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!