you have known his real estate practices. McCallion responds, “Very little.” “He did not share his successes with me.”
McIntyre asks what she understood re him being real estate agent.
McCallion says that she understood that Peter would make sure Leo Couprie didn’t lose money and because Couprie wasn’t experienced, that Peter would help him with real estate issues.
McCallion said she had no idea if Peter had equity in development projects. She adds that to her knowledge Peter did not have a history in investing development projects.
McIntryre says that Mayor McCallion has three children. Paul lives in Milton. Peter in Mississauga. [Ed. At this point the discussion became a bit hard to hear so McCallion admits to having a hearing aid –and needing it.]
McIntyre asks what McCallion’s relationship with Peter was in 2005-2007.
McCallion explains that her husband died in 1997. And that she would count on Peter to look after a lot of the household chores. McCallion said that her son Paul can’t, but because he’s a real estate agent, Peter has flexible hours. And that she has to depend on Peter a lot.
McCallion said that she had frequent contact with Peter. And also that Peter was her driver.
McIntyre asked McCallion about the “flow of information” between Peter and the Mayor. McCallion responds very little. That Peter keeps it to himself. That Paul is different –very open.
McIntyre then asks what McCallion knew about Peter’s financial situation. McCallion explains that she didn’t know Peter’s “financial standing”. McCallion says that “None of my children share their financial status with me.”
McCallion says that she never believed that Peter had the money to pull off The Project (the land, all the hoops to jump through) McCallion knew that would require “Major finances to do it.”
McCallion says that she understood that major investors would still be needed down the line.
McCallion explains that the hotel must be “Not less than a 4-star.” McIntyre asks McCallion for details. McCallion says that the City core would need the minimum of a 4-star hotel to “satisfy the needs of our economic base.” Convention delegates, McCallion says, expect at least 4-star accommodation and as a result they go to Toronto for those 4 or 5-star hotels.
McCallion says that she knew too The Project was “an extremely complicated process” and that Peter would not have the “technical expertise” to pull the process off.
At some point McCallion says she became aware that long-time family friend, Murray Cook would come in. McCallion says that she knew Murray Cook has “vast experience in the development industry —nationally and internationally”.
McCallion says she didn’t know who “they” were. But she guessed one of the investors would be Leo Couprie. And McCallion knew that Peter would be involved –in seeking the consultants necessary to grapple with such a major project.
Re World Class Development. McCallion says that “from Day One” she understood that Leo owned all the shares in the corporation. But that she had no knowledge that Peter was a shareholder.
McIntyre asks McCallion if she thought Peter might be an officer of the company? Employee? McCallion responds no both times.
McCallion repeats that she understood that Peter “represented Leo”.
McCallion testifies that she advised Peter and Murray Cook that she would declare pecuniary interest at City Council should the issue come up. The court determines that it was 2005 that Peter first informed her of his involvement in this project.
McIntyre asks McCallion when did she advise Peter and Murray Cook that she’d have to declare a conflict? The Mayor said she can’t recall.
McCallion testifies that she knew that she’d have to declare a conflict at council, planning committee —“or any other committee”.
McCallion testifies that elected officials are not advised as council members when site plans come into the City. Like in any list.
McCallion testifies that developers might approach a councillor before he puts in a site plan application. And that some do. Some don’t.
McIntyre asks McCallion in a project of this nature what would come before council? McCallion says perhaps zoning amendments, official plan impacts. Then it comes to the planning committee. If WCD were to come before the planning committee, McCallion said she’d have declared a conflict of interest.
McIntyre then turns McCallion’s attention to zoning changes. McCallion said that matters related to zoning changes would come as a report with a lot of details about how those changes affect services/infrastructure.
McCallion repeated that anything related to World Class Developments that came before a committee or council she would declare a conflict.
McCallion said she’d seen a lot of development processes come through Mississauga. McCallion testified that she had OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) to lay down the condition that the hotel must come first, then the condos because she knew that developers prefer to build residential first. McCallion states that she felt the hotel must come first and be a condition in the sale of the land.
As a result of the hotel condition, McCallion says, the project failed. McCallion stated that they just couldn’t get 4-5 star hotel with the capacity to serve as a convention centre.
McCallion testifies that the details surrounding a hotel are uncertain because it depended on what the developer envisioned.
McCallion states that she definitely had a personal interest in hotel but that she never had a direct (personal) pecuniary interest. And that the hotel is key to convention centre.
McCallion testifies that she had no problems attracting condos in city core. That residential development is not a problem. That the major problem is attracting office development.
McCallion testifies that she had no involvement in residential developments –that she zero’d in on the hotel for involvement.
McIntyre asks if the Mayor would know the process/conditions, the hoops to jump through in the hotel process. McCallion then estimates that the project might take “quite a few years to accomplish. That the process of development has become very complicated.” Depends on size, what they want to do.
McCallion estimates “one to two years for very small project”. And for full approval of a convention centre “two to three years. At least two years.” –to get a building permit.
McCallion repeats what she testified at the Judicial Inquiry about Staff: “We are very diligent. Our Staff is diligent –making sure every ‘i ‘ is dotted”…
McIntyre asks in 2005 –what did you consider your obligations to be regarding interactions with Staff.
McCallion responds, “You should not in any way influence Staff.”
McCallion testifies “I had no involvement” (with site plan staff process). That Staff was aware that she had a conflict and therefore did not want to be involved in any discussion.
McIntyre asks how she was aware. McIntyre asks McCallion “but did you advise Staff prior?”
McCallion responds with “I did but can’t recall when.”
McIntyre asks whether it was usual for Staff to brief councillors on development. McCallion replies it was not unusual.
McCallion testifies that she didn’t attend the WCD briefing in April 2007. That since she was declaring conflict it would not be proper for her to attend the meeting (with Baker, Ball, Sajecki, Cook…)
McCallion then adds, “I’m not interested in the site plans because I believe it’s a responsibility of the Staff”.
McIntyre focuses on the 2005-2007 timeline asking McCallion is she was ever approached by Marilyn Ball (Director of Development & Design and wife of former City Manager, David O’Brien/OMERS) to be briefed on the WCD project.
McCallion responds that Ball offered and that she had refused. McCallion said from “Day One” Staff knew that I did not want to be involved.
McCallion testifies her concern was that she would be seen to influence the Staff on the WCD application.
McIntyre asks to what extent the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCOI) did not apply to any OMERS meetings!
McIntyre then explores McCallion’s understanding of Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. McCallion responds that “Often when Acts come into being you rely on the Staff to brief you on it.”
McIntyre then asks whether the Staff provided briefing? McCallion responds that she can’t recall. McCallion states that somebody advised Council at the time (the Act came into effect) that when an item comes before a committee/Council, —you have to declare a conflict. McCallion then says she was told that even if you think you have a conflict you should declare.
McCallion said that as Director of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, issues relating to the MCOI Act came up for discussion from time to time. McCallion reports that George Rust’Dye gave presentations. That Rust D’Eye explained some of the cases. McCallion states that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was “A very great concern of the municipalities.”
McCallion states that the Large Urban Mayors now have concerns as well. That the MCOI Act now causing all kinds of complications.
McIntyre mentions that McCallion was charged under the MCOI Act back in 1982. McIntyre asks McCallion if since whether she reviewed the MCOI Act with her lawyer. And whether McCallion had reviewed the decisions of the court?
McIntyre asks McCallion to what extent she took the provision of that Act seriously? McCallion says when Peel Council deals with police budget she declares a conflict of interest regarding her son Paul who is employed by Peel Police.
McIntyre asks “as a councillor how seriously do you take that question?” (direct/indirect pecuniary interest at meetings)
McIntyre then goes back to 2007 and asks McCallion what her understanding of conflict of interest were back then? McCallion responds “If a matter involves, no matter what status, I have a conflict.” That her son Peter represented Leo Couprie. And that if matters relating to WCD came to Council, she would declare a conflict.
McCallion states that Council was well aware that she had a conflict.
McIntyre now refers to a letter February 2, 2009 and asks who prepared the letter? McCallion says she did.
McIntyre asks McCallion why she prepared the letter, explaining that this February 2, 2009 letter is prior to any issues raised re motion/call for Inquiry.
[Ed. Essentially the letter asks for clarification of MCOI Act and asks what happens if an elected official doesn’t know what business or business contacts your kids have. This letter definitely pre-dates Judicial Inquiry.]
McCallion responds that she had read a government update that encouraged her to write a letter. And also the many discussions at AMO regarding MCOI Act and how it was “creating problems”. Including problems like hobbling a Council to a point where they can’t vote on an issue (ie: development in an area where most councillors live).
McCallion states that “AMO very aware of accumulation of issues surrounding MCOI Act.”
McCallion also said she had “many discussions” re MCOI Act with other municipalities.
[Ed. I’m certain that AMO has had many presentations/discussions relating to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act but McIntyre fuzzies up the timing of all this knowledge/debate McCallion was receiving. For example, interest/issues surrounding municipal conflict of interest intensified in Mississauga from September 2009 through the Rob Ford trials to current.]
COURT RESUMES 11:51
McIntyre now wants to explore Hazel McCallion’s involvement in WCD and its affairs.
Referring to document labelled “Couprie” in log book and the articles of incorporation re World Class Development Ltd. Dates from 2006 and refers to 2005.
McCallion says that she did not see them at the time.
McIntyre refers to page 351. McIntyre asks McCallion to what extent the document reflected her understanding. McCallion says she wasn’t really aware of Leo Couprie’s involvement.
McIntyre asks McCallion if she understood at any time that Leo Couprie was a principal and owned all of the shares in the World Class Developments.
McIntyre then refers to “Lusk” document. An Agreement of Purchase of Sale made on behalf of WCD and OMERS March 21, 2005. McCallion states that she did not see that document at the time.
McCallion testifies that she must have been advised at some time that World Class Developments had put in an offer. But she was aware they were trying to purchase the land.
McIntyre than suggests that at some point McCallion became involved in the negotiations. McCallion said no, not the negotiations but the “exchange”. That Murray Cook had said there was a lot of “exchange” between WCD and OMERS.
McIntyre defines “exchange” as “back and forth proposals”.
McIntyre then asks McCallion to what extent she saw the details of the changes?
McIntyre asks McCallion’s involvement in real estate transactions in general? McCallion says very little. That she may get a call… sharing what difficulties they might have. But that she doesn’t get involved in reviewing documents. That she had no involvement in real estate transaction aside from buying two houses.
McIntyre asks her involvement in WCD’s. McCallion says OMERS never made any effort to build a hotel “they own a lot of land in the city core”.
McIntyre redirects and repeats her involvement. McCallion states that she encouraged OMERS to sell the land to WCD to get the hotel to happen. But that she did not get involved in the details.
McIntyre leads McCallion to explain that she was representing the City, the Council of the City to get a hotel built.
McCallion then testifies that she knew that Ken Lusk represents OMERS and that OMERS owned 50% of Square One. AIMCO (Alberta Investment Management Corporation) the other 50%.
McIntyre gets McCallion to turn her attention to mail from Lusk to Michael Del Bello (OMERS/Oxford). Dated March 9, 2006. McIntyre asks McCallion if she saw that at the time? McCallion says no.
McIntyre reads portions to her. “Unidentified purchaser” Purchaser represented by Mayor’s son who is the purchaser… Pressure on Oxford. .. etc
McIntyre asks meeting with Paul Haggis (Oxford) re “express desire to sell the land”. McCallion agrees with that statement.
McIntyre introduces a series of other emails referencing her involvement. Phone calls, etc.
McIntyre refers to Tab 8 –an email from Ken Lusk to Ron Pedicord (Oxford) October 20, 2006. “Mayor very upset that transaction taking so long to complete”. [Ed. The content of the email suggests that Hazel McCallion would get a considerable amount of detail about progress of project. Meaning, she wouldn’t need Staff informing her!]
McCallion testifies there was a “rumour” of another hotel coming at Highway 10 and Burnhamthorpe. [Ed. hmm…]
McCallion then goes into great detail, really selling convention/hotel to the court.
[Ed. WOW. No consideration that once meetings done, there’s nothing for convention delegates to do in Mississauga except go to Downtown Toronto!]
McIntyre asks McCallion what due diligence was done on World Class Developments around January 2007 –about the time the agreement was signed.
McCallion reports that Arthur(?) did most of the due diligence on WCD. And that Murray Cook said he was an owner. Spoke to McCallion about whether Murray could pull this off.
McCallion states that she didn’t recall having the conversation but that she must have.
McIntyre states that Lusk reported that Cook had told him that he owned WCD. [Ed. at least partly]
McIntyre gets McCallion to turn back to the Leo Couprie book. Tab 5. It’s the Agreement of Purchase of Sale of The Property, January 31, 2007.
McIntyre asks McCallion whether she saw this document at the time. McCallion No.
McCallion says she was not aware of the details, but was informed by somebody from OMERS of the condition that the hotel had to be built first.
McCallion can’t recall around what date she knew the agreement had been signed. McCallion can’t recall who told her either. McCallion can recall that the Hotel Built First condition was included.
McIntyre now deals with events from January 2007 to the Regional Council meetings in September and October 2007. McIntyre asks if she recalls any other involvement with the vendors of the Property.
McCallion says yes, that she heard nothing for a long time, then at later point, they had certain deadlines to agree to in order finalize things to meet the conditions. As for the dates McCallion says that she can’t confirm whether it was before or after Sept/Oct 2007.
[Ed. My own dealings with City of Mississauga Staff have taught me that “Can’t recall” can have double meaning. It can mean the inability to remember but also “can’t recall because it’s not in my/City’s interest to share the information with you.”]
McIntyre now goes on to other documents in the Couprie material. Tab 3. McCallion confirms that she saw it at time for her to witness/sign and then also the Declaration of Trust (Tab 4). And McCallion confirms, yes, she witnessed the signatures.
McIntyre then asks McCallion what it means to witness a signature?
McCallion said she’s witnessed signatures for many thousands of documents/passports. That her role is merely to witness the signing/signature in their presence. Means nothing more than that.
As for the documents at Pier 4, McCallion says that Peter and Couprie were leaving for China hoping to get someone to invest in a hotel. They wanted to know what connections she had in China.
McCallion testified that she understood the purpose of the meeting at Pier 4 was to inform them as to what contacts she had in China as to investment in Mississauga. McCallion also says that Peter and Couprie were the only ones at the Pier 4 dinner meeting.
McCallion said it was a relatively dark restaurant. And that she was asked just to witness their signatures to “cover their absence when they were away”.
McCallion testifies that Leo Couprie told her the purpose of the documents [Ed. then McCallion appeared to back-pedal so I’m not too sure…]
McCallion states that the documents were to deal with the business with World Class Developments in case something happened during travel.
Referring to Tab 3, McCallion testifies, “I reviewed none of the content of the document. None.” Then she said that for certain lighting conditions and size of type she would have to use reading glasses to see much of anything.
Then McCallion adds that she doesn’t need glasses to sign documents but might to read them.
McCallion states that she can’t recall whether she used glasses to sign that day.
Document at Tab 4. McCallion says “I did not read them” (the words on that document).
McCallion states that she doesn’t recall any discussion of the documents. That she wasn’t given a copy either.
McIntyre asks McCallion to turn to Tab 6 in same book. Shareholder’s Agreement February 28, 2007 World Class Developments, Murray Cook and Leo Couprie.
McCallion states that from Day 1 she was advised that Leo Couprie owned all the shares of the company.
McCallion then testifies that she believed that Peter’s role with WCD was to ensure (try/hoping) that an agreement between WCD and OMERS would happen to purchase of land. Other than that Peter’s additional involvement was “none at all”.
McCallion announces that “I learned more during the Inquiry” re internal affairs of WCD.
McIntyre now turns McCallion attention to the Promissory note signed by Peter McCallion on behalf of World Class Developments for $50,000 from the TACC group.
McCallion testifies that she knows that TACC is a developer and a provider of services.
McIntyre asks McCallion if she saw the Promissory note at the time? McCallion: No. McIntyre asks McCallion if she were aware that TACC was lending money to WCD? McCallion: No.
In addition McCallion was not aware Peter was in position to sign a promissory note on behalf of WCD. McCallion then says, “I was not aware of his finances that would enable him to sign a promissory note.” [Ed. quote 100% accurate.]
McIntyre asks McCallion that without seeing a document, to what extent she was aware of the financial details of WCD? Ie: Deposits (the ledger).
McCallion responds that she was not aware Peter was contributing or receiving money from World Class Developments. McCallion: “I was not aware.”
McIntyre takes McCallion to Tab 9, an agreement between Landplex and Leo Couprie. Dated August 31, 2007. McCallion says she didn’t see agreement. But that she did know who Tony DiCicco was though.
McCallion testifies that at some point Peter mentioned that Tony DiCicco got involved because, she assumed, of his experience in development.
McCallion adds that she also knew DeCicco from developments in Mississauga including “joint ventures”. McCallion testifies that she had discussions with him on occasion ie: access re his development at Derry Road –asked to help by Olympic Flame. McCallion says that she also had a social meeting with DeCicco because his Dad wanted to meet her –had to do with some celebration. McCallion also said that he won the auction for Dinner at Mayor’s house.
McCallion says that she has many conversations with developers.
McCallion testifies that Peter told her the reason DeCicco came in was because they needed somebody assisting WCD getting through the process.
[Ed. Yet at the Judicial Inquiry September 15, 2010 hearing, Murray Cook testified that Peter brought DcCicco in because Cook couldn’t give Peter real estate agent role going forward. Meaning Peter was out of all his money.]
Q = Naomi Loewith, Commission Counsel
A= Murray Cook
MURRAY COOK, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 JUDICIAL INQUIRY TESTIMONY BEGINS
15 Q: Did you understand that he expected
16 to be the agent for the eventual condo sales?
17 A: No, that didn’t come up until much
19 Q: Did you have concerns about it when
20 you did learn of it?
21 A: Yes, very much.
22 Q: Why is that?
23 A: You — later, when it appeared that
24 Mr. McCallion’s original investors were unable to — to
25 pony the — the dollars, I advised Mr. McCallion, when he
1 suggested the — the sale of the individual condos that
2 it’s very hard to get an investor to invest if you
3 predetermined who was the selling agent.
4 In most cases, investors/developers have a
5 team that they’ve worked with over the years and are
6 comfortable with. And that’s — that’s not a
7 conventional real estate cer — sales person. It’s — I
8 won’t mention any particular firms, but there’s several
9 major firms out there that specialize in doing condo
10 sales. They have low risk. All they do is: The
11 developer puts up the sale centre, puts up all the
12 advertising, does all the marketing, and in some cases
13 when you’re dealing with these firms they’ll even tell
14 you how many clipboards their staff need, and pencils.
15 And that — that is a very different
16 entity. And to make the project work with predetermining
17 that — an individual real estate sales person, that was
18 a non-starter.
MURRAY COOK, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 JUDICIAL INQUIRY TESTIMONY ENDS
McIntyre then asks, in this period of time, January 2007 Agreement of Purchase of Sale to the October 2007 Peel Region vote, “To what extent would you discuss WCD with Peter?”
McCallion said that Peter discussed bringing DeCicco along. As for any discussion with the City, nothing. McCallion states, “he didn’t keep me well-advised at all.”
McCallion insists that the only time she got involved was when they ran into difficulties with the hotel.
McCallion then goes into a series of “can’t recall”s. Can’t recall —might have discussed the purchase of the land with Murray Cook. Can’t recall anything with Leo Couprie.
McIntyre now wants to break until 2:15 pm.
Got back and set up at 2:19 pm (arrived a bit late)
McIntyre still up. Topic: building permits.
McCallion said that she certainly advised staff that she did not want to be advised/involved in any discussion/matters relating to World Class Developments. [Ed: That announcement/caution also means all Staff knew WCD had “Special” written all over it!]
McIntyre now moving to the development fees process.
McCallion said she was involved with levies even before legislative authority. That she changed levies in Mississauga and Region a number of times.
McIntyre asks if there’s been another development charge review since 2007? McCallion responds yes, 2012. McIntyre asks McCallion to explain understanding of the role of development charges.
McCallion says it applies to all growth. It’s for the major services, sewage/water lines, roads.
McIntyre then asks what is the role of Regional Council re the setting of Development Charges by-law. McCallion says Peel Staff research for a report and present findings to Council. McCallion says elected officials depend on Staff to decide what the charges should be based on consultants’ reports and comparisons to the projection created in the first place.
McCallion testifies that the role of Peel Council has to hold public “stakeholders” meetings. McCallion points out the these meetings are between Staff and usually (almost 100% of the time) —developers.
McIntyre asks McCallion the role of Peel Council. McCallion says to field input from all [Ed. can’t follow it… lots of detail and not sure relevance except to… finally got to point]
McCallion states that Peel has always had a transitional period.
McIntyre asks what factors does Peel Council consider. McCallion says what the backlog is, the economic times (in regards to industrial/commercial since increased development fees could make Peel less competitive –a major concern.)
McIntyre now asks McCallion about the economy in 2007. McCallion says the was “starting to tank”. Also price of land. Competition increasing in Halton and Kitchener-Waterloo.
McIntyre then asks McCallion to what extent individual projects are reviewed during the consideration of the transitional period.
McCallion introduces the concern for jobs/unemployment.
McIntyre then asks McCallion to relate the relationship between Development charges and jobs? McCallion says that increased development charges can potentially have an effect in economic downtimes.
McCallion states decisions are based on the impact to the entire community.
McIntyre now goes through details of 2007 Developmental Charges by-law process.
McIntyre mow turns attention to the March 2006 Peel report by Dan Lebreque, Commissioner of Public Works Department for Region of Peel.
McIntyre then asks to what extent McCallion had clear recollection of these events.
McCallion says that they/Peel were behind in their collection of funds. And that Peel needed a certain increase, “not catch up but try to catch up.”
McIntyre returns to the LeBrecque’s March 2006 Peel report.
McIntyre asks McCallion to explain the relationship between development charges and the capital budget. McCallion said it’s projected —an estimate.
McIntyre asks whether McCallion anticipated an increase in development levies. McCallion replies that development fees have always gone up.
Relating to March 2006 McIntyre asks whether McCallion knew that World Class Developments would be affected by those charges. McCallion says it all depended on WHEN –but that she assumed they’d be faced with those charges.
McIntyre asks if McCallion declared a conflict of interest in 2006 when this Developmental Charges review came up at Peel. McCallion testified that since she didn’t know the status of WCD in the process she believed the fee applied to any fee/property tax or any user fee. It applies to everybody, McCallion says. Of general application.
[Ed. McCallion then makes an intriguing statement…] That in McCallion’s experience councillors have never declared a conflict in planning or development!
McCallion then compares the Peel Development Charges by-law to a dog license fee –declaring that she has not declared a conflict when dog license fees come up even though she owns a dog.
Tab 14 McIntyre refers to a number of presentations made to Peel Council. McCallion explaints that some of these reports elected officials get on the day of the meeting —or the night before. McCallion adds that elected officials have complained to Staff about these last minute deliveries.
McIntyre asks with respect to non-residential development, in May 2007, what was Peel asking to be the cut off? McCallion couldn’t answer.
McIntyre then asks to what extent would Council would rely on Staff regarding the recommendations? McCallion says the desire of Staff would be to have no transition period at all.
McCallion points out that Peel Council doesn’t always accept the recommendations of Staff.
McIntyre refers to Tab 32 in McCallion’s book. Report from LeBrecque in 2007.
Re Letter of the arterial road mentioned yesterday. McCallion testifies that City of Mississauga Staff prepared the letter and Staff felt strongly this road shouldn’t be included. McCallion then states that after Staff prepared the letter it was then ready for her signature.
McCallion insists that the letter/issue was strictly raised by Staff. And that her signature was to show it came from Head of the municipality.
Tab 19 (in HM’s book) Minutes of Peel General Committee for September 6, 2007. Page 657 is an amendment requested by McCallion. Purpose of amendment was to allow for 90-day transition with respect to non-residential and apartments. (November to May 2008).
So the transition period was extended from 60 days to 90 days.
[Ed. The end of April 2008 happens to be when Mississauga Planning Staff were, according to Ed Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building for the City of Misissauga, “burning the midnight oil to help WCD remove the ‘H’ symbol and to avoid paying the higher development fees” —a saving of $11M..]
McIntyre asks McCallion, did you consider what effect this impact would have on WCD?
McIntyre then asks McCallion if anyone at WCD made submissions to Peel regarding fees impact?
McIntyre now moves to Tab 22 in McC’s doc. Peel Council September 13, 2007. Reports that meeting lasted 1 hr 6 min.
The court is told that there is no record of the September 13, 2007 Peel debate. McCallion said, “Yes, unfortunately”…
McIntyre asks McCallion if she can remember what is said at the meeting. McCallion: No. Then adds, “Development levies are general.”
McIntyre then introduces page 685 of McCallion’s document. September 6, 2013 General Committee includes that recommendations relating to residential and non-residential levies be adopted.
Re Staff reports before Council, McCallion says “I hope they do the research on the thing.”
McCallion says that Brampton Mayor Fennell requested the minutes be “reconsidered”.
This was moved by Fennell, seconded McCallion, and it extended the transition period for medium-high density residential and office even further —to November 1, 2009.
McIntyre asks McCallion if she has recollection of this resolution. McCallion said that Fennell moved it because she had concerns in Brampton about medium-high density residential in her city.
McCallion testifies that she can’t recall the discussion with Fennell. McCallion is very vague about it. McCallion says that at that point the amendment didn’t affect Mississauga –only Brampton. McCallion also adds that she can’t remember how much this amendment was actually debated at Council.
McIntyre asks McCallion who drafted the actual wording? McCallion responds that “If anyone drafted it it would be Mayor Fennell.”
McCallion said she didn’t understand that the amendment was directed towards Mississauga.
[Ed. …wording uses “three area municipalities”.]
McCallion states the she did not consider conflict of interest, “Why would I?” she says. “I had no knowledge of the progress of their application.”
McCallion admits that she knew the way the motion read that the Fennell amendment would affect WCD.
COURT RESUME 3:45 pm
McIntyre still up.
McIntyre now deals with a letter dated September 19, 2007 to Dan LeBreque from Ed Sajecki. This letter identifies areas of intensification. Maps attached.
It shows development projects inside the UGC (Urban Growth Centre). McIntyre asks McCallion whether she got the letter. McCallion says according to the record log, yes, the letter came to her. McCallion states though that she didn’t recall what she did with the letter.
McCallion states that she can’t say whether she reviewed the letter.
McIntyre asks whether McCallion had knowledge of whether World Class Developments was on the list/map. McCallion states that Ed Sajecki never reviewed the content of the letter with her/Council. So no.
McCallion says that it was strictly Staff to Staff letter.
The Development Charges By-Law that was ultimately passed and the exemption ultimately passed applied to Brampton only.
McIntyre refers to McCallion’s affadavit that the developmental charges were of general application. McIntyre asks whether McCallion was aware of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act exemptions.
McCallion replies, “Oh, yes, because I have reviewed the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.”
McCallion says general application applies all over the municipality. McCallion says that George Rust-D’Eye explained it at the Association of Municipalties of Ontario. McCallion states that “Everybody pays for development levy.”
McCallion states that she knows Rust-D’Eye to be a “specialist in regard to the Conflict of Interest Act”.
McIntyre asks McCallion whether Peter or anyone at WCD discussed fees with her. McCallion: No.
McIntyre informs the court that in Fall 2007 there was an effort by WCD to scramble to get under the wire to avoid a fee increase. McCallion says that for her to be briefed or talk to Staff about it would have created the appearance of influence.
McIntyre asks McCallion if she got a legal opinion. No. McCallion says she was confident in her interpretation of Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
McIntyre asks McCallion what her understanding of Peter’s compensation was. McCallion repeats she believe her son to be the real estate agent and there’d be some compensation with Couprie. When and what basis, McCallion said, she had no idea.
McIntyre asks McCallion whether there were any point before the Inquiry that she knew that Peter was more than a real estate agent. McCallion says she didn’t know until Mary Ellen Bench told her that he was a principal. McCallion then says she phoned her son saying “You have clearly led me to believe that you’re a real estate agent for Leo.”
McCallion testifies that upon knowing that she advised Peter to see a lawyer and get it (the ownership) corrected.
McIntyre asks McCallion why she acted as she did. McCallion states that when she challenged Peter on it he still maintained he was not a principal. McCallion states,“I had been misled and nobody had told me any different.”
McIntyre now goes to the documents in The Buff Folder. As McIntyre is searching about McCallion comments that she’ll be going to a talk show tonight at 9 pm!
McIntyre reports that on May 18, 2005 there’s a records of Peter and Murray Cook meeting with Mayor re WCD. McCallion testifies that she doesn’t recall what was discussed.
McIntyre mentions another dinner. Again McCallion states that she doesn’t recall whether WCD was discussed. McCallion: “I have no idea.”
McIntyre introduces a May 29, 2006 meeting this time, Peter and Murray with Mayor. McCallion states that some of the meetings were at her house and repeats that she can’t recall what was discussed.
McIntyre mentions a December 19, 2006: Tony DiCicco and John DiPoce lunch meeting with McCallion. Again McCallion doesn’t recall what was discussed.
Then McIntyre repeats the Pier 4 dinner-meeting.
Then an April 10, 2007 meeting.
Then McIntyre points out there there’s no record of meetings between January 25, 2007 and November 5, 2007.
McIntyre then points out that the telephone messages start up. Mostly by DeCicco. McIntyre asks McCallion if there were any change in the frequency of her interactions with WCD after Tony DeCicco involved.
McCallion says there was a personality clash between Cook and DeCicco. And that DeCicco hoped she’d intervene. [Ed. See contrary testimony by Murray Cook above]
McIntyre references a put-and-call agreement. October 26, 2007 from Emilio Bisceglia, lawyer for World Class Developments. It was an unsigned agreement –sent as a FAX. McCallion testifies that she doesn’t remember receiving it. McIntyre asks McCallion if she tried to get Murray Cook to sign it.
[Ed. It’s clear that DeCicco’s phone messages would give considerable details regarding WCD]
McIntyre asks McCallion how many calls she gets in a day? McCallion says that she didn’t get more calls from DeCicco than most developers.
McCallion then insists that she didn’t return all the calls from DeCicco.
When DeCicco’s phone message refers to a budget for WCD, McCallion insists at no time did she know the financial situation of WCD.
McIntyre refers to an entry March 19, Marriott Residence Inn, Toronto. McCallion to be with Sajecki, Gupta, etc to look at a hotel in downtown Toronto. McCallion states that she’d been told that the hotel was somewhat near the quality wanted in Mississauga downtown core. McCallion then says that it wasn’t near what was expected.
McCallion says that a group of Staff and Murray Cook went to the States to look at a hotel there as well.
McCallion then summarizes that the Marriot didn’t anywhere near meet the status of the hotel she/we wanted.
McIntyre then asks McCallion, If her position was not to be involved with Staff why did she go with Sajecki and Gupta? McCallion responds that it was her interest that the type of hotel would meet “our expectations”.
Then McCallion states,“No other meetings, this was the only time.”
BREAK TIL TOMORROW AT 10
Hazel McCallion leaves Brampton courthouse after conflict of interest testimony (April 12, 2013) –the PANORAMA
April 12th, 2013
Today’s video, complete with transcript.
Hazel McCallion leaves courtroom after conflict of interest testimony (April 12, 2013)
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS
MISSISSAUGAWATCH outside Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial
It is Friday, April the 12th, 2013 and Mayor McCallion has just finished with testifying.
That’s the car, ready to whisk her away.
Let’s see. Who is driving her?
Oh. And I should say that when I ran to get the camera, Harold Shipp had just arrived. So it’s like the “Friends of Hazel” all over again.
That’s Louie Rosella coming out. Mississauga News.
And it looks like the media here are poised to, perhaps ask some questions —I don’t know.
Oh, and I should also say that if you remember, in 2010 [municipal election], one of the things the Mayor asked was to give her councillors that she could work with. And the councillors that she could work with showed up in court today.
Katie Mahoney, Pat Saito —I think that was all though. Am I missing somebody? [Forgot about Pat Mullin]
Going to give this guy privacy [aims camera down just as Mayor McCallion leaves the courthouse…]
[Video of the media and then the Mayor leaving in a Buick Enclave, that drives right past the camera]
And there’s the Mayor going.
Safe trip to Portugal. And I mean that.
And she’s gone.
And here we —oh, that’s right. Mullin, Pat Mullin is also here.
Councillor Pat Saito leaving Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial
Hi Ursula. How are ya?
MISSISSAUGAWATCH outside Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial
Fine. How are you?
Councillor Pat Saito leaving Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial
I’m good thanks.
MISSISSAUGAWATCH outside Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial
And here we have Katie Mahoney [followed by CTV cameraman and towards yet another.]
Councillor Pat Mahoney leaving Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial
Okay Pat! Help me out here!
Actually, what’s interesting is that is [sic] three of the four women who were the councillors at the “Friends of Hazel” Rally. The only one missing is Maja Prentice who has since retired.
And I love what Katie Mahoney said on December 2, 2009. “It’s not hard to support our Mayor. Trust me.”
And there’s Harold Shipp.
Okay. Any bets “witch hunt” appears twice in his interview?
And just to be clear, he’s making comments though he wasn’t in the courtroom —as far as I know.
And there’s Parrish…
And… this person’s running over.
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS
Music: Don’t Crash the Ambulance/Mark Knopfler
And for those who wish to do their homework?…
Bonnie Crombie and her “same two hundred” Friends of Hazel –THE COMEDY
And here’s what I was doing in September 2007.
Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing, Hazineh v. McCallion. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 10, 2013
April 11th, 2013
Video of a Thanksgiving dinner that the Mayor, Peter McCallion and Leo Couprie all failed to mention….
Hazel McCallion, son Peter and Leo Couprie enjoy a “World Class” Thanksgiving Dinner (Oct 2006)
What follows is a summary of notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house on April 10, 2013. If anyone finds any errors I’d appreciate being advised.
NOTES from the Mayor Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest hearing, Brampton courthouse, April 10, 2013.
9:58 am Astounded that only Mississauga News Louie Rosella is the only media here!
10:04 Court in session
Judge Sproat advises us that he’ll give his ruling re admissibility of evidence post October 4, 2007.
Monique Atherton (lawyer for Elias Hazineh) up.
Hazle McCallion acknowledges that she knew son Peter was involved in World Class Developments (WCD) as a real estate agent “since Day 1”.
Topsoil study case cited as example of the public’s perception relating to “any matter involving land”. Judge Sproat attempted to clarify –that Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interests were also the Mayor’s under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
History of WCD is outlined in their packet.
Chronology: February 22, 2005 Peter McCallion incorporated World Class Developments. Two people named as President and Vice President of WCD.
In 2005 the only other person involved in WCD was Murray Cook. So, by inference, Peter telling his mother that WCD was interested in developing City Centre land really meant that he was interested.
Atherton refers to email from Ken Lusk to Michael Dal Bello (March 9, 2006). Email refers to an “unidentified purchaser” and that an offer was presented by Mayor’s son to purchase the City Centre land. Email requested that Murray Cook be asked who the purchaser is.
On May 18, 2005, Hazel McCallion meets with Peter and Cook.
Peter approaches Leo Couprie in 2006 to invest in World Class Developments. By August 2006 a filing changes over to Leo Couprie —$750,000 so WCD is in his name only.
November 20, 2006 document from WCD solicitors to Leo Couprie. Confirms Couprie now the principal.
Couprie says at time he became involved he understood that Murray Cook was also a WCD partner and they would cooperate to put the hotel/land deal together.
In cross-examination Mayor McCallion says she can’t recall when [Ed. …missed it. Acoustics/Microphone so bad that I can hardly hear!]
Atherton points out that a flurry of emails show that Mayor applied pressure to get the deal together. Atherton highlights Ken Lusk Oct 20, 2006 communication. Frets that McCallion called asking why land sale was taking so long.
In her cross-examination, McCallion says that she saw her role as Mayor was to make sure that the Mayor was available for hotel/convention centre.
On 2nd day of her cross-examination, McCallion mentioned that the condition of sale was a 4-Star hotel or better and that hotel must be built first.
By Jan 23, 2007, terms of the agreement had been finalized. At this point, McCallion was aware that Peter, Leo and long-time family friend Cook were involved in World Class Developments and also aware of progress.
In the McCallion cross-examination page 74 she states that she was not aware as to when WCD entered the agreement of purchase of sale.
In her affidavit she said she knew early in the process that she’d have to declare Conflict of Interest.
In January 29, 2007 after purchase of sale had been finalized she had dinner at Pier 4 with son Peter and Leo Couprie. There were two documents to sign —the Loan Agreement between Leo Couprie and World Class Developments Ltd $750,000 for deposit of purchase of sale.
Peter McCallion signed on behalf of WCD including guarantor. This was witnessed and signed by Hazel (actually signed twice).
The second agreement was signed at same time, the Declaration of Trust. This document declares that Leo Couprie holds 80% of WCD shares in trust for Peter. This document is signed Peter McCallion “Beneficiary”. Also witnessed and signed by Hazel McCallion.
Under cross-examination Leo Couprie said the document was necessary because of travelling. Just before signing the Mayor asked Peter, is it okay to sign?
Under cross-examination, Leo Couprie explained the purpose of the document. In effect he would put out $750,000 and get $1.5M back. Couprie admitted that he did not seek a legal opinion. He arrived at Pier 45 restaurant separate –and the Mayor and Peter together.
Was it reasonable for Hazel McCallion to see what was written under Leo’s signatures? Couprie said no, since the Mayor was sitting opposite him. Atherton says Leo Couprie suggesting this flies against common sense, “illogical”.
McCallion said son Peter told her the documents were in place because he and Couprie were going to Asia.
Atherton submits that the Mayor’s affidavit saying she didn’t read the two documents she witnessed and signed is not in line with McCallion’s self-proclaimed image as a business mayor, let alone her huge interest in the hotel/land.
In February 2007 following signing of agreement in Pier 4 another agreement entered into, the Shareholders Agreement. This agreement was between World Class Developments giving Murray Cook 20% and Leo Couprie 80% of the shares. Atherton points out that despite the Shareholders Agreement, WCD would still govern as if Cook/Couprie were 50/50 partners.
At some point early in 2007 Barry Lyons became involved in WCD. Scott Walker took responsibility of day-to-day operations and Walker said that he understood from beginning that Peter was a partner.
Atherton refers Exhibit 1 which was handed to the Judge only yesterday. In examination of Mr. Walker, he indicated a business card “World Class Group”.
Walker said he kept Peter McCallion apprised of relevant happenings.
Atherton now refers to a bank ledger showing financial transactions of World Class Developments and walks us through. Shows on March 7, 2007 Peter McCallion deposited $30,000 into the account. Don’t know source of funds.
Leo Couprie says it was Peter McCallion’s money he didn’t care what Peter did with it.
Atherton now turns her attention to the November 1, 2007 promissory note. Peter McCallion’s signature appears as Signing Officer. [Ed. Atherton introduced all kinds of details I’m not sure why]
Atherton now brings Tony DeCicco into the timeline. Peter McCallion brought DeCicco into WCD in August 2007. DeCicco would take over Murray Cook’s share.
Once again, Leo Couprie did not get legal advice.
Couprie in cross-examination said it was Peter McCallion who decided who would stay and who would go. Atherton said that Peter trusted Tony and Leo trusted Peter.
Regarding the Landplex agreement Leo understood that it now replaced the Declaration of Trust.
Atherton states that it will be their submission that the Landplex Agreement was the agreement that stood at the time of the October 4, 2007 vote at Peel Regional Council.
Under cross-examination, Leo Couprie said that Peter McCallion’s ultimate goal was to be the real estate agent for the City Centre condos and the “crowning glory of his career”.
During the cross-examination, the Mayor said that she found out her son was Owner of World Class Developments only when the information came out through Judicial Inquiry.
Atherton asked “Did you ever ask Peter if he had an ownership interest in WCD?” Mayor replies No.
Atherton, “But did you ask?” Again the Mayor replies No.
At the time of the Peel October 4, 2007 vote, Peter McCallion was owner of 16 WCD shares. Leo Couprie would transfer those 16 shares to Peter.
Hazel McCallion claims her son’s World Class Developments share-interest was not part of her knowledge on October 4, 2007.
Atherton submits that the WCD “cast of characters” were well-known to the Mayor. Included were son Peter, his friend, Leo, long-time McCallion family friend, Murray Cook and Tony DeCicco.
Atherton points out that the Mayor knew Murray Cook would lead the hotel project and that Leo Couprie would be the investor.
Atherton states that In November 2007 Cook and DeCicco met at Mayor’s house to resolve differences.
Under cross-examination, Leo Couprie said that he was strictly a silent partner in WCD.
Couprie mentioned that he had just one meeting with the Mayor and that was around the time of the Cook/DeCicco disagreement.
Their disagreement centred around various bills that had become due.
Peter McCallion wanted Couprie to give Hazel McCallion his opinion/advice regarding the deteriorating relationship between Cook and DeCicco.
Couprie said that he told the Mayor that he didn’t know either Murray Cook or Tony DeCicco so he had no opinion, that he trusted Peter to whatever he thinks is best.
It was Peter McCallion who arranged the meeting with Cook, DeCicco and the Mayor.
Couprie said it was a two-minute meeting with Hazel at her house. In cross-examination Couprie was asked if the Mayor is a hands-on mayor? Couprie responded, No opinion. Didn’t know her.
Atherton then introduces the Issue of “remote interest”….
The remote test also applies to Peter McCallion’s interest in World Class Developments. Requires that his interest is also remote. If Peter’s interest is so remote and insignificant, Atherton argues, then how was the Mayor so certain that she would have to declare conflict of interest back in 2005?
The remote test asks “Would a reasonable electorate apprised of all circumstances likely conclude that Peter’s interest might influence the Mayor’s voting/actions?”WI
Judge Sproat asks intriguing question. He says assume the Mayor believes he’s an agent and will get a commission, (hypothetical) if the Mayor thinks her son has a financial interest (true or not), if she votes then she’s doing something wrong. Assuming she THOUGHT, does it really matter if it’s incorrect.
Does it really matter? In the real world, Sproat points out that people can have an imperfect understanding of their children’s interests. Could turn out later that interest is different than what it was thought to be.
RECESS TIL 11:55.
COURT RESUMES at 12:00
Focusing on Section 10 of the Act, Subsection 1. Where subsection 5 contravened, you shall declare the seat vacant.
Richardson reminds the court that there are two savings provisions in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. And that these provisions only kick in IF there’s been a finding of conflict of interest.
Inadvertence or Error in Judgement .
Richardson says inadvertence is failure to direct one’s mind to an issue. Error in Judgement is paying attention but you make a mistake in your decision.
Richardson says that if the Mayor had a belief that her son had an interest, case law says there’s an obligation of a member not to be willfully blind.
So Sproat’s earlier hypothetical question, re if Mayor thought the son had a conflict, it was her obligation to determine his interest. Not just declare but also declare the nature of that conflict.
Richardson says that a councillor cannot shut his/her eyes. That at the very least he’s obligated to make the kind of inquiries that a reasonable person in a similar situation would do.
Case law court concluded that “willful blindness or reckless disregard” can’t be characterized as inadvertence. Example, when the Mayor concluded that Peel’s Development Charges bylaw had “general application” McCallion admitted that she didn’t turn her mind to the Act.
While arriving at “general application” in her interpretation of the Muncipal Conflict of Interest Act, McCallion did not consult/investigate —essentially do her homework.
Re Ford and inadvertence: Court said that while Mayor Ford may have honestly believed his interpretation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was correct, such belief would undermine the Act. Willful blindness to legal obligations, it was argued, can’t be regarded as inadvertence.
Richardson then turns his attention to Error in judgement defense. The Mayor says her actions were premised on the honest belief that Development Charges bylaw was general application.
Richardson says that to reach that conclusion, Hazel McCallion would first have to gauge her son’s pecuniary interest to see if it had general application to the public’s interests.
Richardson says that “honest, frank conduct, done in good faith” should not result in vacating a seat. Perfection not expected of members but good faith is.
Richardson says, “One may not shut his eyes and make reasonable inquiries which a prudent man would do to avoid consequences”
Sproat clarifies that “reasonable inquiries” would be status of project and interests in WCD.
Richardson continues that the Mayor had the obligation to take active steps to determine her Municipal Conflict of Interest Act duties as a member.
Richardson says that reliance on a legal opinion can be evidence of error in judgement.
In cross-examination, Hazel McCallion said she arrived at general application because “I think from a common sense point of view…. it affects… etc etc.”
Richardson asks, what did the Mayor do to inform herself? She relied on common sense.
In cross-examination he asks McCallion about the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. McCallion replied No and it “never entered her mind”.
Richardson now addresses motive and intent.Re motive, there’s a logical inference that Mayor’s conduct at Peel was motivated by the desire to help her son. For example, her stand on the 2007 development transition provision in not consistent to her stand before 2007 or her 2012 vote.
In her cross-examination Hazel McCallion made it clear that the supplemental amendment to the 2007 Peel Development Bylaw was Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell’s idea.
McCallion’s attitude in June 2007 seemed to be that “Developments in Mississauga and Caledon should not be forced to pay for roads in Brampton”.
At the very least Hazel McCallion was “reckless” in voting on [Ed. …missed it.]
Richardson points out that the nature and degree of experience of a member should also be taken into account when assessing breaches in conflict of interest.
In 1982 a court concluded that Mayor McCallion committed an error in judgement –so she was not subject to penalties. Atherton points out that Hazel McCallion’s latest conflict of interest case would be the second time in her career and second time she’s relied on community of interest as well as the second time she’d invoke error in judgement to avoid consequences.
In cross-examination Hazel McCallion says that she didn’t review the results of 1982 re common interests.
Richardson presents the following conclusions
- Peter McCallion had pecuniary interest in World Class Developments
- The pecuniary interest was known to his mother
- She voted on three occasions at Peel on issues affecting WCD.
- The Mayor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act
- Her actions are not the result of error in judgement or inadvertent according to Act.
JUDGE WILL NOW RULE on whether evidence of the Mayor’s activities from October 5, 2007 through May 31, 2008 are admissible.
Sproat says sometimes evidence can shed light onto credibility. If a child keeps business confidential and if at a later date, the parent acted differently, that’s potentially relevant.
Sproat concludes that evidence after the September Peel vote is relevant. It shows that World Class Developments engaged pro planners and switched architects all to position itself to take advantage of Peel’s transitional provisions.
Post Peel vote evidence, Sproat says, may shed light as to proper understanding of the contract.
Finds Singaro (sp?) opinion relevant regarding the steps taken by World Class Developments to avail itself to Peel’s transitional provisions. At a minimum, Sproat says, this evidence has some relevance to shed light into understanding how World Class Developments viewed its rights.
Sproat now asks if there are any additional considerations. Richardson says no.
Hazel McCallion’s lawyer, Freya Kristjanson now asks… [Ed. can’t hear her.]
Judge Sproat asks that 100 pages from Inquiry be removed.
COURT NOTES END
Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing, Hazineh v. McCallion. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 8, 2013
April 10th, 2013
Hazel McCallion’s Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments’ Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie
Photo credit and special thanks to Peter McCallion, October 7, 2006.
Hazel McCallion’s Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments’ Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie
Photo credit and special thanks to Peter McCallion, October 7, 2006.
(removed from Internet)
This is a summary of notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house on April 8, 2013. For the record, I’m not all that confident as to their accuracy (Thomas Richardson, the lawyer representing Elias Hazineh talked too fast for me to keep up at times). And I’m ashamed to admit that just before the afternoon break I actually dozed off right in the courtroom.
Next, while accredited media are permitted access to the Internet (to tweet live, for example) I have no such luxury. It would have been nice to examine minutes of meetings that I knew to be online at the Peel Regional Council website.
For readers genuinely interested in the Hazineh v McCallion Conflict of Interest hearing, I encourage you to read Toronto Star, San Grewal’s tweets at: https://twitter.com/sangrewal1
NOTES from the Mayor Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest hearing, Brampton courthouse, April 8, 2013
10:10 am Justice John Sproat grants me permission to take notes using my laptop.
Thomas Richardson, the lawyer representing Elias Hazineh, up with some housekeeping issues.
Freya Kristjanson, lawyer for Mayor Hazel McCallion, now up
Straight out the gate, Kristjanson raises issue regarding credibility. Asks to hear evidence from Hazineh orally —to get him on the stand. Kristjanson refers to a newspaper article Tab 1b p 11 of the record. Article dated July 10, 20(10?) by Megan O’Toole.
Kristjanson asks Justice Sproat to find that Hazineh had knowledge of the Conflict back in July 2010. So Kristjanson insists that there’s a direct contradiction between what Hazineh had stated in his sworn affidavit and what he said during cross-examination.
Kristjanson says that the legal question then becomes what can you do between a conflict between affidavit and cross-examination. Kristjanson insists that there’s a specific credibility issue re Hazineh’s knowledge and time he had it. Then refers to Hazineh as a “straw man” (implication “straw man” for Carolyn Parrish).
Thomas Richardson, the lawyer representing Elias Hazineh, now up
Richardson reminds Justice Sproat that Hazineh was cross-examined in December 2012 and that McCallion’s lawyers raised no concerns regarding time Hazineh had knowledge then or the months afterwards. That McCallion’s lawyers waited until yesterday at 3 pm to raise their contradiction concern.
Richardson then states that given the lateness (McCallion’s lawyers had four months to advise them of a problem) “we oppose the request” (to put Hazineh on the stand today). Richardson then suggests Kristjanson/McIntyre’s intent is to disrupt the case.
Judge Sproat then admits that he has not read all of the Hazineh cross-examination —or might have— but didn’t recognize significance of the knowledge contradiction at the time.
Richardson then dissects the July 2919 O’Toole article that Hazineh might or might not have read.
Richardson then asks that Kristjanson’s Application to call Elias Hazineh to the stand be refused or at least delayed.
Freya Kristjanson back again…
Kristjanson perfectly content to leave decisions regarding Hazineh giving testimony completely up to Judge. Justice Sproat was loathe to call Hazineh to testify cold, said Hazineh has had no preparation from his lawyer.
So the Judge won’t make a ruling on this motion as to when/if Hazineh will testify right away. Judge Sproat said he’ll inform Richardson later today or tomorrow.
Thomas Richardson, lawyer for Elias Hazineh is now free to present his case.
Richardson now presents his case and some background.
Richardson states that Hazel McCallion, not only voted on Peel’s Development by-law, she also proposed two amendments to that by-law. This, Richardson points out, would have benefited her son, Peter McCallion.
Richardson states that at the September 6, 2007 Peel General Committee, Regional mayors/councillors considered new development charges/rates as well as grand-fathering any existing applications.
Richardson states that on September 13, 2007. Peel Council approved the September 6, 2007 General Committee recommendations and that Mayor McCallion participated in that vote. In addition to voting McCallion suggested amendments that rate increase deadlines be extended 18 months to Nov 1, 2009 “in areas of intensification” ie: Mississauga’s “urban growth centre”.
These areas of intensification and the urban growth centre included her son’s World Class Development (“WCD”) lands.
Richardson states that at the September 27, 2007 Peel General Committee, Peel Staff recommended against grand-fathering existing application since that meant a $28m in lost revenue to the Region.
Richardson states that at the October 4, 2007 Peel Council meeting, McCallion voted to pass the Development rate increase bylaw in a recorded vote.. The Mississauga Mayor participated in debates and voted on all by-laws and amendments. The amendments were even seconded by her. By doing so she saved her son Peter as much as $11 million dollars in rate increases.
Richardson states that McCallion knew two years before that son was involved in WCD.
Richardson states that he intends to prove, that Hazel McCallion participated in and voted on the Peel development fees by-law and related amendments in September and October 2007. Amendments, Richardson said, had the potential to save World Class Development millions. Richardson also intends to prove that Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interest was known —and that it was not a “general interest”. Richardson insists that the Mayor’s failure to declare a conflict was not a result of error or inadvertence as the defense suggests.
Richardson states that he seeks the following relief: That Hazel McCallion has contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. That Justice Sproat declare McCallion’s seat vacant in Mississauga and Peel. And to disquality McCallion as a member of Mississauga/Peel Councils for 7 years.
Richardson then quotes President John F. Kennedy. “No responsibility of government is more fundamental than the responsibility of maintaining the highest standards of ethical behavior by those who conduct the public business. There can be no dissent from the principle that all officials must act with unwavering integrity, absolute impartiality and complete devotion to the public interest.”
Richardson points out that Ontario’s first Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCOI) was enacted in 1972.
[Ed. Richardson quotes from several cases and I can’t keep up. This portion of my notes has a big hole in it.]
Richardson then reminds the court that “No man can serve two masters” –that even well-meaning people can become impaired when personal interests are in play. He coaches that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act must be construed broadly. Richardson also reminds us that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was in force the entire time that Hazel McCallion was Mayor of Mississauga and before that, when she was Mayor of Streetsville!
Richardson now refers now to Hazel McCallion’s 1982 Conflict of Interest case.
Richardson then details the MCOI Act: that the MCOI imposes a duty on Council. That where a Member, either on his own or someone else’s behalf, has any pecuniary interest direct/indirect, that Member has three obligations. 1. Disclose the interest 2. Shall not take part in discussion or any vote. 3. Shall not attempt in any way to influence voting.
Richardson tells the court that pecuniary interest is not defined in the Act. But that pecuniary interest is not to be narrowly defined. Richardson states that pecuniary interest is not just clear and very significant interest –but ALL.
Richardson states that “indirect pecuniary interest” is defined in Act. He says that there will be some evidence with respect to Peter McCallion’s involvement as “indirect pecuniary interest” of the Mayor because her son, Peter had DIRECT pecuniary interest in World Class Developments.
Section 3 of Act says “For the purposes of this Act, the pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, of a parent or the spouse or any child of the member shall, if known to the member, be deemed to be also the pecuniary interest of the member.” So Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interest in WCD is also a pecuniary interest of the Mayor.
Richardson states that a key consideration of this court is what knowledge the Mayor had back in Sept/Oct 2007 of her son’s involvement in WCD. Items voted on must have the potential of affecting the pecuniary interest of the Member –but it’s also important to gauge how this pecuniary interest is perceived by the public.
Richardson states that the test is an objective one —that it doesn’t matter how a member votes, the Act demands that public duty not conflict with economic self-interest.
Richardson points out that the Act has exceptions and may be raised as a defense. 4(j) –”by reason of the member having a pecuniary interest which is an interest in common with electors generally”.
Defined in Section 1 of the Act “’interest in common with electors generally’ means a pecuniary interest in common with the electors within the area of jurisdiction”.
Richardson says that the votes in question relate to the Region of Peel development by-law and that this by-law applies across Peel. But doesn’t apply to voters at large but only to those who had applications subject to development charges —if the developer was able to bring in transition period.
So, Richardson concludes, those benefiting from the Peel Development by-law grand-fathering was a select group. Only those able to build in the time constraints of provisions.
Richardson states that the word “generally” in the MCOI Act means that ratepayers might benefit from the Peel Development By-Law in some way, but in fact, that doesn’t preclude a smaller group from benefiting much more. So the concept of “community of interest” deals with kind but not degree of interest.
McCallion’s lawyers will claim the Mayor to be exempt and have two bases for this claim. 1. There was no potential for World Class Developments to benefit. 2. That Peter McCallion was limited to real estate agent.
Richardson insists that the fundamental question is, would a reasonable electorate given knowledge of “apprised of all the circumstances” conclude there was a financial benefit depending on how the Member disposes of the subject matter? (Cited this test from a case.)
This is an objective test –must be reasonably viewed as having influenced the member. Richardson then refers to the Lorello case. [Ed. And I fall behind in my notes]
Richardson states that at time of the vote, there was a possibility that Peter McCallion and World Class Developments would have benefited.
Judge Sproat then asks for details relating to the concept of “remoteness”. Richardson cited a case where it was argued that a particular interest was “highly speculative and theoretical” but the court rejected this argument. It ruled that Conflict of Interest “Prohibition applies at every step.”
Richardson explained that remoteness relates to the potential for financial interest and not to whether the matter proceeds or not. The bottom-line question is: “Is there a financial interest?”, not: “Is the matter (project) likely to proceed?”
Richardson refers to a case where a councillor voted on a top soil removal application where he was actually the real estate agent for the land. The money could be considered insignificant but the public perception of a land deal must also be considered.
Even where a project is the “early step in a long process”.
[Ed. I missed what came next. Richardson citing lots of cases and quickly]
Richardson points out that the enforcement of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is left to the Judge of a Superior Court. There is no public agency to enforce the Act. Or public funds. Laying charges under the Act is left exclusively to the electorate.
Richardson now tells Judge what the Act says is his duty and reminds all that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act does not distinguish long-serving or popular officials.
Judge Sproat enters at 11:55.
Judge Sproat revisits McCallion’s lawyers’ protests that there must have been some communication between Parrish and Hazineh. So the Judge asked whether anyone had asked Parrish if she communicated her knowledge to Hazineh. Judge then points out that some of the same arguments that apply to Hazineh also apply to Parrish.
Richardson still on.
Richardson repeats what he said before recess —that the Act does not distinguish between long-serving/popular members. And added that a judge can’t consider the effect his decision might have on municipality either.
Turning to his factum, Richardson says that the Act is “crystal-clear” and “harsh” since it deals with citizens’ “highest trust” The Act demands that elected officials are not just “unshirkingly-honest” but “be seen to be so”.
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act provides two savings provisions. If the Act is found to be contravened, the Judge can find inadvertence or error in judgement.
Richardson points out that inadvertence or error in judgement “is not a defense”. They only apply when a member has been found to contravene the Act. And only apply to penalties.
Richardson now refers to his Apply Factum.
Richardson explains that inadvertence refers to a failure to direct one’s mind to his duty.
He goes on to say that willful blindness cannot be applied as inadvertence. McCallion claims her actions were “honest belief” of general applications.
[Ed. Again…going too fast…. missed Richardson’s point]
Richardson reminds the court that every action can be claimed to be an error in judgement. Even criminal acts are errors in judgement.
Case law says this about errors in judgement: Acting in good faith that results in errors of judgement still requires “honesty, candour and complete good faith”. Members aren’t expected to be perfect.
Richardson says that there is a difference between honest belief and good faith —there must be some diligence to understand one’s obligation. Ford had an honest belief. However that judge stated an error in judgement must have occurred honestly and in good faith. Good faith ….means diligence to understand.
Ignorance of the law, willful blindness —both are incompatible with the error in judgement safety provision.
Richardson states that acting recklessly or being willfully blind can’t be error in judgement under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. The member should demonstrate some kind of concern for conflict of interest –like getting or relying on a legal opinion.
Flawed understanding is not an excuse in Ford case. While Mayor Ford may have honestly believed –Richardson states that it would undermine the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to rely on error of law. Good faith demands that Mayor Ford pursue clarification and not rely on his subjective interpretation.
Richardson says that a member must not just claim honest belief but must also show he/she took some reasonable steps –diligence— with respect to his duties under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
In cross-examination, Mayor McCallion explained that she believed that the Peel Development by-law was general application. McCallion said “it affects all taxpayers”. Yet the Mayor gave no evidence that she obtained a legal opinion on this.
Richardson said that (Applicant) Elias Hazineh is a taxpayer/resident in Mississauga. That Hazineh is heavily involved in advocacy and passionate about Canadian politics. He’s an immigration consultant as well. Over the last few years Hazineh has developed interest in McCallion’s conflict of interest issues. For example, he supported Judicial Inquiry.
Hazineh personally attended two Inquiry proceedings and watched others on TV.
Hazineh attended October 3, 2010 Cunningham report. Was present at the press conference as well. Richardson said that Hazineh has since reviewed press conference on YouTube. Now quoting what she said.
Hazineh then read an article (October 11, 2011) in Mississauga News by Clay Connor “McCallion may not be out of the woods”. From that article he learned McCallion may have been in breach at Peel October 4, 2007. Hazineh also determined that any Peel conduct/vote was outside the Judicial Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.
Hazineh learned about the grandfathering of development charges. Learned that World Class Developments would save $9M approximately. Learned Mayor McCallion did not declare a conflict at Peel meetings and also voted on the issues. Prior to that he was not aware of the voting.
Then Hazineh shared his concerns with Carolyn Parrish and contacted her. Parrish confirmed to Hazineh the that Inquiry did not deal with Peel and the voting there.
Richardson then reviewed the legal requirements for standing. Must be an elector. Canadian citizen. At least 18. Reside in municipality. Allowed to vote under law.
NEXT SECTION –ON LIMITATIONS
Richardson stated that evidence of Hazineh’s knowledge was not challenged or rebutted by the Mayor’s legal team. An elector can apply to a judge within 6 weeks to when a suspected conflict of interest comes to his knowledge.
Richardson’s position is that Hazineh is in compliance under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
By contrast, the position of Mayor McCallion’s lawyer is that Hazineh ought to have known well before the application date –especially considering his relationship with Parrish.
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act says, “No application shall be brought under subsection (1) after the expiration of six years from the time at which the contravention is alleged to have occurred”. Richardson submits that 2013 is within six years of events in 2007.
Richardson states that six years used because member of the public needs time to “get it” –a ratepayer in the first instance may have little knowledge in pecuniary interest in a member.
Richardson is still on the Reply Factum.
Richardson continues. The elector must have knowledge that the elected official was present at a meeting and that the member failed to disclose a conflict, took part in related discussion/vote. Or before/after any meeting, the member attempted to affect voting.
Richardson suggests that the savings World Class Developments could have enjoyed from the transitional provisions of the Peel Development by-law was more like $11M than $9M.
Richardson says Hazineh really didn’t “get it” til October 2011 reading the Connor article.
McCalllion’s lawyers defend that Hazineh should have known prior because of the knowledge of Parrish. Richardson states that there’s no evidence that is so.
Richardson states that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act does not impose citizens the duty to monitor a municipal council.
The Act’s Sec 9 sub1 states, “Subject to subsection (3), an elector may, within six weeks after the fact comes to his or her knowledge that a member may have contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3), apply to the judge for a determination of the question of whether the member has contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3). R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 9 (1).”
Richardson now ends the issue of limitations relating to the Act.
Judge Sproat now ponders whether additional witnesses need to testify. Says he wants to deal with that issue ASAP
Break til 2:15 PM
Court starts precisely at 2:15 pm
Richardson addresses Development Charges Act and states that prior to the Act, Mississauga had a system of levies stating that development had to pay for itself. Richardson suggests that Mississauga was even belligerent about “Growth must pay for itself“.
Now reading Act stating “The council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from development of the area to which the by-law applies.” Richardson emphasizes the word “increased”.
[Ed. I can’t follow his argument re application/restrictions of the Act. Getting highly specific here]
Richardson stated that people “developing” their house (adding on) do not pay development charges.
The Development Charges Act says a by-law can allow for transition periods. Transition periods are intended to allow developments in process to continue to pay original charges.
Richardson then examines the specific of the Peel Development by-laTRATRw that McCallion voted on. Still working from his factum. Richardson states that both Mississauga and Peel impose development charges. But they are distinct from each other.
Richardson tells the court that development charges are linked to development –growth, not repair. So growth must pay for itself (to keep pace with infrastructure).
Richardson points out that in 2007 Hazel McCallion voted against grandfathering . In 2007 she voted for transition period stating, “It will have a negative impact for development in Mississauga.”
Regarding the Peel Development by-law, McCallion also said “It will add $7,000 to the cost of a condo unit”. Richardson points out that McCallion said that she can’t remember making that statement.
Richardson argues that the development charges are not general application but discrete –applying only to those applications on or before June 1, 2007 and issued on or before September 13, 2007 –applies where an application is sufficient by certain date. (Meaning the bylaw’s impact really starts to narrow it down).
Richardson states that development charges for a hotel would be 83.1% and condo units would be 88.9%.
Richardson states that around this time staff and politicians were keeping an eye on how they stacked up to other GTA municipalities.
Richardson maintains that the Development by-law applied to “a discrete group of possible beneficiaries”.
Now onto transition period.
Richardson says that Development Charges Act is silent on transition periods. Municipalities try to be fair and equitable. But clearly there was a change of thinking happening in presentations to Mayor/Councillors.
Then Richardson deals with Mayor’s involvement in the process. He introduces a letter from McCallion’s office regarding an arterial road saying this shows that the Mayor knows what’s what, is interested in what’s what —and is not thinking regionally but rather for Mississauga only.
Regarding the report on transitioning. Staff were also asked to ponder a phase-in (different from transitioning). It turned out that delaying implementation of Development fees for 1 year could results in a revenue loss of $80M.
Richardson made it clear that the issue is not whether the Peel by-law is one of general application but whether the pecuniary interest of Mayor/son is one with the general public. Meaning, is Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interest (and the Mayor’s) in common with the electorate generally.
“Transition costs the taxpayers money” said Hazel McCallion under cross-examination. “Costing money” is not the pecuniary interest of Peter/Hazel. His interest is paying as little as possible. “one of general issue” misses the point.
After recess 3:55 pm and beyond…
Richardson still up.
Richardson says that the September 6, 2007 Peel General Committee meeting is critical with respect to approval of Peel’s Development by-law.
[Ed. Something about acknowledged good relationship between Peel Staff and development industry. Couldn’t write what Richardson said fast enough]
Richardson says that McCallion moved a 90-day transition for non-residential. So the amendment extended to May 1, 2008.
In cross-examination, Mayor Morrison swore that she shared her concern that there were projects that would not proceed in Caledon if there weren’t a transition period.
[Ed. Then I couldn’t follow what Richardson said for about 10 minutes! Getting tired…]
Richardson then outlines a chronology of events.
Onto the September 13, 2007 meeting. At this meeting another staff report was received. 2007 Development Charges by-law. See Final Technical Adjustments re Developmental Charges by-law. Included amended adjustments and rates.
Fennell requested item in Sept 6th General Committee meeting’s minutes be reconsidered. Amended that 2007 residential and non-residential be adopted subject to the transition provision (the extended one). [Ed. He’s reading the amendment –can’t follow.]
That resolution took the recommendation from General Committee, move the recommendation with some amendments and also carries over the amendment by McCallion.
Richardson said that at same meeting, after Council approved, entries states, Fennell puts forward to reconsider resolution, carried by 2/3 majority vote.
Fennell moved and McCallion seconded –amended to include transition period for high density be extended to November 1, 2009! (Reminder, before this the transition period was May 1, 2008!) And that Staff devise plan for implementation.
Moved by Fennell/seconded McCallion Sept 6 resolution is amended Passed something and then amended it and then?… [Ed. Again, so convoluted I can’t follow Richardson’s arguments here.]
Richardson now summarizes. Peel Council approved Council minutes with previously proposed amendment. Then Fennell reopens previous meeting minutes. Then Fennell moves amendment to something already approved. Then extends transition from 3 months to 18 months. And eventually move that the minutes of the previous Sept meeting be approved!
Richardson points out that the two amendments dealt with that Council meeting were either moved or seconded by Hazel McCallion.
Richardson has come to a break in his submission.
Judge will be here tomorrow at 8 am.
COURT NOTES FOR APRIL 8, 2013 END
Last, I’d appreciate being advised of any errors.
Hazel McCallion’s Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments’ Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie
Photo credit and special thanks to Peter McCallion, October 7, 2006.
Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing, Hazineh v. McCallion. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 3, 2013
April 7th, 2013
Peter McCallion LinkedIn “Owner World Class Group Inc. January 2010 – Present (3 years 4 months)”
saved 130403 Brampton courthouse cafeteria
The purpose of today’s blog is to summarize notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house.
For the record, it was a long session and by the end of it, the only Traditional Media still there was San Grewal, urban affairs reporter with the Toronto Star.
Grewal generated over 100 tweets from court room 201 yesterday from beginning:
Hazel McCallion’s hearing
#Missypoli about to begin. Will set up the players.
#Missypoli Wrapping up. Back Monday with ruling on evidence and decision about when the mayor will take the stand
You can follow him on Twitter @sangrewal1
NOTES from the Mayor Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest hearing, Brampton courthouse, April 3, 2013
Freya Kristjanson, Hazel McCallion’s lawyer addressing Justice John Sproat
Kristjanson wanted only “relevant and admissable evidence”.
Kristjanson states court must be confident that documents are authentic.
Kristjanson asking for “evidence to be struck” and that documents be used as “truth of their content”.
Kristjanson states that Mississauga Judicial Inquiry transcripts are “limited as to truth”. [Ed. if you were at the Inquiry to experience some of those witnesses you’d understand why.]
Kristjanson urged that no evidence from the Inquiry shall be used or be receivable. [Ed. Beside this, I’d written the comment, “So nothing McCallion said at the Inquiry can be used now? Fuck me!” and “Fascinating how McCallion and municipal councils warble ‘We are accountable!’ —until it’s tested.”]
Kristjanson did not want the Inquiry report admissible as a public document. [Ed. Beside this, I’d written the comment, “Did I get that right?]
Kristjanson states that Carolyn Parrish relied on testimony of Marilyn Ball (David O’Brien’s wife) and wants that evidence struck too because it was not a civil proceeding and had there been cross-examination things might have gone differently.
Kristjanson asks for ruling as to the knowledge of the elector, Elias Hazineh.
Kristjanson states Marilyn Ball’s evidence should not be regarded as truth.
Issues 3 and 4 dealt together
Issue 3 “unattributed hearsay”
Kristjanson states “contentious matters”, defined as something that is in dispute or where there are differences between the parties, should be struck.
Kristjanson states “improper hearsay” or irrelevant information should be struck.
Kristjanson reference to paragraph 4, maintaining that to leave that evidence in the record can be “embarrassing”.
Issue 3 “no personal knowledge”
Kristjanson objected to the statement, “Many members of the public were calling for a Judicial Inquiry” as improper hearsay.
Kristjanson objected paragraph 52 as a broad, large statement regarding Mayor McCallion’s conduct and activities without attribution. She claimed it was also contentious and should be struck.
Kristjanson objected paragraphs 72 through 75, dealing with a legal conclusion to the Declaration of Trust —the controversial issue of the case.
Kristjanson turns to the Carolyn Parrish affidavit and insists Parrish has no personal knowledge and that Parrish’s statements are made without a source or referencing the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.
Kristjanson calls statements by the City Solicitor as hearsay and even double hearsay.
Kristjanson states that the ownership of World Class Developments is a “highly contentious issue”.
Issue 4 Hearsay documents of contentious matters
Kristjanson frets about the issue of authenticity of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry exhibits/documents asking them to be struck because they weren’t authenticated.
Kristjanson stated that they conceded authenticity of certain Inquiry documents —but not their admissibility.
Kristjanson conceded authenticity of certain documents (emails, loan agreement, Declaration of Trust). And there was reference to Exhibit 22 and agreement as to authenticity because it was publicly filed and stamped. [Ed. Found it odd that Kristjanson (the same lawyer in the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry) never squawked about the authenticity of a single exhibit between July through December 2010… ]
At 11:25 am Kristjanson is still on the floor seeking for information to be struck…
Kristjanson now fretting about a version of the Application Record that has a Mississauga Judicial Inquiry stamp on it.
Kristjanson now objecting to the Emilio Bisceglia (Counsel to World Class Developments Limited) document from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website as “replete with triple hearsay”.
Kristjanson seems to imply that there’s nothing on the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website that can be trusted as authentic! Kristjanson states that “all fall in the initial hurdle of authenticity”.
And so, Kristjanson also asks that statements made by both Hazineh and Parrish be struck.
NOON BREAK OVER
Fascinating! Kristjanson now dealing with Peter McCallion’s sworn affidavit, saying a recanted affidavit can’t be relied on as truth. [Ed. Wondering how many others in the courtroom are wondering if the original affidavit is the truth and that’s why it was recanted!]
Kristjanson now insisting that it’s insufficient to rely on the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website for documents. Kristjanson states you can’t say, “I verily believe this to be true because I got it off a website.” [Ed. Yes. Kristjanson really implied that the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website was just any website and therefore not a reliable source! My notes states, “Looks like Kristjanson believes that for citizens to bring forth Conflict of Interest charges they must have personal knowledge —aka be fortunate enough to be a fly on the wall.”]
Thomas Richardson, lawyer for Elias Hazineh now up.
Richardson responds saying that Mississauga Judicial Inquiry documents were confidential until they were made public by the Judicial Inquiry. That it’s not reasonable for an elector to ignore Mississauga Judicial Inquiry documents/information when it was through revelations in the Inquiry itself that Hazineh expected the conflict of interest took place.
Richardson then states there’s something of a conundrum. That there’s no real difference between reading something in a newspaper or at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website except the Inquiry website is more reliable! Richardson points out that both parties at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry used documents for cross-examination.
Richardson makes the point that the existence of a document or what it says it not contentious, but rather the conclusions that may be drawn. Richardson then asks Justice John Sproat to accept the evidence and weight them accordingly.
Kristjanson counters by reminding the court that there’s a difference between case law on Motion and case law on Application. Kristjanson states that no lawyer would ever concede a newspaper article as having been written as truth of their contents, and that when it comes to the Mayor losing her office, the documents have to be authentic. [Ed. I write in my notes, “Seriously. Is there anyone who thinks Hazel McCallion will lose this case?…”]
Regarding Issue 5, Richardson focuses on “the relevant date”, October 4, 2007, the date of her vote at Peel Regional Council. And what she knew about Peter McCallion’s involvement (“Owner”) with World Class Development at that time.
Richardson asks why the distinction between evidence post October 4, 2007 — [Ed. Then I can’t make sense of the notes.]
Richardson then introduces the concept of “probative value” (defined as: “n. evidence which is sufficiently useful to prove something important in a trial. However, probative value of proposed evidence must be weighed against prejudice in the minds of jurors toward the opposing party or criminal defendant. A typical dispute arises when the prosecutor wishes to introduce the previous conduct of a defendant (particularly a criminal conviction) to show a tendency toward committing the crime charged, against the right of the accused to be tried on the facts in the particular case and not prejudice him/her in the minds of the jury based on prior actions.” Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probative+value)
Kristjanson now up introducing the concept of “viva voce” (defined as: “Latin, With the living voice; by word of mouth. Verbally; orally. When applied to the examination of witnesses, the term viva voce means oral testimony as opposed to testimony contained in depositions or affidavits.” Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Viva+voce)
Hazel McCallion will rely on two defenses in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act should she be found in contravention —inadvertence or error in judgement.
POST 4 PM BREAK
Richardson tells Justice Sproat that they’ll be challenging the credibility of the Mayor with respect to reliance their inadvertence or error in judgment defense.
There’s discussion about how long each of the lawyers will take to state their cases and Kristjanson suggests that there are plenty of disputes on material evidence among the 13 witnesses.
Richardson raises an issue about a letter from William McDowell, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Commission Counsel, and strongly objects to the letter. Richardson states that the letter is attempting to provide legal opinion in the form of an unsworn letter —that McDowell has put himself as an expert as Commission Counsel that he can’t cross-examine!
Kristjanson says that McDowell’s letter is in response to the Hazineh affidavit. There was also reference to an email from Naomi Loewith, also Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Commission Counsel to Clifford Lax, lawyer for the City of Mississauga during the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. [Ed. Can’t make sense of my notes. It was very late by then…]
Post 4:30 pm both lawyers were pondering amount of time needed to present their cases. Kristjanson estimated four days.
There was reference to a “bottomline decision” relating to whether Sproat would entertain evidence after Mayor Hazel McCallion’s votes on October 4, 2007.
COURT NOTES END
Update Sunday, April 7, 2013
I tried to take as accurate notes as possible during the April 3rd court hearing and then transcribe them here. If you notice any errors I’d appreciate correction.
On April 5, 2013 Toronto Star urban reporter San Grewal tweeted:
#Missypoli A victory for HM. Judge in her conflict case has struck the sworn affidavit by her son. It would have hurt her defence.
#Missypoli Looks like Mayor McCallion will be on the stand Thursday and Friday.
There’s no decision yet on whether post October 4, 2007 evidence can be used.
If you’re interested in accurate from-the-courtroom tweets, you can do no better than follow Toronto Star’s San Grewal at: https://twitter.com/sangrewal1
Evidence (Peter McCallion’s sworn affidavit) struck from Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest case –YOU decide….