MISSISSAUGAWATCH
MississaugaWatch Mississauga Watch

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

June 22nd, 2013  

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

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

                                                     ONTARIO 

                                            SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

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

                                      REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SPROAT J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                        -2-


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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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


-2-

 

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

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

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

[3]  The issues are as follows:

(a) What was Peter’s interest in WCD?

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

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

-3-

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Witnesses

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

Applicant

Elias Hazineh  Applicant
Carolyn Parrish  Supporter and friend

Respondent

Hazel McCallion  Mayor

The City

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

Region of Peel

Robert Elliott                  Manager of Development Financing

WCD

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

Other

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


-5-

 

The Municipal Conflict of interest Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

-6-

 

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

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

The Mississauga Judicial lnquiry

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

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


-7-

 

OVERVIEW OF THE FACTS

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

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

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

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

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


-8-

 

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

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

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

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

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


-9-

 

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

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

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


-10-

 

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

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

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

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


-11-

 

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

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

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

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

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

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


-12-

 

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

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

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

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


-13-

 

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

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

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

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


-14-

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

-15-

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

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

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

DID MAYOR MCCALLION HAVE A DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST IN
WCD?

The Law

-16-

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

The Financial Interest of Peter McCallion in WCD

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

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

-17-

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

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

(a) Peter caused WCD to be incorporated.

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

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

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

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

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

-18-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-19-

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

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

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

-20-

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

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

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

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

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


-21-

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

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

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

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

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


-22-

 

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

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

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

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

Analysis and Conclusion

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

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

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

-23-

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

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

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

COULD WCD QUALIFY UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS?

Introduction

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

The Evidence

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

-24-

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

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

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

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

-25-

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

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

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

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

-26-

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

Transitional Provisions.

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

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

-27-

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

Analysis and Conclusion

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

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

-28-

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

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

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

-29-

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

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

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

-30-

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

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

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

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

-31-

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

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

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

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

The Law

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

-32-

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

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

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

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

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

-33-

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

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

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

The Evidence

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

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

-34-

Analysis and Conclusion

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

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

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

-35-

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

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

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

-36-

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

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

The Law

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

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

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

-37-

The Evidence

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

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

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

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

-38-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

-39-

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

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

Analysis and Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

-40-

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

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

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

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

(d) The APS had been signed.

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

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

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

-41-

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

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

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

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

-42-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-43-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-44-

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

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

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

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

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

-45-

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

The Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

-46-

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

The Evidence

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

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

-47-

Analysis and Conclusion

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

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

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

-48-

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

DID MR. HAZINEH COMMENCE THE APPLICATION IN TIME?

The Law

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

The Evidence

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

-49-

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

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

Q. Did you read this article at the time?

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

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

-50-

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

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

Analysis and Conclusion

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

-51-

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

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

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

-52-

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

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

SHOULD THERE BE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST MAYOR
MCCALLION?

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

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

-53-

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

__________________________Sproat J

Released: June 14, 2013

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

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


ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Justice Sproat’s Decision


MISSISSAUGAWATCH court notes

 

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

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

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

June 17th, 2013  

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

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

 

The Decision released June 14, 2013

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

ELIAS HAZINEH v. HAZEL McCALLION

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

(released June 14, 2013)

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

-2-

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

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

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

[3]   The issues are as follows:

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

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

-3-

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

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

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

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


DID MAYOR MCCALLION HAVE A DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST IN

WCD?

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

-4-

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

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

[7] Having regard to the following:

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

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

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

 

-5-

 

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

COULD WCD QUALIFY UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS?

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

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

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

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

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


-6-

 

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

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

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

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

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


-7-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-8-

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

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

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

(c) WCD did not have in place a hotel chain or a major financial
investor.

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

[20] A reasonable elector would also consider that Mayor McCallion had
demonstrated greater concern for the public interest than Peter‘s interest by
suggesting to OMERS, the owner of the land, that the agreement of purchase
and sale require that the hotel be built first. This provision caused, or contributed
to causing, the project to not proceed.

-9-

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

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

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

[23] If, contrary to my conclusion, Mayor McCallion contravened the MCIA,
her participation in the Votes cannot be characterized as an error in judgement or
inadvertence.

[24] Mayor McCallion participated in the Votes intentionally having formed the
opinion that a vote on development charges cannot give rise to a conflict of
interest. Mayor McCallion went so far as to testify that she would not have
declared a conflict of interest even if she understood that WCD could save $11
million as a result of the Transitional Provisions. This understanding of her legal

-10-

obligations is contrary to common sense. Mayor McCallion was not able to refer
to any municipal law educational seminar or publication prior to the Votes that
supported this interpretation.

[25] Further, Mayor McCallion was wilfully blind to the status of the WCD
development. For all she knew the Transitional Provisions could have saved
WCD millions of dollars on the initial phase of the project. Wilful blindness
precludes reliance upon the defence of error in judgment or inadvertence.

DID MR. HAZINEH COMMENCE THE APPLICATION IN TIME?

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

[27] Mr. Hazineh stated in his affidavit filed in support of his application that he
first learned of Mayor McCallion’s 2007 conflict of interest, related to a
development charge by-law at Regional Council, from an October 11, 2011
article. When cross-examined out of court, however, he stated that he had
probably read a July 17, 2010 article in the National Post which reported the
same allegations.

-11-

[28] Mr. Hazineh testified in court and was directed to this discrepancy. He
testified that on reflection he was in error in stating he had read the National Post
article in 2010. He explained that he did not read the National Post on principle
because of its editorial stance on the Middle East.

[29] lf it was true that Mr. Hazineh never read the National Post it is only
logical he would have stated that when first asked about the National Post article
at his cross-examination. l conclude Mr. Hazineh’s evidence that he never read
the National Post on principle was an after the fact rationalization to explain the
discrepancy in his evidence. l find it more probable that Mr. Hazineh’s evidence
when cross-examined on his affidavit was true than his evidence in court. By the
time he testified in court, he appreciated that his earlier evidence might doom his
application to failure. As such, I find as a fact that Mr. Hazineh read the National
Post article in July 2010.

[30] The National Post article contained essentially the same information as
the October 11, 2011 article. As such, the fact that Mayor McCallion may have
contravened the MCIA came to Mr. Hazineh’s knowledge in July 2010. He
commenced this application long after the six week period prescribed by s. 9 of
the MCIA. Mr. Hazineh’s application must, therefore, also be dismissed on this
ground.

-12-

CONCLUSION

[31] The application is, therefore dismissed.

Hazel McCallion's Councillors, Pat Mullin, Ron Starr, Katie Mahoney and Jim Tovey react to the Mayor's lawyer declaring, "Mayor McCallion won this case and she won it big time."Hazel McCallion’s Councillors, Pat Mullin, Ron Starr, Katie Mahoney and Jim Tovey react to the Mayor’s lawyer
declaring, “Mayor McCallion won this case and she won it big time.”

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Justice Sproat’s Decision


MISSISSAUGAWATCH court notes

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

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

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest press conference –and “Hazineh vs McCallion” Summary of Decision pdf files

June 16th, 2013  

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

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


ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Justice Sproat’s Decision


MISSISSAUGAWATCH court notes

 

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

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

Mississauga News online comment, “TO REALLY SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!” ….”I would know as I co-designed it and printed it.”

June 1st, 2013  

The Mississauga News changed its website design on May 24, 2013 and deleted all readers comments. For the record, I have not posted comments at the Mississauga News since Summer 2011. The few exceptions were those times when one of the commenters would claim that I was “ForTheTruth” or some new alias to the site.

So how could I go from being a prolific commenter at the Mississauga News to not commenting at all? It was surprisingly easy.

Today we introduce Mississauga News online commenter “Prol” who also used the alias “AV8R” until he accidentally outed himself.

Why is Prol of interest? For lots of reasons but mostly because Prol co-designed and printed the “Friends of Hazel” rally poster —The very poster that Carolyn Parrish ripped up in a restaurant back in December 2009.

For the record, here is Prol’s complete comment as posted on December 28, 2010


Prol

Dec 28, 2010 10:21 PM——-

TO REALLY SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!

It is NOT a myth. YOU DID IT! It is YOUR actions that made it a “legend”. It was NOT a “postcard” it was a poster. I would know as I co-designed it and printed it. What does it matter whether the poster had the Mayor’s picture on it? (That’s MAYOR with a capitol M btw) There may be some minor embellished elements to the story floating about. So what? The truth is still that you continually expose your classless side and try to mitigate it by redirecting attention and blame it on others. The voters of Ward 6 had enough of it and you lost. Now step aside. It’s time to move on!

Agree 5     Disagree 3                           Report Abuse 3

The following image includes photographs of Ron Starr giving Mayor Hazel McCallion an “unrippable” copy of the “Friends of Hazel” Rally poster during his campaign headquarters Open House.

A beaming Lorry Smith applauds as Starr presents this gag gift to the Mayor. Then Smith poses with both Starr and McCallion —and the “unrippable” Rally poster.

A quick Google search easily confirms that Lorry R Smith is President of Proactive Print Management and Councillor Ron Starr’s election financial statement confirms that Lorry Smith’s Proactive Print printed $1,370.00 worth of election signs for Starr in the 2010 municipal election.

Imagine. Both Prol and Lorry Smith are printers…. whodathunkit…

"It was NOT a 'postcard' it was a poster. I would know as I co-designed it and printed it." -- Prol, Mississauga News online commenter

Is the Lorry Smith who left this “the dark one” message at stopcarolynparrish.com the same Lorry Smith of Proactive Print Management, Ron Starr’s election sign printer?

Is the Lorry Smith who left a comment at stopcarolynparrish.com Ron Starr's Lorry Smith (Starrs' election sign printer?)

Cheers,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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.

She reads:

 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.

COURT  RESUMES

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:

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:

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.

Richardson finishes.

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.

  1. 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:

  1. 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 RECESS

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, 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

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:

San Grewal@sangrewal1 3 Apr

Hazel McCallion’s hearing #Missypoli about to begin. Will set up the players.

to end:

San Grewal@sangrewal1 3 Apr

#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

Issue 1

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.

Issue 2

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:

San Grewal@sangrewal1 5 Apr

#Missypoli A victory for HM. Judge in her conflict case has struck the sworn affidavit by her son. It would have hurt her defence.

and then:

San Grewal@sangrewal1 5 Apr

#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....

Evidence (Peter McCallion’s sworn affidavit) struck from Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest case –YOU decide….

MISSISSAUGAWATCH tripped up by Peel Police while covering brief hearing that saw charges dropped against Carolyn Parrish,

December 22nd, 2012  

On November 20, 2012, the Mississauga News reported that “Charges levied against former councillor Carolyn Parrish that she violated the Ontario Municipal Elections Act by overspending during last year’s Ward 5 by-election have been withdrawn by a Crown prosecutor.”

I actually showed up at Burnhamthorpe Courthouse to file a report and hopefully even get an interview with Carolyn Parrish. Turns out the report I actually filed was not the one I expected!

As always, the video, complete with video transcript.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH to Peel Police officer: City of Mississauga Corporate Security LIES (3:26 min)

 (Click here to go directly to YouTube)

 [VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH walking towards Mississauga Burnhamthorpe Courthouse November 20, 2012

It is Tuesday, November the 20th, 2012 and I’m here at the City of Mississauga courthouse. It is my understanding that there’s going to be a court —I’m not sure if it’s an appearance or what.

The problem, of course, is that I forgot an audio-recorder and I’m here on City of Mississauga property. So, this is the only way that I can protect myself. And I have to do this, again for the record, because City of Mississauga Staff lie.

And also there’s no accountability of Staff. So in other words if you complain about lying to the elected officials, they can’t directly investigate whether what you say about City Staff is true.

[VIDEO INSERT]

Councillor Pat Saito, Mississauga Governance Committee meeting, April 16, 2012

That is a Staff responsibility. It’s a Senior Staff —Commissioner/Director-level responsibility, or City-Manager-level responsibility.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH walking towards Mississauga Burnhamthorpe Courthouse November 20, 2012

That is, that the City Manager, Janice Baker provides this impenetrable barrier between City of Mississauga Staff and elected officials.

[At the door of the courthouse] Anyway, I’ll turn this off [close lens cap] and I’ll see. At the very least what I’m going to do is turn the camera off [close lens cap] at this point right here.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH following Carolyn Parrish out of Mississauga Burnhamthorpe Courthouse November 20, 2012

So here I’m officially out. And Parrish and Company.

This was very very very very brief. It was my understanding that the Crown dropped the charges.

Actually the most interesting thing that happened was —I was called by police and prosecution lawyer, basically telling me that I couldn’t videotape inside Burnhamthorpe courthouse. And I said I wasn’t.

That I was only using the video camera as an audio-recorder. And then the police officer said I couldn’t do that either.

And I carefully read the rules on the door which said that you can’t audio-record the hearing.

So I told the police officer that I was only protecting myself because of [sic] City of Mississauga Corporate Security are liars.

Here’s the deal.

His response was that I had a personal vendetta —personal vendetta versus a legitimate complaint and that they really are liars. And it’s just so typical  —so typical of law enforcement to stick together.

This kind of Blue Line —oh, they [City of Mississauga Security] can’t possibly be liars, even though Peel Police —what was it, three of four of their police officers were found to the lying in court as part of testimony.   [Note, the Toronto Star reported that it was actually five Peel Police officers lying in court]

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

And as I told the police officer, I have to always always have an audio-recorder going when I’m on City of Mississauga property because City of Mississauga Staff —they lie! And this is a way of protecting myself. End of Story.

Like why is it so difficult that police officers can’t accept the fact that City of Mississauga Staff —and especially their security guards lie? Like, what’s so hard about that, especially given the fact that Peel Police themselves were found to be lying in court?

Like. What the Hell!

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

City of Mississauga Corporate Security bosses Jamie Hillis and Cathie Evans lie --confirmed through Freedom of Information

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Mississauga blogger to City of Mississauga Director of Corporate Security, “CITY STAFF LIE.” (6:38 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 4) “providing persons…with an understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its municipal government”

January 9th, 2012  

This blog is a continuation of the following blog entries:

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 1) Line by line, word by word. Pages 1 through 5 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies” Page 6 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 3) Beware “community events”, “volunteer services”, “arm’s length”… Pages 7 through 10 of the Code.

Just a reminder that my goal is to go through The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word as preparation for future Council deputations.

Once again, I will cut-and-paste the City of Mississauga Code of Conduct directly into this blog entry and offer comment/criticism [bold italics square brackets] when the need arises.

Those interested in accessing the full version of City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct April 2011 please click here.


The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct.

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 11 begins)


Rule No. 3

Councillor Expenses:

There are a range of expenses that support a Member’s role in community development and
engagement activities within their ward. For federal and provincial elected officials, these
expenses are often paid for by Riding Association funds. Municipal elected officials do not
have this benefit. Subject to the Elected Officials’ Expenses policy, this section of the Council
Code of Conduct deals with community expense-events, will indicate allowable expenses for
reimbursement and provide guidelines for Members of Council respecting community
expenses related to a Member’s role in community development, and reflecting which
expenses are eligible for reimbursement from a Member’s office expense budget.

1. Raffle tickets, table prize tickets and other gaming tickets are not eligible for
reimbursement.

2. Sponsorship of teams or individuals, such as the provision of uniforms or equipment, are
not eligible for reimbursement.

3. Expenses incurred by Members working during normal meal periods serve a legitimate
public duty purpose, provided that the expenses incurred are reasonable and appropriate in
the circumstances. Reasonable and appropriate expenses are those that are incurred for an
official duty or function; are modest and represent the prudent use of public funds; and do
not involve the purchase of alcoholic beverages.

4. Official duties or functions include those activities that are reasonably related to a
Member’s office, and must take into consideration the different interests, the diverse
profiles of their wards, their different roles on committees, agencies, boards and
commissions. Municipal elected officials will be expected or required to extend hospitality
to external parties as part of their official duties and functions, and it is legitimate for
expenses to be incurred for this purpose. It is legitimate for Members to incur hospitality
expenses for meetings that include:

a. engaging representatives of other levels of government, international delegations or
visitors, the broader public sector, business contacts and other third parties in
discussions on official matters;

b. providing persons from national, international and charitable organizations with an
understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its
municipal government;

[With me having so much video, Freedom of Information and "workings" from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, I can only interpret Item b two ways. Either Item b is a lie and the City really doesn't provide "persons from national, international and charitable organizations with an understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its municipal government" —or (horrid thought) the City of Mississauga does inform "persons from national, international and charitable organizations" about the City's unethical corporate landscape of Fudge, Fabricate, Lie, Deny, Stonewall and that the "persons from national, international and charitable organizations" are okay with that!  Back to Page 11 of the Code.]

c. honouring persons from the City of Mississauga in recognition of exceptional public
service and staff appreciation events;

[Re: "honouring persons from the City of Mississauga in recognition of exceptional public service " Here's a fun way to spend a weekend. Scribble down the names of all the City of Mississauga's "Citizens of the Year" hanging up in the gallery outside Council Chambers of City Hall's second floor. (Say from 1980 to current) Google them, then examine all "Team Hazel" councillors' election financial statements for 2006 and 2010.

Only then will you gain some insight into the deliberately deceptive silliness of the Code's references to "volunteers", "volunteer services" and "campaign contributions". Back to Page 11 of the Code.]

d. recognition events for various agencies, boards and commissions of the City;

[In yesterday's blog, I alerted readers to the true meaning of "community events" —that the majority are simply political campaign events in non-election years. In Item d, the Code introduces the concept of "recognition events".  The City of Mississauga's "recognition events" are just like "community events" meaning "political campaign events in non-election years" except more lavish.

The best example of a City "recognition event" is the Mayor's $350.00 90th Birthday Bash back in February 2011. Another would be the City of Mississauga's Tribute Dinner to McCallion-Starr-Mahoney-Crombie-Team-Hazel supporter, Victor Oh.  Back to Page 11 of the Code.]

11

END OF PAGE 11 OF THE CODE. PAGE 12 BEGINS

e. ratepayers associations, minor league sports associations and other community groups.

5. Hospitality expenses may be incurred while extending hospitality in the course of
travelling on a duty or function or as a Member of Council, provided the expenses are
reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.

6. As community leaders, Members may lend their support to and encourage community
donations to registered charitable, not-for-profit and other community-based groups
monies raised through fundraising efforts shall go directly to the groups or volunteers or
chapters acting as local organizers of the group and Members of Council should not handle
any funds on behalf of such organizations.

Members of Council routinely perform important work in supporting charitable causes and
in so doing, there is a need for transparency respecting the Member’s involvement. The
following guidelines shall apply:

a. Members of Council should not directly or indirectly manage or control any monies
received relating to community or charitable organizations fundraising;

[Notice how Item 6 deals only with money to community donations to registered charitable, not-for-profit and other community-based groups, and not moneys/contributions that could potentially slip unnoticed into the Mayor/councillors's war chests through (say) as the Code puts it so well, "services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time"? Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

b. Members of Council or persons acting on behalf of a Member shall not solicit or accept
support in any form from an individual, group or corporation, with any pending
significant planning, conversion or demolition variance application or procurement
proposal before City Council, which the Member knew or ought to have known about.

[Oh MY! "ought to have known about"! HAHAHAHAhahahah! Sorry, can't help it. "ought to have known about"? You mean like how Hazel McCallion "ought to have known about" common law?... Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

c. With reference to member-organized community events, Members of Council must
report to the Integrity Commissioner, the names of all donors and the value of their
donation that supplement the event.

[Reminder from yesterday's blog and the Code's Rule 2 d. "services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time".  The Power of Team Hazel's Incumbency comes not so much from money donated, but her "Friends of Hazel" and their incalculable "services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time".  Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

d. Where a Member of Council sponsors and/or lends support to a community or
charitable event, this Code recognizes that all donations are subject to the Elected
Officials’ Expenses policy.

[Oooo, We can all feel so much better nowwwww. Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

e. No donation cheques should be made payable to a Member of Council or to the City of
Mississauga. Members of Council may only accept donation cheques made payable to
a Business Improvement Association, charity or community group and only for the
purpose of passing the cheques on to such group.

[CITIZEN ALERT! Making "cheques made payable to a Business Improvement Association, charity or community group" ensures they're tucked safely from scrutiny of any kind. Exempt from Freedom of Information. Example, any cheques written to the annual Mayor's Gala spring immediately to mind. Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

f. Members of Council should not handle any cash on behalf of any charitable
organization, not-for-profit or community group, and should always remain at arm’s
length from the financial aspects of these community and external events. If a Member
of Council agrees to fundraise on behalf of a charity or community group, the Member
should ensure that payment is received by a means that does not involve cash,
including bank draft, money order, credit card or cheque made payable to the
applicable group or organization.

[See previous comments regarding the non-unit of measure "at arm's length". The only thing that Item f accomplishes is to remind Mayor/councillors to have someone else handle the money. Perfect example. Councillor Ron Starr's annual, Starr's on the Credit annual fundraiser. Now Starr doesn't touch the money but his daughter's company, Elegance on the Move does! So now you know what the City of Mississauga's Council Code of Conduct means by "arm's length"! Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

7. Nothing included herein affects the entitlement of a Member of Council to:

12

END OF PAGE 12 OF THE CODE. PAGE 13 BEGINS

 

i) use the Member’s office expense budget to run or support community events subject to
the terms of the Elected Officials’ Expenses policy section relating to Community
Expense events;

[By now when you see "community events" you should automatically think "campaign events in non-election years". Back to Page 13 of the Code.]

ii) urge constituents, businesses or other groups to support community events and advance
the needs of a charitable organization put on by others in the Member’s ward or
elsewhere in the City;

[Repeat. By now, when you see "community events" you should automatically think "campaign events in non-election years". Back to Page 13 of the Code.]

iii) play an advisory ex officio, honorary or membership role in any charitable or nonprofit
organization that holds community events in the Members’ ward; and

[Again, translate "community events" into "campaign events in non-election years". Back to Page 13 of the Code.]

iv) collaborate with the City of Mississauga and its agencies, boards or commissions to
hold community events.

[HAHAHAHAAhahaha. Who'd have thought reading the City of Mississauga's Council Code of Conduct would be such entertainment! "(C)ollaborate with the City of Mississauga and its agencies, boards or commissions to hold community events." That's MYTHissaugaspeak for "conspire with the 'Friends of Hazel to hold campaign events in non-election years, all in the best interests of the City (of course). Back to Page 13 of the Code.]


Commentary

By virtue of the office, Members of Council will be called upon to assist various charities,
service clubs and other non-profits as well as community associations, by accepting an
honourary role in the organization, lending their name or support to it or assisting in
fundraising. Transparency and accountability are best achieved in today’s era by encouraging
contributors to make donations to such organizations on-line through a website or where that is
not possible through a cheque made payable directly to the organization. Cash should never
be accepted.

[Regarding, the Code's assertion that "Transparency and accountability are best achieved in today’s era by encouraging contributors to make donations to such organizations on-line through a website." So how was making donations on-line directly to Michele Starr's Elegance on the Move website going to best achieve transparency and accountability? Back to Page 13 of the Code.]

13

END OF PAGE 13 OF THE CODE.

Next blog deals with the Code’s Rule No. 4, Confidential Information.

As “homework” for the Code’s Rule No. 4, Confidential Information and evaluating the Code’s reference to “ought to have known about”, here’s video of an April 14, 2010 scrum where Mayor Hazel McCallion tells the Traditional Media Snoozers, “Well, I don’t think there’s —today, I don’t think there’s nothing confidential. There’s absolutely nothing confidential. Freedom of Information —you can get anything you want.

I created that title back in April 2010 and for the most part, I still think that Traditional Media SUCKS!

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION / CAROLYN PARRISH “BAD TO THE BONE” CATFIGHT! (plus Traditional Media SUCKS!) (5:45 min)

Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

1. The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct April 2011

2. Canada in the Making Common Law and Civil Law

Canada has inherited two systems of law: civil law from the French and common law from the English. This page will describe and give the history of each system as it relates to Canada

Related essays on this site:
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
The Sources of Law in Canada
The Written and Unwritten Constitution
Representative Government
Responsible Government
Canada’s Constitutional History
British Common Law

3. Video of MISSISSAUGAWATCH’s first (meandering and unsuccessful) attempt to merge the Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct with the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry’s “Ethical Infrastructure” report.

As I watched it today, I winced at how unfocussed this video is —just all over the map. But it introduces the vital concept of “sanitized” reports. Sanitized reports/documents/communication is the Key to Mississauga’s success. It was the City of Mississauga’s sanitization efforts that prompted me to warn people today with:

Be it a Corporate Policy, Corporate Report, By-Law, Guideline, those drafting it meticulously weigh every single word. No word makes it on to a City document without Staff’s carefullest of scrutiny. Yes, “carefullest”.

The City of Mississauga’s wordsmiths are especially fond of vague words, like “transparent” and “accountable”. Fact is, words can be so vague as to become meaningless, become atrocities —like “transparent” and “accountable”. Like “appropriate”. Like “subject to confidentiality and disclosure rules”. Like “Trust, Quality, Excellence”.

BEWARE of TRAPS in Mississauga Code of Conduct if filing complaint with integrity commissioner (7:34 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

“To regain her power, expect McCallion to essentially build Team Hazel, for next year’s election. Team Hazel
would consist of four sitting councillors and seven candidates hand-selected by the Hurricane, who back the mayor.”

—Ted Woloshyn, Toronto Sun

Ward 5 By-Election results: In relatively-affluent “Britannia” Crombie prevailed but Malton clearly chose Simmer Kaur as their councillor!

September 23rd, 2011  

Today we took the City of Mississauga’s Official Election Results Detailed Poll by Poll Report (PDF) and converted it to our own spreadsheet. We then separated the polling stations into Malton and Non-Malton (which includes the Ward 5 area, Britannia).

And this is the picture.

Bonnie Crombie won the Ward 5 By-Election but it was only because the more populous (22,997 registered voters) and affluent south-west part of Ward 5 votes prevailed. Malton, with 19,707 registered voters clearly chose Simmer Kaur as their councillor! Malton cast 941 votes for Kaur compared to just 802 for Crombie.

  Polling Location              Registered Ballots  Voter   Voter   Peter  Peter   Bonnie   Bonnie  Simmer  Simmer  Carolyn  Carolyn
                                  Voters    Cast   Turnout Turnout  ADAMS  ADAMS  CROMBIE  CROMBIE   KAUR    KAUR   PARRISH  PARRISH
                                                      %     % 2010           %                %                %                %

0001 Champlain Trail PS            3908      810    20.7%   33.44%   104   12.84%    314    38.77%     49    6.05%     140    17.28%
0002 St. Gertrude SS               3330      677    20.3%   28.63%    76   11.23%    209    30.87%     62    9.16%     148    21.86%
0003 Fairwind Senior PS            3444      805    23.4%   30.57%    98   12.17%    214    26.58%     59    7.33%     211    26.21%
0004 St. Hilary CS                 2708      498    18.4%   26.90%    52   10.44%    129    25.90%     25    5.02%     123    24.70%
0005 San Lorenzo Ruiz School       3791      712    18.8%   27.84%   150   21.07%    169    23.74%     48    6.74%     113    15.87%
0006 Frank McKechnie C.C.          5816     1257    21.6%   32.48%   306   24.34%    279    22.20%     68    5.41%     229    18.22%

NON-MALTON Subtotals              22997     4759    20.7%            786   16.52%   1314    27.61%    311    6.53%     964    20.26%

0007 Ridgewood PS                  2306      626    27.1%   30.82%    34    5.43%     95    15.18%    109   17.41%     108    17.25%
0008 Morning Star MS               2263      441    19.5%   23.45%    32    7.26%     92    20.86%     99   22.45%      54    12.24%
0009 Marvin Heights PS             2158      597    27.7%   34.86%    35    5.86%    127    21.27%    181   30.32%      59     9.88%
0010 St. Raphael CS                2067      461    22.3%   30.19%    29    6.29%     59    12.80%    105   22.78%      45     9.76%
0011 Brandon Gate PS               1614      400    24.8%   33.54%    29    7.25%    102    25.50%     57   14.25%      66    16.50%
0012 Darcel Ave SS                 2439      605    24.8%   31.71%    52    8.60%    107    17.69%    124   20.50%     113    18.68%
0013 Malton C.C.                   2849      447    15.7%   19.35%    42    9.40%     79    17.67%     90   20.13%      72    16.11%
0014 Dunrankin Drive PS            3440      752    21.9%   27.52%    46    6.12%    120    15.96%    169   22.47%     141    18.75%
0015 Peel Regional Housing Rec Rm    51       38    74.5%   82.35%     2    5.26%      0     0.00%      0    0.00%      10    26.32%
0016 Malton Village LT Care         134       17    12.7%   13.33%     1    5.88%      0     0.00%      0    0.00%       1     5.88%
0017 Ridgewood Court                153       61    39.9%   41.07%     1    1.64%      6     9.84%      6    9.84%       8    13.11%
0018 Villa Forum LT Care            233       84    36.1%   34.04%    15   17.86%     15    17.86%      1    1.19%       9    10.71%

MALTON Subtotals                  19707     4529    23.0%            318    7.02%    802    17.71%    941   20.78%     686    15.15%

0019 St.Gertrude - Day 1              0      304                      36   11.84%     59    19.41%     13    4.28%     124    40.79%
0020 St.Gertrude - Day 2              0      352                      47   13.35%     78    22.16%     25    7.10%     139    39.49%
0021 Frank McKechnie - Day 1          0      250                      44   17.60%     56    22.40%     14    5.60%      68    27.20%
0022 Frank McKechnie - Day 2          0      352                      65   18.47%     75    21.31%     10    2.84%      97    27.56%

NON-MALTON Subtotals                        1258                     192   15.26%    268    21.30%     62    4.93%     428    34.02%

0023 Ridgewood PS - Day 1             0      282                      10    3.55%     33    11.70%     89   31.56%      59    20.92%
0024 Ridgewood PS - Day 2             0      240                      14    5.83%     25    10.42%     79   32.92%      46    19.17%
0025 Darcel Avenue - Day 1            0      237                      10    4.22%     29    12.24%    100   42.19%      19     8.02%
0026 Darcel Avenue - Day 2            0      205                      17    8.29%      8     3.90%     80   39.02%      36    17.56%

MALTON Subtotals                             964                      51    5.29%     95     9.85%    348   36.10%     160    16.60%

TOTAL                             42704    11510    27.0%   34.58%  1347   11.70%   2479    21.54%   1662   14.44%    2238    19.44%

 

It would seem that my September 19, 2011 predictions were also dead-on. In my report from Frank McKechnie polling station, I suggested that it would “likely will play an important role in tonight’s results.” Look at the spreadsheet —1,257 ballots cast. Huge.

And while Britannia lavished 1,314 and 964 votes on Bonnie Crombie and Carolyn Parrish respectively, Simmer Kaur managed just 311. Even Peter Adams played better in the relatively-affluent “Britannia” than Kaur: 786 votes.

Scan the results and you can see that Malton doesn’t have Simmer Kaur as their councillor because Britannia went with Crombie.

No surprise that voter turnout was lower than the October 25, 2010 city-wide election. All polling stations reported fewer votes. The rain didn’t help.

Reporting from Malton Community Centre on Monday, I’d stated that, “I predict the lowest voter turnout if it’s anything like it was in October 2010.” It was, with 15.7% compared to 19.35% in October 2010. [Yes, there was a polling station with a lower voter turnout of 12.7% but that's the Malton Village Long Term Care facility.]

The only other thing that stands out and needs your attention is this: In the Advanced Polls, Carolyn Parrish received the most votes from the Britannia/non-Malton) area and once again Malton’s Advanced Polls bestowed Simmer Kaur with the most votes.

So what happened between the Advanced Polls and Voting Day?

Can you say “last day robocall”?…

Bonnie Crombie
Bonnie_Crombie

10% of all Ward 5 Voters dialed in for my Tele TownHall meeting last night. We’ll see tonight if it had any impact on their voting decision

19 Sep

But allow me to share Ms. Crombie’s most offensive Tweet:

Bonnie Crombie
Bonnie_Crombie

The first day of my new career fighting for the residents of Ward 5!

22 Sep

All Ward 5 residents (but especially Malton) need to know that prior to seeking a “new career” in politics, Crombie was a public affairs consultant. Allow me this example.

From the Toronto Star article, Ex-MP and new Mississauga councillor Bonnie Crombie reflects on election win:

Q: Your husband, Brian, a close friend of the mayor, was found by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the U.S. to have misled Biovail investors while he was an executive, and was fined by the Ontario Securities Commission here. A lot of people in Mississauga know about that. How do you respond to those concerned about your husband’s past?

A: First of all, it’s my name on the ballot, not my husband’s. He had an issue in his business career; perhaps an error in judgment was made, but we’ve moved past it. The only people that bring this up are my detractors. I’m very, very proud of my husband and his career.

On the bright side, Ron Starr’s lookin’ pretty good to me right now.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Mississauga Ward 5 By-Election result: Hazel “Teflon Icon” McCallion successfully installs yet another puppet-councillor.

September 21st, 2011  

This blog is simply for the record —a video summary of Monday, September 19, 2011’s Mississauga Ward 5 By-Election Voting Day.

Video One: “Mississauga Ward 5 By-Election Voting Day: So this is the Picture” complete with video transcript.

Mississauga Ward 5 By-Election Voting Day: So this is the Picture (Frank McKechnie polling station report)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from Frank McKechnie polling station, September 19, 2011

It is Monday, September the 19th, 2011 —Ward 5 By-election voting day. And I’m here at Frank McKechnie Community Centre. It likely will play an important role in tonight’s results.

The one thing about Ward 5 is the disparity between voter turnout. Some areas as high as, almost approximating 40% —I know it’s still pathetic. And then in the Malton area, specifically Malton Community Centre as having voter turnout in the teens.

And I’m of the mind, you know, how much time do you spend in an area campaigning and handing out literature, in an area that you know, you just can’t bring the vote in.

I don’t know. It’s raining. And I guess that’s kind of the other problem, is what effect will rain have on today’s voting?

Wouldn’t have any effect on people with cars, I suppose.

But what effect will it have on people who are relying either on walking or using public transit?

It’s really strange. I’m not nearly as nervous as I was on October 25, 2010. I guess I’m just going to accept what happens because there’s no point railing at the moon because, well, to quote this 19-year old who wrote me in email, “The System is CORRUPT, there is no way to fix it”.

And while it would be wonderful for Mississauga to have Carolyn Parrish back as a Council watchdog, she just might put in a little dent into the corruption and sense of entitlement and the Power of the Incumbency that has been going on there for 30 years.

Anyway. The question is, do I go to Malton or not? It’s a really crappy day.

All right. Turning camera off.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Video Two: “Malton Voting Day Westwood Mall Transit Terminal : Who’ll Stop the Rain?” complete with video transcript.

Mississauga Ward 5 By-Election Voting Day: Who’ll Stop the Rain (Westwood Mall report) 3:32 min

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from Malton’s Westwood Mall Transit Terminal, September 19, 2011

It is Monday, September the 19th, 2011 and we’re here in Malton, Westwood Mall Transit Terminal —just to see what we can see.

It’s a dismal day. It’s raining and over just to the, I guess it’s east, of the Transit Terminal, is Malton Community Centre —which is part of my research site. Actually when you think about it, it’s the center of my research site.

And I’ve been researching Malton since about March 2007.

So I’m very interested in what the results are going to be from here.

I also know, however, that the voter turnout at Malton Community Centre —even in the October 2010 municipal election was dismal. I think it was something like 19% —17-18-19%. [actual number was 19.35% voter turnout] Really disappointing.

And if memory serves, that was a decent day. Like October 25th was —certainly wasn’t raining.

Whereas what is going to happen now is, you know anybody who, say, comes here from work and then has to walk —it’s not going to be a pleasant walk to Malton Community Centre to the polling station there.

You’d have to be fairly committed about who your —about your candidate in order to go through this kind of uncomfortable effort.

And I guess that’s kind of the difference between having the luxury of a car and be able to drive to your polling station. And people here who have put in a full day’s work —and what I mean by that is, they’ve caught the bus here. They’ve gone to work. Then they come back on the bus here.

And now what happens is they have to go to Malton Community Centre and that may be a walk. Although I suspect that buses will stop there as part of their route.

Still. I can’t help wonder how the steady patter of rain is going to affect voter turnout here.

So. As I said earlier, there are at least three polling stations that in October 2010 drew well over a thousand ballots cast. They’re going to play big in tonight’s by-election results.

Despite how needy the Malton area is —and especially around here, I’m not sure that the votes are going to show up.

It’s kind of difficult to imagine a lower voter turnout than in the high teens but the rain, the rain might have an effect here.

Now it’s time to go to Malton Community Centre. And for that I gotta set this up. And this up. Because I’ll be on City of Mississauga property to do that report and I always always always always have at least an audio-recorder going.

And that’s because —as I say repeatedly, City of Mississauga Staff —lie.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Video Two: “Malton Voting Day Malton Community Centre : Voter Turnout. How low can it go?” complete with video transcript.

Mississauga Ward 5 By-Election Voting Day: Voter Turnout. How low can it go? Malton CC report (1:36 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from Malton’s Westwood Mall Transit Terminal, September 19, 2011

It is Monday, September the 19th, 2011 and I’ve got to make this fast. I’m here at Malton Community Centre and I just want to report that here I predict the lowest voter turnout if it’s anything like it was in October 2010.

Taking a look. It’s quite rainy already.

And now in addition to being rainy, it’s also cold. And so, it’s 2:56 right now —almost 3 o’clock. And actually a Mississauga Transit bus going this way. So what that means is I suspect that people can come from work directly to Malton Community Centre. And then —well.

You know, just my own self. If I were somebody who had to get up at 5 or 6 o’clock, make a bus, an hour trip one way, work all day, then come back here. And it’s raining.

It would take a tremendous, gargantuan effort on my part to show up here and also cast my ballot.

So Kudos to anyone —any Ward 5 resident who’s going to be walking in the rain after a long day’s work to cast your ballot. Because that’s something really to be respected.

No matter who you’re voting for.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Epilogue

Now that the results are in and MYTHissauga’s Teflon Icon and her MYTHisssauga Inc have installed yet another puppet-councillor, it will be interesting to analyze the ballots cast for each of Ward 5’s polling stations and compare with data from the October 25, 2010 city-wide election.

But by far, the most exciting (and admittedly grim) prospect, is showing up at Council Chambers today and face the newly-engineered MYTHisssauga Inc Monolith as McCallion and her campaign team lock in ward after ward after ward of “team players”.

If I’ve read Tom Urbaniak’s book, Her Worship: Hazel McCallion and the Development of Mississauga properly, Hazel McCallion has never —absolutely never — so DOMINATED Mississauga Council. So don’t you believer her “As Mayor I have only one vote”.

A Mayor who’s picked and padded a council with her own puppets would be bad enough for a company town —but Mississauga is Canada’s sixth largest city….

In his October 26, 2010 Mississauga News commentary “McCallion’s last chance to secure legacy”, Tom Urbaniak wrote:

Hazel the would-be statesperson struggling with Hazel the scrapper. Such is the story of a remarkable political career, a career that could end in triumph — or very badly.

It was the scrapper — the raging fighter — who showed up on election night. An angry Hazel McCallion, back in control of Council, lashed out at her critics, believing herself completely vindicated. She will, it seems, use her long goodbye to settle some scores.

That would be a serious mistake. The mayor now has the judgement of history to consider. Her legacy will be tarnished forever if personal vendettas crowd out good policy-making.

And Mississauga cries out for good policy. The financial situation is worsening. The infrastructure is aging. The suburban era of easy growth is passing.

Now is the time for the mayor to reach out for advice, even from her critics, and rise above. Now is the time to acknowledge mistakes, including the serious mayoral errors that have been the subject of the Mississauga judicial inquiry.

It’s clear how the Mayor has chosen to secure her legacy.

Install a cadre of “Her People” for councillors and more importantly select a successor who the Teflon Icon is certain will sing her praises into Perpetuity. And above all, slam the lid, clamp the lock, seal the seal, douse the light and return MYTHissauga Inc’s “secret society” to even greater depths of secrecy.

All in the best interests of the city. Of course.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Mississauga Ward 5 By-Election Shadow Play –and Why the Mississauga Judicial Report won’t matter (revised)

Here’s hoping that Carolyn “This isn’t a secret society” Parrish wins the Ward 5 By-election today…

September 19th, 2011  

This should come as no surprise to my readership of dozens. I hope that Carolyn Parrish wins tonight.

Here’s why.

What follows is video from June 2007 —an exchange between Parrish and Mayor Hazel McCallion that never made it into the Council minutes. With hindsight gleaned from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry we can now see the Mayor’s declaration, “And I have every confidence in my councillors” in its true light. (“And I have every confidence in my councillors” meaning Mullin, Prentice, Mahoney and Saito.)

Then there’s the Mayor’s comment, “There’s a process around here that we follow. And other members of Council have not asked questions. Because what they usually do is when they get a report, they meet with Staff before the Council meeting to go over the issues rather than the questions being asked at Council.” Four years later, “rather than the questions being asked at Council” reads like an admission.

Anyway. It’s always best to view the primary sources doing the talking. Here’s Parrish and McCallion.

If there anyone notices an error either in the YouTube video or in this video transcript I respectfully request that I be advised. Thanks.

Carolyn Parrish to Hazel McCallion on the Public’s Right to Know: “This isn’t a secret society”(3:46 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

June 20, 2007 Council. Regarding Item R-4 Enersource Hydro Mississauga Services Inc. Streetlighting Services Agreement Extension – Procurement Reference Number: FA.49.444-07 Report dated June 11, 2007 from the Commissioner of Transportation and Works with respect to Enersource Hydro Mississauga Services Inc. Streetlighting Services Agreement Extension – Procurement Reference Number: FA.49.444-07.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

Martin Powell, Commissioner of Public Works and Transportation, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

I just want to make sure that I understand the question properly.

Are you saying if we were to tender or are you talking about our arrangement—

Councillor Carolyn Parrish, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

I’m talking about our current arrangement. And I’m also understanding that you’re going to have to spend some money to do that study. That’s separate and apart.

Martin Powell, Commissioner of Public Works and Transportation, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Well, first of all, we —our contract that we have right now is good until June of 2008. So we’re extending it from June of 2008 to the end of the year. And I think that we can live within the consumer price index.

We will have to get, obviously, if Council approves this, Enersource will also have to approve it. But I think that that’s probably something that can be agreed to.

Councillor Carolyn Parrish, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Well, I thank you, Martin. This has certainly been a long process. You’ve done a terrific job.

I would like to move the motion that we reopen the issue. First. On the by-law. And I have it here.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Okay.

Let me advise you, Councillor Parrish, there’s a process around here that we follow. And other members of Council have not asked questions.

Because what they usually do is when they get a report, they meet with Staff before the Council meeting to go over the issues rather than the questions being asked at Council.

Councillor Carolyn Parrish, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

I have done that, Madam Mayor.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Oh, so you’ve gone over this entire report with the Staff.

Councillor Carolyn Parrish, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

I’ve chatted with Martin extensively.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

So you’ve got the answers from him.

Councillor Carolyn Parrish, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Yes, I do.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Why did you ask the questions today then?

Councillor Carolyn Parrish, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Because I need to also make sure that my fellow councillors understand the answers as well as I did.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Oh. Well, I think they can speak for themselves. I don’t think they need another councillor to do their homework for them, I have to tell you.

Councillor Carolyn Parrish, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Thank you for that direction.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Yeah. Well, we’ve served very well, you know. We’ve been in operation for quite a few years. And I have every confidence in my councillors. They go and talk to Staff. Like I did this morning with Martin and the City Manager —met with me at 8 o’clock to go over this report.

The questions I had I got the answers.

So therefore I don’t have to ask them at Council.

Councillor Carolyn Parrish, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

That’s very good.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Okay?

[DIP TO WHITE]
[later in the meeting]

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Councillor Parrish?

Councillor Carolyn Parrish, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

Ah, yes, Madam Mayor. I just like to not rebut your comment to me but to explain my position.

The first time this question came before us it was a huge contract. It didn’t even have an amount of money on it. So I asked the questions of the Staff and was told, in private, that it was $3.9 million dollars.

So if I hadn’t asked that question, this whole issue wouldn’t have opened up.

I was not happy with the answers, so I asked a second set of questions. I again discussed it in private with Staff. Still not happy with the answers.

We are here to represent the public.

And we have cable television here and we have people sitting at home, obviously with nothing better to do, watching us on television.

We represent the city. We don’t represent ourselves.

So if I ask questions in open session on television, I have a right to do so. And if I don’t like the answers, I will keep asking questions. That’s my job.

[DIP TO WHITE]
[later in her comments]

Councillor Carolyn Parrish, Mississauga Council  June 20, 2007

And Commissioner Powell doesn’t disagree with me. That this is time for this $3.9 million dollar contract to be put out for proposals.

And I will continue asking questions on every issue that comes forward. And out of courtesy to one of the best staffs that I’ve ever worked with on any level of government, I will ask them in private.

And if I don’t like the answers, I’ll ask them again in public. Even if I do like the answers, I’ll ask them in public so that the people watching on television that vote for this Council know what we’re doing.

This isn’t a secret society.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

So. Will McCallion’s MYTHissauga Inc secret society crack open more champagne tonight celebrating the installation of yet another secret society puppet councillor?

Victor Oh (honourary president of the Mississauga Chinese Business Association)
Victor Oh, honourary president of the Mississauga Chinese Business Association pops the first bottle of champagne.
Photo Credit: “Andrew” at:  https://picasaweb.google.com/tee.andrew8/HazelVictoryNight#5546241316903573778

Victor Oh hands off the second bottle of champagne for Ron Starr to pop.
Victor Oh hands off the second bottle of champagne for Ron Starr to pop.
Stephen Chu (left) president of the Mississauga Chinese Business Association.
Photo Credit: “Andrew” at:  https://picasaweb.google.com/tee.andrew8/HazelVictoryNight#5546368771984252274

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

McCallion 2010 Election Night Victory photos reveal Hazel’s behind-the-scenes “Complexities” in Ward 5 by-election

September 3rd, 2011  

In the July 22, 2011 National Post article, “Council watchers claim guardianship of democracy, political scientist says” Megan O’Toole writes about what she describes as “self-styled council watchers” and their “growing presence in recent years as the proliferation of social media has given them a widening platform to share their views”.

O’Toole gets no fewer than three political scientists to weigh in on “council watchers.” All three PhD’s were condescending —and yes, dismissive.

While Ryerson University’s Duncan MacLellan’s opinion wasn’t the worst of the bunch, his is the most relevant for today’s blog.

Regarding council watchers MacLellan had this to say to the National Post:

“There could be some knowledge that they have that is helpful, but sometimes it is more just reactionary,” says Ryerson University municipal politics expert Duncan MacLellan. “They get people sort of fired up, but in the end [may not] understand the complexities around the decisions that get made.”

Notice O’Toole’s use of ” [may not] “. This would suggest the possibility that Dr. MacLellan really wrote “don’t” as in “but in the end don’t understand the complexities around the decisions that get made.”

What with the Mayor successfully blocking the release of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report until after the Ward 5 by-election, it’s time to introduce one of MYTHissauga’s “complexities around the decisions that get made.”

Today’s blog is unique.  I discovered a series of 64 remarkable photos by photographer “Andrew”.  His Picasa web album is simply labelled “Hazel Victory Night Oct 25, 2010 photos: 64“.

Andrew clearly has unprecedented behind-the-scenes access to Victor Oh, Honourary President of the Mississauga Chinese Business Association. And through Victor Oh, Andrew had unprecedented behind-the-scenes access to Mayor Hazel McCallion’s private October 25, 2010 Election Night Victory Celebration.

Judging by the grins splitting the faces of McCallion’s “complexities” as they popped the champagne, they weren’t so much celebrating Ron Starr’s victory as silencing Carolyn Parrish. After all, can’t have the public know what’s really going on in MYTHissauga —and especially its “complexities”.

Through experience I’ve discovered that videos and photographs “disappear” once MYTHissauga’s “complexities” find out that I’ve discovered them. So I document them through videotape six ways to Sunday.

Watch and discover (if you don’t already know) a major “complexity” —that informed voters are very, very bad for government. And business.

So make no mistake. The same MYTHissauga Elites swilling champagne in these “Andrew” photos: Hazel McCallion, son Peter, Ron Starr, Starr’s “friends for 30 years” Katie and Steve Mahoney, Bonnie Crombie, Victor Oh et al are busy right now pulling their Strings of “Complexities” in this Ward 5 by-election.

And with that introduction, here is my video “colour commentary” of Andrew’s 64 photos. And of course, the video transcript.

If anyone notices an error either in the YouTube video or in this transcript I respectfully request that I be advised. I have been documenting City of Mississauga municipal governance since May 2006 and this research demands Accuracy. Thanks.

Hazel McCallion, Ron Starr, Victor Oh’s Private Election Champagne: Return to MYTHissauga Secrecy (15:07 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

MISSISSAUGAWATCH August 30, 2011 analyzing Andrew’s  ‘Hazel Victory Night Oct 25, 2010″ 64 photos.

It is Tuesday, August 30, 2011 and this is what the Toronto Star looks like. I’ve discovered something that’s really important and I need to document it before it’s removed.

These are photos by a guy named “Andrew” right here, who seems to have an in somehow with the Mayor. A whole bunch of different activities.

The one that I’m interested in —there it is right there. And it’s “Hazel Victory Night Oct 25, 2010″.

[Photo 1: Ron Starr, Hazel McCallion and Katie Mahoney victorious]

And there’s a whole bunch of them and you can kind of see. I’m going to go a little bit further. But what I’m going to do now is, This is Photo 1 as you can see up here.

And I’m just going to do this as a slide presentation.

And what I’ll do is I’ll identify some of the people here. As you can see, if there’s ever any doubt that Katie Mahoney is Hazel’s favoured #1 Councillor. The Mahoney’s have an incredible influence as far as The Councillors are concerned.

And anyway, so here we’ve got Ron Starr, Hazel McCallion and Katie Mahoney. And we’re just going to go through here.

This is “Victory Night” behind-the-scenes. Nobody’s seen this. Neither have I.

[Photo 2: Smiling guy with microphone at podium. Hazel McCallion beside him.]

Not sure who this is.

[Photo 3: Hazel McCallion, microphone in hand, addresses her Faithful.]

Here she is addressing her Faithful.

[Photo 4: The Mayor's Faithful in rapt attention.]

More of her Faithful.

[Photo 6: Hazel McCallion surrounded by her Faithful.]

This guy here? Prevented the Mississauga News from asking McCallion questions inside the Great Hall. On Election Night.

[Photo 9: Victor Oh, with Mayor beside him, prepares to pop a bottle of champagne.]

Victor Oh, Honourary President of the Mississauga Chinese Business Association. And here he’s popping open a bottle of champagne. And I’m not sure but I think that that’s actually a mayoral candidate as well [note: will verify].

[Photo 10: Victor Oh successfully pops cork to delight of delighted Faithful.]

But what’s important to me right now is to get these documented.

[Photo 11: Delighted Faithful cheer and applaud Victor Oh's successful champagne popping.]

[Photo 12: Hazel McCallion hoists champagne glass and toasts her Faithful.]

[Photo 13: Victor Oh pours champagne to the assembled Faithful.]

Peter McCallion and girlfriend Jovanna.

[Photo 14: Victor Oh pours more champagne for the assembled Faithful as the Mayor talks to a Faithful.]

[Photo 15: Hazel McCallion receives huge hug from a smiling Faithful as Victor Oh beams.]

There’s Fran Rider, President, or head of the Women’s Hockey Association.

[Photo 16: Hazel McCallion poses with four of her Faithful.]

[Photo 17. Hazel McCallion with Unidentified Faithful. Longo's corporate banner in background.]

If you ever wonder why Hazel McCallion doesn’t have to campaign, this is why.

Notice in the background here, you’ve got Jovanna and Peter McCallion here checking —let’s just go back. Let’s just do that. Checking Peter’s cell phone there or something. Going back.

Notice the corporate sponsorship “Longo’s”?

[Photo 19: Smiling Unidentified male Faithful with Hazel McCallion and same Unidentified Faithful.]

Not sure who that is.

He shows up later so I’m going to be interested in these two people.

[Photo 20: Victor Oh, Diane Kalenchuk and same Unidentified Faithful.]

Victor Oh and this here, Diane Kalenchuk, Royal LePage real estate agent. “Selling Homes in Mississauga for Over 25 Years!” and also awarded citizen-of-the-year 2002.

Accompanied Hazel McCallion several times to the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry back in September 2010. And also at the Living Arts Centre, February 13, 2011, she was there hovering around celebrating and organizing Hazel McCallion’s 90th birthday.

[Photo 21: Fran Rider, Victor Oh, Diane Kalenchuk pose happily with two Unidentified Faithfuls.]

Fran Rider, Women’s hockey. Victor Oh, accompanying Hazel McCallion on many of the trips to China. And Diane Kalenchuk —this woman driving, in the car with Hazel, and for that matter, Fran Rider, to the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

And those two draw a complete blank to me. Who are they?

[Photo 22: Hazel McCallion in a circle with MYTHissauga Faithfuls.]

 I thought this guy here’s Ted Woloshyn. But you know, when he’s got his back like that, don’t really know.

[Photo 23 Hazel McCallion receives hug from a Faithful as what appears to be Ted Woloshyn looks on.]

Looks kind of like Ted Woloshyn. Now he’s the Toronto Sun columnist and I refer to him as Hazel’s lapdog. But we’re still not sure.

[Photo 24: Hazel McCallion posing with three Unidentified male Faithfuls.]

Not sure who these people are.

[Photo 25: Hazel McCallion at table with her Faithful. Guy who blocked Mississauga News in background.]

Here we have them celebrating at the end. Again, this guy here.

[Photo 26: Hazel McCallion at table with her Faithful. Different angle.]

There’s this guy who looks like Ted Woloshyn in the background. Still not sure.

[Photo 27: Sheldon Leiba smiling with Unidentified smiling Unidentified Faithful and smiling "Starr's on the Credit" party girl.]

Here’s something that’s really interesting.  This is a guy named Sheldon Leiba, president of the Mississauga Board of Trade. As I keep saying. You don’t have to campaign when you’ve got the Mississauga Board of Trade right behind you.

And this woman right here. She is in a lot of the photographs of Starr’s on the Credit. And I can show that she’s quite the Party Girl.

[Photo 28: Hazel McCallion posing with beaming Katie Mahoney and omnipresent hubbie, Steve Mahoney.]

Keep going.

Like I said, these are the powerhouses beside Hazel. Hazel can depend on these two. December 2, 2009 Rally you had Katie Mahoney going up there saying—”It’s not hard to support our Mayor, trust me.”

[Video insert of Katie Mahoney, December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally]

 Katie Mahoney: “It’s not hard to support our Mayor, trust me.”

[End insert]

It is so true when you’ve got the Mississauga Board of Trade. You’ve got Ted Woloshyn. You’ve got Ron Lenyk, who’s the former publisher of the Mississauga News and was publisher for the longest time.

There’s been no media.

And then Jake Dheer who’s Rogers Cable 10. All these “media”, they were all supporting the Mayor.

Anyway, as I keep saying, two powerful, powerful people and McCallion-backers.

[Photo 29: Hazel McCallion in a talking circle with Katie Mahoney, omnipresent hubbie, Steve Mahoney and Victor Oh.]

Same thing here. Now isn’t this quite the photograph!

 You’ve got Steve Mahoney, Councillor Katie Mahoney, Victor Oh and Hazel McCallion. In the background, Fran Rider, Women’s hockey.

Now there’s a real power photograph.

[Photo 31: Hazel McCallion and Ron Starr in victory embrace.]

Now isn’t that a photograph. Ron Starr hugging Hazel McCallion.

Boy was she happy to get rid of Carolyn Parrish. Because Carolyn Parrish at least for a little while, blew the lid off MYTHissauga

[Photo 32: Hazel McCallion and Ron Starr still hugging.]

And here. Can there be a happier Hazel?

“I got my man in! I got my puppet in!” What a relief it must be for her.

And I suspect now they’re really going to watch the Ward 5 election because the last thing that woman needs is to have Carolyn Parrish back.

After all, Horrors, you wouldn’t want people to know what’s really going on in MYTHissauga.

[Photo 33: Bonnie Crombie, Ron Starr, Hazel McCallion and Katie Mahoney —grins splitting their faces.]

And look at this. Isn’t this the photograph!

If there’s any doubt that Bonnie Crombie is a Hazel puppet —a Hazel uber alles candidate. This is a photograph by Andrew. October 25th—

[Photo 34: Bonnie Crombie, Ron Starr, Hazel McCallion and Katie Mahoney faces splitting in even wider grins.]

2010. Behind-the-scenes look. Look at the delight.

“Yes.! We got rid of Parrish! Yes! We got Ron Starr in! Yes. We can return to our Secrecy!”

Oh! I know! Here’s something else I can tell you. All four of these people were at Starr’s on the Credit and were featured in the Starr’s on the Credit 2008 highlight video.

Including [laughs] Ronnie Hawkins saying something like—

[Video insert of Ronnie Hawkins from Starr's on the Credit 2008 video highlights]

Ronnie Hawkins: “Folks, I’d like to tell you that it’s an honour to be here meetin’ all you old timers again. Most of you were going to jail before she took over. Now you’re all rich. Whatta girl!”

[End insert]

Yup. You’re looking at MYTHissauga.

Let’s keep going.

[Photo 35: Hazel McCallion poses with "Elect Ron Starr" sign. Ted Woloshyn stands amused in background.]

Now, here’s the first confirmation that I get that the guy in the hockey jacket or whatever, really was Ted Woloshyn.

If there’s any doubt that Ron Starr was Hazel McCallion’s preferred choice, take a look. That’s why we’re documenting all these pictures, saving them. Because eventually you build a map of MYTHissauga.

And a map isn’t just roads, it’s also connections between people. As you see here. So you know, any wonder why Ted Woloshyn writes the way that he does?

[Photo 36: Hazel McCallion poses with "Elect Ron Starr" sign, Ron Starr. Ted Woloshyn stands amused in background.]

Here again. You’ve got Woloshyn. You’ve got Ron Starr. And you’ve got Hazel McCallion.

Ted Woloshyn did his bit in the Toronto Sun and his Toronto Sun columns. And then you had Hazel with the robocall at the last minute. And there they are. She’s got her puppet in.

And I suspect too that Ron Starr is her choice for her successor in 2014.

[Photo 37: Joyous Hazel McCallion poses with joyous Ron Starr as she holds an "Elect Ron Starr" sign.]

Oh yeah, look at this. Let’s go closer. Look at these faces.

“My Ronnie!…”

Thank you, Andrew for these photographs.

[Photo 38: Hazel McCallion admires Ron Starr's hockey sweater with "STARR 6" lettering.]

And just for the record, you’ve still got Ted Woloshyn’s jacket right there, so he’s enjoying this.

[Photo 39: Hazel McCallion posing with a smiling Unidentified Faithful male and female.]

Now who have we got here? Let’s go back to make sure we’ve got everybody in. Oh. And over here, Fran Rider.

[Photo 40: Darryl Konynenbelt from Global TV with Hazel McCallion waiting for cue.]

[laughs] And speaking of one of Hazel McCallion’s media puppets, this is Darryl Konynenbelt from Global TV. Made an unsuccessful run as Conservative candidate for Mississauga South.

And I think that’s over here, that’s the head of Victor Oh. And we’ve still got Fran Rider in the background here.

[Photo 41: Darryl Konynenbelt from Global TV with Hazel McCallion waiting for cue.]

He’s pretending to be a reporter pretending to be the ever-vigilant media. And talk about, McCallion can always depend on this guy to toss her some sweetheart questions.

[Photo 42: Darryl Konynenbelt from Global TV adjusting his tie ready to speak with Hazel McCallion]

Goddamighty.

[Photo 43: Smiling ROGERS Cable 10 Mississauga standing next to a smiling Ron Starr waiting for cue.]

Oh! And there’s ROGERS Cable 10 with some more Pretend.

This is why this 19-year old who wrote me saying, “The System is CORRUPT, there is no way to fix it”—

[Photo 44: Serious-looking ROGERS Cable 10 Mississauga standing "reporter" interviewing a serious-looking Ron Starr.]

—you’re looking at why.

Now that’s Jake Dheer’s ROGERS Cable 10 interviewing Ron Starr. And you’re going to expect any kind of real questions?

[Photo 45: smiling Identified, smiling Bonnie Crombie, Smiling Sheldon Leiba]

Don’t recognize this guy, but there’s Bonnie Crombie, Hazel McCallion-approved Ward 5 by-election candidate and Sheldon Leiba, president Mississauga Board of Trade.

[Photo 46: four smiling people, "Starr's on the Credit girl". Victor Oh, Fran Rider in background.]

This lady. Again. Starr’s on the Credit. There’s Victor Oh. Fran Rider.

[Photo 47: Victor Oh holding bottle of champagne beside smiling "Starr's on the Credit girl"]

Victor Oh. Starr’s on the Credit. Bottle of champagne. He’s happy.

[Photo 48: Smiling Victor Oh and smiling "Starr's on the Credit girl". Close up.]

And the real laugh? This guy also plays big in Safe City Mississauga and the Mississauga Crime Prevention Association.

[Photo 49: Hazel McCallion about to hug someone introduced by a smiling Victor Oh. Ron Starr's prepping a burger]

She’s [McCallion} about to hug him so, somebody and he’s [Oh] introducing this person.

There’s the champagne. There’s Ron Starr chowing down on a burger.

This is after the cameras go off. This is Election Night.

[Photo 50: Victor Oh beams as Ron Starr uncorks another bottle of champagne. Hazel McCallion backs away, wary of the cork.]

Looks like a private kind-of-thing.

There’s Ron Starr uncorking another bottle of champagne. Look at Hazel.

[Photo 51: Victor Oh beams even more as Ron Starr launches champagne cork up, up and awaaaaaaaay.]

Look at this.

When Hazel McCallion talks about “my people”, she’s not talking about the residents of Mississauga. Here’s her People.

[Photo 52: Smiling Sheldon Leiba beside Bonnie Crombie who's talking to the smiling "Starr's on the Credit girl".]

There’s the head of Mississauga Board of Trade Sheldon, and Bonnie Crombie.

[Photo 53: Unidentified smiling Faithful standing beside Ron Starr and his campaign manager.]

And we’ve got Ron Starr here talking to his campaign manager, Susan Walsh. And I recognize this guy right here at the back. He was at the “Friends of Hazel” Rally on December 2, 2009. Helped organize it.

[Photo 54: Darryl Konynenbelt from Global TV talking privately to Ron Starr. No microphone.]

It’s also interesting that they let in Konynenbelt or whatever and also ROGERS TV but Hazel McCallion refused to allow the Mississauga News to interview her.

[Video insert October 25, 2010 inside Great Hall earlier that evening as election results were coming in]

Donald Barber: “The short, gray-haired guy who’s making the —he’s getting in the face of the Mississauga News. Telling them to get out of the way. Don’t answer any questions. Hazel doesn’t want to answer any questions.”

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: “Which one’s that?”

Donald Barber: “The guy who’s got the roses. There.”

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: “Oh. Uh oh. Don, help ‘em out.”

Donald Barber: “What?”

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: “Just watch the knobs here.”] * Note. “knobs” mean Hazel McCallion’s security guards.

[End insert]

[Photo 55: Hazel McCallion posing beside Ron Starr's grinning and triumphant campaign manager.]

And here’s Hazel McCallion standing next to Ron Starr’s campaign manager, Susan Walsh.

[Photo 56: Unidentified grinner and Hazel McCallion posing beside Ron Starr's —yep grinning and triumphant campaign manager. Two kids in background.]

You know when they say about “Our kids are our future?” There they are.

They’re talking about that youth. Not the ones in Malton.

[Photo 57: Unidentified smiling youth and Hazel McCallion posing beside Ron Starr's —you got it grinning and triumphant campaign manager.]

Ah! There’s what I’m talking about. That youth is their future.

[Photo 58: Bonnie Crombie talking to what appear to be two organizers of the December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally.]

There’s Bonnie Crombie again. And it’s important to get that guy. Again, I think that guy is from the Stop the Inquiry Rally. And I even think I know this guy.

[Photo 59: Hazel McCallion and a smiling unidentified Faithful.]

There.

[Photo 60: Hazel McCallion speaking to Charles Sousa.]

Charles Sousa.

[Photo 61: Ron Starr and a smiling unidentified Faithful.]

Let’s just do a close up here.

[Photo 62: Smiling Hazel McCallion posing with smiling Victor Oh and smiling company.]

 Now given the photographs that you see of Hazel McCallion —I think it’s at the Canadian Chinese Business Association, this one isn’t a surprise. And it will be interesting to see how many of these also show up at the Mayor’s 90th Gala Birthday Party.

That’s the expensive one that was $350.00 a ticket.

[Photo 63: Smiling Ron Starr posing with smiling Victor Oh and smiling company.]

There’s Victor now with his new Councillor.

You’re looking at MYTHissauga.

[Photo 64: Smiling Hazel McCallion sitting around a table celebrating Ron Starr's election and her re-election.]

And that’s it.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Photo credits and special thanks to Andrew at: https://picasaweb.google.com/tee.andrew8

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MUNICIPALITIES: A ROOT OF YOUTH VIOLENCE

“Although it has become common knowledge that those who are pushed out or who drop out of high school are vulnerable to economic and social insecurity, and that this can often lead them into situations of violence, there has been a shortage of critical assessment of all the institutions implicated in this situation.”

—p. 118  McMurtry/Curling Report on the Roots of Youth Violence:  “Volume 3 COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES REPORT”

“Friends of Hazel” (McCallion) Part 2: Introducing The Four Behind Stopcarolynparrish.com –and Paul Keselman

July 18th, 2011  

MISSISSAUGAWATCH Investigation Series, Volume 1, “What citizens should know about stopcarolynparrish.com” (#4)

In the Mississauga News article, ‘Keselman throws hat into Ward 5 ring”, it states:

The married father of two said he felt a “higher calling” to serve.

“I feel divine providence is at play in this election and I’m the person that’s best suited to represent this ward,”

This morning when I Googled “stopcarolynparrish.com” and Mississauga Ward 5 candidate Paul Kesselman showed up in the search results!

And what a surprise to find Paul “divine providence” Keselman by following the link www.burlington.net/election-2010/paul-keselman!

It’s clear that Paul “divine providence” Keselman, self-described “Proud Conservative” didn’t feel enough “divine providence” to inform Mississauga Ward 5 residents that “-266” days ago he was running for  “Ward 5 City & Regional Councillor in Burlington”. Yes! Burlington!

But by far the most outrageous thing about Keselman is his slimy, swarmy “Real Resident Feedback” section at:  www.paulkeselman.com/bio/real-resident-feedback,

Paul “divine providence” Keselman cuts-and-pastes an anti-Parrish comment that he attributes to former Mississauga Ward 3 candidate, Stephen Wahl.  I saved the entire thread comments and fact is, the comment was generated by alias ehdian on Jul 5, 2011 9:05 AM.  [evidence to follow]

To Paul “divine providence” Keselman, “Real Residents” are the same Mississauga News  “Friends of Hazel” cowards hiding behind aliases: “Mantis”, “freddie”, “tankerone” and “ehdian”. —”ehdian”, who for all any of us know, could be Paul Keselman himself “Real Resident”ing under that alias!

And throughout Paul “divine providence” Keselman’s “Real Resident Feedback” section there are references to stopcarolynparrish.com.

Paul “divine providence” Keselman —American-style politics imported to Burlington’s Ward 5 now setting up “divine providence” shop in Mississauga Ward 5. Absolutely fascinating!

Why follow and report on all this, you might wonder. It’s all part of my ongoing research into the Roots of Youth Violence —our lying-“failure to mention” politicians and the resident-infrastucture that prop them up.

Which is as good as any introduction to Part 2 of “Friends of Hazel” (McCallion): Introducing The Four Behind Stopcarolynparrish.com.

As is now our custom, here’s the video, complete with transcript.

“Friends of Hazel” (McCallion) Part 2: Introducing The Four Behind Stopcarolynparrish.com (4:56 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting July 16, 2011 while surfing the net, continuing from Part 1.

This guy here. Restoring integrity to Mississauga Council from Oakville and this guy here from Milton. And a reminder that I found that funny and just want to go back.

Yeah, so we’re back here to Cheryl Glassford, just want to be carefully documenting this.

And we’d also said that the two biggest people that you do not want dealing with youth, let alone anything with moving parts is Katie Mahoney and Pat Saito. And the absolute worst of the bunch Katie Mahoney.

[DIP TO WHITE]

“Info”. That’s all she says. However, you could also see that she [Glassford] votes [sic: supports] so clearly she’s right in line with anything that MYTHissauga and Hazel McCallion would want her to do.

[DIP TO WHITE]

“Vote for Patrick Mendes”? There he is. Ah yes.

Anyway.

So we’re back to Cheryl Glassford and happy to have done her and now back to Murray.

Now a reminder that I had videotaped Murray Glassford’s initial photograph here where he was riding on a motorcycle. He’s since changed the page at Christmas time and now he’s put that up. He’s actually a coach or something to do with the North Stars, the minor league here in Mississauga.

So I suspect that that’s where he gets a lot of his influence.

Murray Glassford lists 58 friends. Nothing jumps out. Except this guy. Reminder, Tom Cahill helped with the stopcarolynparrish.com, so we go to Tom Cahill. There he is. And he’s got 414 friends.

And what’s really interesting, very quickly, there she is.

Tom Cahill. “Info”. “Lives in Milton, Ontario”.

And what we’ll do then now is go to Tom Cahill’s flickr site. There he is.

And when you search on various tags he has, you find “Murray” right —search, there it is right there. Search “Murray”. And there’s Murray Glassford.

And it’s still up. I’m surprised actually. It was uploaded, so it’s May 2009. And there’s a Mississauga, City of Mississauga employee. Community Services.

So there it is. Tom Cahill’s friend, Murray Glassford of stopcarolynparrish.com.

[DIP TO WHITE]

And there is Cheryl. Cheryl Glassford who wrote —Hazel McCallion’s apologeticist  and too happy to, look at this:

“She is accused of going to meetings. Is her personal time not her own?”

So in other words, a mayor can go to meetings that benefit her son —what was it? Ten million dollars? For the hotel complex? As long as it’s her own time?

These people did their ALL the prevent the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. And of course we now know why that is. There’s all kinds of stuff that spilled out.

[laughs] Including we find out about the Mayor’s Gala, the Community Foundation of Mississauga. On and on and on.

These are the people behind stopcarolynparrish.com whose mission is, heh, to instore [sic] integrity and respectability. And of course you do that by failing to mention to mention all kinds of things.

In fact that’s how Hazel McCallion stayed in power. Failure to mention. Coaching to keep things Positive Positive Positive. And of course have, you know, have, you know, Ted Woloshyn and Ron Lenyk and Jake Dheer your “media”.

Okay, I’m just trying to think what else before I turn this off, but I think that’s it.

[Music: Behind Blue Eyes, The Who]
[LOGO]
[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Signed,

The (I have FOUND the Roots of Youth Violence!) Mississauga Muse.

ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES: A MAJOR (unexplored) ROOT OF YOUTH VIOLENCE

Must-see related video “FRIENDS OF HAZEL” ( $$$Guardians$$$ of the MYTH of MYTHISSAUGA )

We hear a lot about poor ethics and broken promises on the part of politicians these days, and how this breeds cynicism in the electorate. But this is by no means a problem confined to politicians. My office has uncovered many cases of government ministries, boards and corporations making grandiose promises to the public that they not only can’t keep, they don’t even bother to try. They promise a level of service or a standard of conduct that they don’t come close to delivering – forgetting about the public they are supposed to serve.

This kind of puffed-up promise, or “puffery,” as I call it, damages the public trust, fuels cynicism and generally gives public service and government a bad name.

Address by André Marin, Ombudsman of Ontario, “Puffery vs Public Interest”. The Canadian Centre for Ethics and Corporate Policy, (2007)

which brings us to:

On Mayor Hazel McCallion’s “telling it like it is” —from Tom Urbaniak’s book Her Worship: Hazel McCallion and the Development of Mississauga (pages 143/144).

Despite McCallion’s tight control, it did happen occasionally that unwanted statements or descriptions slipped into the budget documents. In such instances, Her Worship did not hesitate to chastise the staff. One staff-prepared budget overview contained a statement implying that deferred maintenance was resulting in deterioration of facilities used by the public:

Continuing fundings pressures for capital reserve fund financing in the first six years resulted in significant deferrals of maintenance to the end of the forecast period (10 years). This results in continued deterioration of department facilities and is most noticeable where these facilities are heavily used by the public (eg, community centres, libraries, arenas, park trails and sports fields). Fire and emergency services is also severely impacted by this funding constraint as the training centre and station renovations cannot be funded within this plan. 23

This brought a sharp rebuke from the mayor: the statement should either be retracted or adjusted. This is a very significant statement to me that a roof is going to fall in on some of our buildings. Somebody’s going to pick this up and say “yes, you’re doing a great job on taxes but you’ve got significant deferrals. I think you should take out that statement, redo and tell it like it is.”

Community services commissioner Paul Mitcham tried at first to explain, but then conceded that ‘it’s probably not a good statement.’ He promised it would be taken out.

Last. Comments directed to me at the Mississauga News from two “Friends of Hazel” aka. what Paul “divine providence” Keselman refers to as “Real Resident Feedback”…

WARNING! Offensive content, click to view
MISSISSAUGA NEWS COMMENTS by Friends of Hazel (McCallion) "Prol" (other alias "AV8R") co-designer of the Friends of Hazel Rally flyer --and Uato (perversion of real Mississauga News reader "Uatu")

“Friends of Hazel” turn the Mississauga News into a Filth Pad –a window into how McCallion stayed in power.

July 17th, 2011  

Yesterday I shared what the co-designer of the “Friends of Hazel” rally flyer (alias “Prol” other alias “AV8R”) posted to me in the Mississauga News comments section just to give Mississauga residents an idea the kind of abuse you can expect when you stand up to Hazel McCallion.

WARNING! Offensive content, click to view
Mississauga News shuts down comments on Ward 5 race. Samples of filth left by the co-designer of the Friends of Hazel Rally flyer. Is alias "Prol" who also have alias "AV8R" he also "Uato"?

You get attacked in the Mississauga News readers comments section with “Psycho, You are one twisted bitch. Can’t you please get some help?” —and

WARNING! Offensive content, click to view
“I can smell your cunt”

by the “Friends of Hazel”.

“Friends of Hazel”. Hazel McCallion’s “people” —cowards who hide behind multiple aliases.

Today I was going to continue with Part 2 of “Friends of Hazel” (McCallion): Introducing The Four Behind Stopcarolynparrish.com but something unprecedented happened at the Mississauga News in between. In the July 14th  editorial, “Cutting off the dialogue”, the Mississauga News announced:

In the interest of ensuring fair and unbiased coverage for all candidates running in the Sept. 19 Ward 5 by-election, we’ve decided to can the chatter. In some ways, it’s a sad day for The Mississauga News and for community journalism.

We’ve decided to suspend public online commentary on all stories related to the Ward 5 vote and candidates.

They continue:

We still welcome the opinions of our readers on this important election and encourage you to submit letters to the editor

Well, what you’d expect from the Friends of Hazel cowards who hide behind aliases to happen did happen. They just commented everywhere else serving up “FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!” and “DOWN WITH THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS!” And I videotaped it.

Why? Because by his own admission,”Prol”, co-designer of the Friends of Hazel Rally flyer lies.

And here’s Friend of Hazel “Prol’s” flyer flanked by Lorry Smith and Ron Starr.

Mississauga News reader-commented "Prol" (other alias "AV8R") co-designed this "Friends of Hazel Rally" fllyer presented to Mayor Hazel McCallion by Ron Starr and Lorry Smith.

So here’s the video.

“Friends of Hazel” turn the Mississauga News into a Filth Pad –show how McCallion stayed in power. (4:06 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

As is now our custom, here’s the video, complete with transcript.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]
[Warning, strong language/visuals.]
[Music: Behind Blue Eyes, The Who]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting July 16, 2011 while surfing the net.

It is Saturday, July the 16th, 2011 and this is what the Toronto Star looks like. And we’ve been documenting the conduct of the co-designer of the “Friends of Hazel” Rally flyer, an individual named “Prol”.

And Mississauga News has suspended comments on their website on anything related to Ward 5 because of such antics as individuals like “Prol”. And you can see, for example, this is a new article on Ward 5 and down at the bottom it says commenting has been closed.

And I have other videotape to show some of the vile comments by “Prol” and the “Friends of Hazel” —that is, supporters of stopcarolynparrish.com and the Jake Dheer candidacy.

And so over here, this is what the Mississauga News looks like on the front page. “Recent Comments” “Prol”  “Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!”.

By “Prol”, “Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!”. “Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!”.

And what has happened is every new article in the Mississauga News where comments are allowed, whether it relates to politics or not —doesn’t matter. You have “Prol” —remember, co-designer of the “Friends of Hazel Rally” flyer, “Friend of Hazel” calling for “Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!”

And to my disgust, “Tony Jackson” has also joined in.

So in every site, these two drop their turds of disrespect at the Mississauga News.

And what I want to do is document that. [Note. The Mississauga News was forced to delete their comments.]  That’s “Wonderettes are marvellous”

We now go to “City master plan wins award” and the same here. And sure enough there they are.

“Shooting suspects try [sic] for bail”. And I tell you, if I was webmaster at the Mississauga News, both these ASSHOLES —and I used to have respect for “Tony Jackson” but I don’t have anymore— would be gone!

[DIP TO WHITE]

Here. “Deer sighting in Port Credit”. I thought, oh, really cool article. And there they are again. Only in this particular one, you’ve got —it was ConcernedResident, who started it. “Comments [on this story] have been suspended”.

“tankerone”, whose response to Carolyn Parrish confirming she was running in Ward 5 called for stopcarolynparrish.com website. And we have again “Prol”. [writing "DOWN WITH THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS!"]

All three, strong supporters of Jake Dheer.

So, this is the mentality. This is —this is how Hazel McCallion stayed in power all these years.

[FADE TO BLACK] [Music: Behind Blue Eyes, The Who] [CLOSING IMAGE]

WARNING! Offensive content, click to view
MISSISSAUGA NEWS COMMENTS by Friends of Hazel (McCallion) "Prol" (other alias "AV8R") co-designer of the Friends of Hazel Rally flyer --and Uato (perversion of real Mississauga News reader "Uatu")

Signed,

The (I have FOUND the Roots of Youth Violence!) Mississauga Muse.

ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES: A MAJOR (unexplored) ROOT OF YOUTH VIOLENCE

We hear a lot about poor ethics and broken promises on the part of politicians these days, and how this breeds cynicism in the electorate. But this is by no means a problem confined to politicians. My office has uncovered many cases of government ministries, boards and corporations making grandiose promises to the public that they not only can’t keep, they don’t even bother to try. They promise a level of service or a standard of conduct that they don’t come close to delivering – forgetting about the public they are supposed to serve.

This kind of puffed-up promise, or “puffery,” as I call it, damages the public trust, fuels cynicism and generally gives public service and government a bad name.

Address by André Marin, Ombudsman of Ontario, “Puffery vs Public Interest”. The Canadian Centre for Ethics and Corporate Policy, (2007)

MISSISSAUGAWATCH issues challenge to Mississaugans. Please match our donation of $250.00 to The Mississauga Food Bank Concert Fund.

July 7th, 2011  

From the Mississauga News,

Rockin’ the house for food bank

Joseph Chin Jul 07, 2011 – 11:05 AM

More than a thousand people packed the Living Arts Centre last night for a concert marking the 25th anniversary of the Mississauga Food Bank.
Although a final tally isn’t in yet, event organizer Carolyn Parrish said the show grossed $105,600. After expenses are paid, she expects the concert to reach its goal of raising $50,000 for the food bank and $10,000 for the Mississauga Symphony Orchestra (MSO).

Parrish was overwhelmed by the generosity of the crowd when a hat was passed around during the intermission. Some $2,800 was collected.

“There were $100 bills in the collection. People were donating by Visa in the lobby,” she told The News this morning.

A reader-commenter at the Mississauga News who attended the concert reports that:

Eve Adams and Brad Butt were asked to hold the baskets for donations at intermission.

Now we’re passing the hat!

MISSISSAUGAWATCH issues a challenge to Mississaugans.  We ask that you match our donation of $250.00 to The Mississauga Food Bank —or donate what you can.

If you wish to donate online to the 25th anniversary of the Mississauga Food Bank, when prompted with “Motivation for giving” simply write “Concert Fund”.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH challenges others match $250.00 Mississauga Food Bank Concert Donation --or whatever you can give.

“I know, up on top

You are seeing great sights,
But down here at the bottom
We, too, should have rights.
–Dr. Seuss

 

Signed,

Ursula and Peter Bennett
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Mississauga 2010 Election results. Hazel McCallion: Percentage support sorted by ward and voter turnout sorted by Ward.

December 8th, 2010  

As regular readers know, we’ve taken the City of Mississauga’s PDF file of the official election results and converted them into a spreadsheet. It’s time to revisit Hazel McCallion’s voting stats. So.

BACKGROUND

On November 17th we reported the most preliminary of preliminary findings in the Blog, “Mississauga News quotes Councillors: VOTERS’ LIST WAS A “MESS”. Why didn’t the City check its own Official Election Results?!” That Blog provided insight into how Hazel McCallion’s 107,643 votes were distributed both by ward and polling stations. These data however don’t necessarily show support for McCallion because it was possible for her to receive the highest number of votes in a polling station where she only got 40-50% of Mayor’s ballots cast—a plurality, in other words.

Our November 18th Blog, “Spreadsheet into percentage of Hazel McCallion’s votes by Mississauga polling stations provides unique insights presented McCallion’s support by polling station based on the simple equation “Votes for Hazel McCallion” divided by “Total Ballots Cast for Mayor”. Example. There are 10 ballets cast for Mayor. 8 were for Hazel McCallion. 8/10 or 80% support at that polling station.

Our November 19th Blog, “Mississauga Ward 5 percentages showing support for incumbents Mayor Hazel McCallion and Councillor Eve Adams by polling stations” focused only on Ward 5 polling station results showing the percentage support for both incumbents Mayor Hazel McCallion and Councillor Eve Adams. We decided to report on Ward 5 first because Malton Community Centre is one of our primary Roots of Youth Violence research sites.

Our November 21st, 2010 Blog, “What effect the “robocall”? Mississauga Ward 6 percentages showing support for Mayor Hazel McCallion, Carolyn Parrish and Ron Starr by polling stations” provided a Carolyn Parrish/Ron Starr breakdown. For context we also did the breakdown for Advanced Polls versus Voting Day to see if Hazel McCallion’s robocall had any effect.

As a result of the news that Mississauga Council had ordered a recount of Ward 1, we decided to post our spreadsheet for that ward next. In the November 24 blog, “Mississauga Councillor Calls for Ward 1 Recount –and STATS for Ward 1 Advanced Polls versus Voting Day”, we confirmed that bottomline, Councillor Corbasson was ahead in the Advanced Polls occurring Ocober 14-15th and lost support on Voting Day. We’re convinced that Jim Tovey’s flyer circulated Saturday, two days before Voting Day had the effect intended.

WHAT WE’VE LEARNED

We realize now that our November 18th Blog, “Spreadsheet into percentage of Hazel McCallion’s votes by Mississauga polling stations provides unique insights did not provide a complete picture. For one thing, we presented no totals. Another, back then we didn’t understand the importance of comparing the results of Advanced Polls vs Voting Day to gauge what effect the Shipp-McCallion team’s “over-sized cheque” flyers might have had.

For context, we provide the actual voter turnout by Ward sorted by highest to lowest. Please see column “Turnout“. Note City-wide voter turnout was 34.34% (* checked against City’s results at www.mississauga.ca).

And as always, should anyone spot an error we’d appreciate being advised. Many thanks!

Voter turnout sorted by Ward Total percentage

Ward Registered Ballots Turnout  Ballots   Turnout
       Voters    Cast           for Mayor for Mayor

 10    35503     13656   38.46     13443     37.86
  1    29549     10774   36.46     10584     35.82
  3    37144     13431   36.16     13047     35.13
  6    46022     16554   35.97     16258     35.33
  5    43215     14943   34.58     14484     33.52
  4    38348     13213   34.46     12939     33.74
CITY  417919    143501   34.34    140902     33.72
  8    44830     15391   34.33     15201     33.91
 11    33500     11242   33.56     11059     33.01
  2    32387     10791   33.32     10703     33.05
  9    35501     11684   32.91     11570     32.59
  7    41920     11822   28.20     11614     27.71

We can now confidently sort McCallion’s support by Ward.  Hazel McCallion won city-wide overall with 76.40% .

Support for Mayor Hazel McCallion sorted by Ward Total percentage

Ward   9:    81.23%     (voter turnout 32.91%)
Ward   8:    77.69%    (voter turnout 34.33%)
Ward 11:    77.52%     (voter turnout 33.56%)
Ward 4:     77.38%     (voter turnout 34.46%)
Ward   2:    77.36%   (voter turnout 33.32%)
Ward 10:   77.06%   (voter turnout 38.46%)
Ward   6:    76.87%    (voter turnout 35.97%)
CITY:         76.40%     (voter turnout 34.34%)   * checked against City’s results at www.mississauga.ca
Ward   7:   75.83%    (voter turnout 28.20%)
Ward   3:   75.80%   (voter turnout 36.16%)
Ward   1:   72.69%    (voter turnout 36.46%)
Ward   5:   71.28%     (voter turnout 34.58%)

What came as a surprise is the Mayor’s low level of support came from Ward 1 (Tovey/Corbasson) —with only Ward 5 lower at 71.28%.  Another major surprise is the Ward 9 being Shipp-McCallion stronghold!

Next. All the data for Hazel McCallion in all wards. Complete with totals.

Percentage Support for Mayor Hazel McCallion Wards 1 through 11, October 25, 2010 according to polling station. Sorted by percentage of votes cast. Includes Advanced Poll vs Voting Day totals Hazel McCallion won overall with 76.40% ANOMALIES/HIGHLIGHTS IN RED

 Voters = Registered Voters
 Mayor  = Ballots Cast for Mayor
 HM     = Hazel McCallion Votes
 HM %   = Hazel McCallion Percentage of Votes Cast

 Ward Poll Polling Locations            Voters   Mayor    HM       HM %

   1  0010 Miss Long Term Care             10       6       5     83.33
   1  0001 Riverside Public School       2660     706     558     79.04
   1  0006 Queen of Heaven Sep School    5525    1621    1256     77.48
   1  0005 Mississauga SrCentre          3351    1032     780     75.58
   1  0008 ISNA Elementary School        2091     802     588     73.32
   1  0004 Forest Ave Public School      3355    1026     747     72.81
   1  0007 Lakeview Golf Course          3372    1108     784     70.76
   1  0003 Port Credit SecSchool         4002    1320     929     70.38
   1  0009 Westacres Public School       2359     946     628     66.38
   1  0002 Kenollie Public School        2716     855     559     65.38
   1  0011 Regency Retirement Res         108      38      24     63.16 

   1  0016 Port Credit SS - Day 3           0     243     194     79.84
   1  0017 Port Credit SS - Day 4           0     258     203     78.68
   1  0015 Miss Sr Centre - Day 4           0     245     189     77.14
   1  0012 Advance Poll Day 1               0      52      36     69.23
   1  0014 Miss Sr Centre - Day 3           0     296     200     67.57
   1  0013 Advance Poll Day 2               0      30      14     46.67 

           Day 3 TOTALS                           539     394     73.10
           Day 4 TOTALS                           503     392     77.93 

           Advance Poll TOTALS                   1124     836     74.38
           Voting Day TOTALS                     9460    6858     72.49
           Support Change                                         -1.88 

           TOTALS                       29549   10584    7694     72.69 

   2  0030 Wawel Villa                     78      37      32     86.49
   2  0023 Clarkson C.C.                 4321    1153     952     82.57
   2  0024 StHelen Separate School       3829     896     723     80.69
   2  0025 St Francis of Assisi          2875    1094     854     78.06
   2  0018 Clarkson Public School        4144    1307    1011     77.35
   2  0029 Sheridan Villa                 178      70      54     77.14
   2  0028 The Wenleigh                   160      25      19     76.00
   2  0026 Sheridan Park Public School   2733     792     600     75.76
   2  0020 StLuke Catholic School        4061    1097     831     75.75
   2  0022 Lorne Park Public School      3100     997     740     74.22
   2  0027 Erin Mills Lodge                72      69      51     73.91
   2  0019 Owenwood Public School        4148    1104     810     73.37
   2  0021 Lorne Park SecSchool          2688     786     529     67.30 

   2  0034 Clarkson CC - Day 4              0     215     185     86.05
   2  0035 Lorne Park SS - Day 3            0     370     318     85.95
   2  0032 Advance Poll Day 2               0      33      28     84.85
   2  0033 Clarkson CC - Day 3              0     276     230     83.33
   2  0036 Lorne Park SS - Day 4            0     334     275     82.34
   2  0031 Advance Poll Day 1               0      48      38     79.17 

           Day 3 TOTALS                           704     593     84.23
           Day 4 TOTALS                           549     460     83.79 

           Advance Poll TOTALS                   1276    1074     84.17
           Voting Day TOTALS                     9427    7206     76.44
           Support Change                                         -7.73 

           TOTALS                       32387   10703    8280     77.36 

   3  0054 Meadowcroft Constitution        32      10      10    100.00
   3  0048 Westminster Court              194     120     106     88.33
   3  0050 Beechwood Place                170      77      66     85.71
   3  0051 Meadowcroft Bough Beeches       62      16      13     81.25
   3  0047 John Cabot SecSchool          3162    1009     815     80.77
   3  0053 Summerville Pines              875     277     218     78.70
   3  0049 Sunrise Senior Living           88      18      14     77.78
   3  0041 Blessed Teresa of Calcutta    1633     588     457     77.72
   3  0046 St Basil Catholic School      4487    1339    1039     77.60
   3  0052 Tyndall Nursing Home           208      48      37     77.08
   3  0040 Silverthorn Public School     1821     718     550     76.60
   3  0045 StsMartha & Mary School       4451    1437    1099     76.48
   3  0039 St Thomas More School         3336    1095     823     75.16
   3  0044 Forest Glen Public School     3542    1020     761     74.61
   3  0043 Burnhamthorpe C.C.            3571     992     726     73.19
   3  0042 Burnhamthorpe Public School   2713    1024     745     72.75
   3  0037 Brian W Fleming               3735    1085     774     71.34
   3  0038 Dixie Public School           3064     938     653     69.62 

   3  0056 Advance Poll Day 2               0      58      49     84.48
   3  0058 Burnhamthorpe CC-Day4            0     258     212     82.17
   3  0055 Advance Poll Day 1               0      67      55     82.09
   3  0057 Burnhamthorpe CC-Day3            0     281     224     79.72
   3  0059 Teresa of Calcutta-Day3          0     310     243     78.39
   3  0060 Teresa of Calcutta-Day4          0     262     200     76.34 

           Day 3 TOTALS                           591     467     79.02
           Day 4 TOTALS                           520     412     79.23 

           Advance Poll TOTALS                   1236     983     79.53
           Voting Day TOTALS                    11811    8906     75.40
           Support Change                                         -4.13 

           TOTALS                       37144   13047    9889     75.80 

   4  0076 Cawthra Gardens Long Term       49      25      22     88.00
   4  0072 The Mansion                    511     196     165     84.18
   4  0066 StCharles Garnier School      3367    1067     872     81.72
   4  0067 StsPeter & Paul School        3724    1110     901     81.17
   4  0077 Amica at City Centre          1056     303     240     79.21
   4  0070 StMatthew Catholic School     2915     791     626     79.14
   4  0061 Silver Creek Public School    2896     975     769     78.87
   4  0071 St.Pio of Peitrelcina School  4625    1412    1106     78.33
   4  0063 Thornwood Public School       2511     708     553     78.11
   4  0065 Briarwood Public School       2021     766     593     77.42
   4  0074 Park Mansion                   440     169     129     76.33
   4  0068 Corpus Christi School         2894     983     746     75.89
   4  0062 Metropolitan Andrei School    2106     735     550     74.83
   4  0073 Skymark West Phase 2           822     237     175     73.84
   4  0069 Huntington Ridge School       3411    1046     761     72.75
   4  0064 Mississauga Valley C.C.       4696    1097     797     72.65
   4  0075 Aspen Grove                    304     118      84     71.19 

   4  0079 Advance Poll Day 2               0     138     114     82.61
   4  0078 Advance Poll Day 1               0     148     120     81.08
   4  0080 Mississauga Valley CC-Day3       0     370     296     80.00
   4  0081 Mississauga Valley CC-Day4       0     301     230     76.41
   4  0082 Huntington Ridge PS-Day3         0     119      87     73.11
   4  0083 Huntington Ridge PS-Day4         0     125      76     60.80 

           Day 3 TOTALS                           489     383     78.32
           Day 4 TOTALS                           426     306     71.83 

           Advance Poll TOTALS                   1201     923     76.85
           Voting Day TOTALS                    11738    9089     77.43
           Support Change                                          0.58 

           TOTALS                       38348   12939   10012     77.38 

   5  0088 San Lorenzo Ruiz School       3833    1053     834     79.20
   5  0089 Frank McKechnie C.C.          5729    1815    1423     78.40
   5  0085 St.Gertrude Separate School   3364     940     732     77.87
   5  0087 StHilary Catholic School      2773     731     564     77.15
   5  0084 ChamplainTrail Public School  3909    1281     977     76.27
   5  0086 Fairwind Senior PublicSchool  3386    1020     756     74.12
   5  0090 Ridgewood Public School       2352     698     512     73.35
   5  0094 Brandon Gate Public School    1643     529     387     73.16
   5  0100 Ridgewood Court                168      62      45     72.58
   5  0095 Darcel Ave Senior School      2457     768     530     69.01
   5  0091 Morning Star Middle School    2333     534     356     66.67
   5  0099 Malton Village Long Term       135      18      12     66.67
   5  0092 Marvin Heights Public School  2189     737     490     66.49
   5  0097 Dunrankin Dr Public School    3543     939     621     66.13
   5  0101 Villa Forum Long Term          332     105      69     65.71
   5  0096 Malton C.C.                   2915     545     353     64.77
   5  0093 StRaphael Catholic School     2103     585     378     64.62
   5  0098 Rec Room- 3580 Etude Dr         51      39      22     56.41 

   5  0103 Advance Poll Day 2               0      57      46     80.70
   5  0106 Frank McKechnie CC-Day3          0     397     316     79.60
   5  0107 Frank McKechnie CC-Day4          0     529     412     77.88
   5  0102 Advance Poll Day 1               0      44      34     77.27
   5  0104 Ridgewood PS - Day 3             0     514     240     46.69
   5  0105 Ridgewood PS - Day 4             0     544     215     39.52 

           Day 3 TOTALS                           911     556     61.03
           Day 4 TOTALS                          1073     627     58.43 

           Advance Poll TOTALS                   2085    1263     60.58
           Voting Day TOTALS                    12399    9061     73.08
           Support Change                                         12.50 

           TOTALS                       43215   14484   10324     71.28 

   6  0121 Leisureworld-Streetsville       33      29      28     96.55
   6  0120 Yee Hong Centre                173      37      32     86.49
   6  0116 St.Dunstan Catholic School    2499     906     743     82.01
   6  0112 Edenrose Public School        3768    1125     906     80.53
   6  0108 McBride Ave Public School     4468    1176     942     80.10
   6  0118 Whitehorn Public School       4275    1246     992     79.61
   6  0110 Queenston Drive Pub School    2358     841     668     79.43
   6  0115 StHerbert Catholic School     3602    1068     847     79.31
   6  0111 StDavid of Wales School       4470    1576    1229     77.98
   6  0117 River Grove C.C.              4552    1453    1116     76.81
   6  0113 StBernadette School           4302    1456    1101     75.62
   6  0114 Fallingbrook Middle School    3466     934     678     72.59
   6  0119 St.Valentine Catholic School  4623    1280     912     71.25
   6  0109 Springfield Public School     3433    1221     865     70.84 

   6  0123 Advance Poll Day 2               0      97      85     87.63
   6  0126 River Grove CC - Day 3           0     401     317     79.05
   6  0127 River Grove CC - Day 4           0     470     361     76.81
   6  0122 Advance Poll Day 1               0     149     111     74.50
   6  0125 McBride Avenue PS-Day4           0     379     275     72.56
   6  0124 McBride Avenue PS-Day3           0     414     290     70.05 

           Day 3 TOTALS                           815     607     74.48
           Day 4 TOTALS                           849     636     74.91 

           Advance Poll TOTALS                   1910    1439     75.34
           Voting Day TOTALS                    14348   11059     77.08
           Support Change                                          1.74 

           TOTALS                       46022   16258   12498     76.87 

   7  0143 Heritage House                  47      21      18     85.71
   7  0140 Leisureworld-Mississauga        67      37      31     83.78
   7  0137 Bishop Scalabrini School      5335     970     769     79.28
   7  0131 St.Catherine ofSienna School  3801     860     675     78.49
   7  0133 Mary Fix Catholic School      2706     801     626     78.15
   7  0136 StPhilip Catholic School      4558    1172     909     77.56
   7  0128 Munden Park Public School     2784     864     663     76.74
   7  0138 Fairview Public School        2760     511     385     75.34
   7  0134 Huron Park C.C.               5332    1613    1212     75.14
   7  0130 St.Timothy Separate School    2531     423     313     74.00
   7  0135 FrDaniel Zanon School         5736    1357    1001     73.77
   7  0129 Clifton Public School         2383     891     646     72.50
   7  0132 Floradale Public School       3350     934     659     70.56
   7  0142 Extendicare                     91      13       9     69.23
   7  0139 King Garden Retirement         435     107      74     69.16
   7  0141 Trillium Health Centre           4       6       4     66.67 

   7  0148 Huron Park CC - Day 3            0     186     156     83.87
   7  0149 Huron Park CC - Day 4            0     211     172     81.52
   7  0146 St Timothy SS - Day 3            0     186     146     78.49
   7  0144 Advance Poll Day 1               0     121      93     76.86
   7  0145 Advance Poll Day 2               0     181     136     75.14
   7  0147 St Timothy SS - Day 4            0     149     110     73.83 

           Day 3 TOTALS                           372     302     81.18
           Day 4 TOTALS                           360     282     78.33 

           Advance Poll TOTALS                   1034     813     78.63
           Voting Day TOTALS                    10580    7994     75.56
           Support Change                                         -3.07 

           TOTALS                       41920   11614    8807     75.83 

   8  0165 Living Waters Residence         88      83      73     87.95
   8  0172 University of Toronto           94       8       7     87.50
   8  0167 Carmel Heights                  50      41      35     85.37
   8  0171 Sunrise Senior Living           62      13      11     84.62
   8  0168 Ivan Franko Home                74      53      44     83.02
   8  0158 Pheasant Run Public School    4232    1411    1147     81.29
   8  0160 All Saints Separate School    3242    1048     840     80.15
   8  0170 Specialty Care-Mississauga      50      20      16     80.00
   8  0153 St.Margaret of Scotland       1898     630     498     79.05
   8  0162 Credit Valley Public School   3339     951     747     78.55
   8  0159 Ashgrove Public School        2752     818     640     78.24
   8  0156 South Common C.C.             4772    1276     997     78.13
   8  0166 South Common Court             144     104      81     77.88
   8  0154 King's Masting Public School  2267     785     606     77.20
   8  0151 Holy Name of Mary College     2026     603     464     76.95
   8  0157 StMark Separate School        3988    1526    1148     75.23
   8  0155 Christ the King School        4499    1287     964     74.90
   8  0161 Artesian Drive Public School  2921     764     569     74.48
   8  0163 StRose of Lima School         2316     752     560     74.47
   8  0152 StJean Baptiste School        3213    1096     811     74.00
   8  0169 Amica - Erin Mills             167      76      56     73.68
   8  0150 Oakridge Public School        2622     578     422     73.01
   8  0164 Credit Valley Hospital          14       2       1     50.00 

   8  0173 Advance Poll Day 1               0      94      88     93.62
   8  0174 Advance Poll Day 2               0      63      57     90.48
   8  0175 South Common CC - Day 3          0     403     348     86.35
   8  0177 Pheasant Run PS - Day 3          0     230     192     83.48
   8  0176 South Common CC - Day 4          0     318     263     82.70
   8  0178 Pheasant Run PS - Day 4          0     168     124     73.81 

           Day 3 TOTALS                           633     540     85.31
           Day 4 TOTALS                           486     387     79.63 

           Advance Poll TOTALS                   1276    1072     84.01
           Voting Day TOTALS                    13925   10737     77.11
           Support Change                                         -6.91 

           TOTALS                       44830   15201   11809     77.69 

   9  0189 Village of Erin Meadows        163      23      20     86.96
   9  0188 Heritage Glen                   92     146     122     83.56
   9  0183 Settler's Green PublicSchool  4659    1452    1203     82.85
   9  0187 StRichard Separate School     4706    1377    1137     82.57
   9  0182 Miller's Grove Public School  3214    1129     928     82.20
   9  0185 Meadowvale C.C.               4345    1156     950     82.18
   9  0186 Shelter Bay Public School     3894    1152     931     80.82
   9  0184 St.John of the Cross School   3669    1087     865     79.58
   9  0181 Our Lady of Mercy School      2286     584     464     79.45
   9  0180 Castlebridge Public School    3386     917     725     79.06
   9  0190 Edenwood Seniors Village        75      49      38     77.55
   9  0179 Erin Meadows C.C.             5012    1241     945     76.15 

   9  0191 Advance Poll Day 1               0      47      44     93.62
   9  0194 Erin Meadows CC - Day 4          0     277     239     86.28
   9  0196 Meadowvale CC - Day 4            0     256     220     85.94
   9  0195 Meadowvale CC - Day 3            0     298     256     85.91
   9  0192 Advance Poll Day 2               0      42      36     85.71
   9  0193 Erin Meadows CC - Day 3          0     337     275     81.60 

           Day 3 TOTALS                           635     531     83.62
           Day 4 TOTALS                           512     440     85.94 

           Advance Poll TOTALS                   1257    1070     85.12
           Voting Day TOTALS                    10313    8328     80.75
           Support Change                                         -4.37 

           TOTALS                       35501   11570    9398     81.23 

  10  0206 St.Therese Catholic School    3004    1030     859     83.40
  10  0203 St.Edith Stein School         3930    1347    1085     80.55
  10  0204 StSimon Stock School          2440     803     640     79.70
  10  0205 Lisgar Middle School          3762    1191     946     79.43
  10  0207 StAlbert of Jerusalem         2900     975     766     78.56
  10  0198 StBernard of Clairvaux        2816     911     710     77.94
  10  0208 Kindree Public School         2833     872     676     77.52
  10  0201 StFaustina CatholicSchool     3337    1056     815     77.18
  10  0200 Ruth Thompson Middle Schoo    3067     917     687     74.92
  10  0202 Churchill Meadows School      3149     959     704     73.41
  10  0199 McKinnon Public School        1997     648     471     72.69
  10  0197 Oscar Peterson PublicSchool   2268     730     524     71.78 

  10  0209 Advance Poll Day 1               0      35      32     91.43
  10  0210 Advance Poll Day 2               0      34      29     85.29
  10  0214 Lisgar Middle School-Day4        0     457     368     80.53
  10  0213 Lisgar Middle School-Day3        0     387     303     78.29
  10  0212 Ruth Thompson MS-Day4            0     672     471     70.09
  10  0211 Ruth Thompson MS-Day3            0     419     273     65.16 

           Day 3 TOTALS                           806     576     71.46
           Day 4 TOTALS                          1129     839     74.31 

           Advance Poll TOTALS                   2004    1476     73.65
           Voting Day TOTALS                    11439    8883     77.66
           Support Change                                          4.00 

           TOTALS                       35503   13443   10359     77.06 

  11  0225 Extendicare Mississauga         25      28      24     85.71
  11  0219 Ray Underhill Public School   3862    1315    1088     82.74
  11  0217 Streetsville SecSchool        2552     955     772     80.84
  11  0216 Rec Room-4 Caroline Street     715     273     215     78.75
  11  0218 Vista Heights Public School   2261     702     550     78.35
  11  0223 Levi Creek Public School      3684    1045     814     77.89
  11  0220 Britannia Public School       6126    1681    1291     76.80
  11  0222 David Leeder Middle School    4650    1263     959     75.93
  11  0215 Vic Johnston C.C.             3277     809     614     75.90
  11  0221 StVeronica CatholicSchool     2921     837     622     74.31
  11  0224 Derry West Village School     3427    1020     708     69.41 

  11  0229 Ray Underhill PS-Day4            0     291     260     89.35
  11  0227 Advance Poll Day 2               0      38      33     86.84
  11  0228 Ray Underhill PS-Day3            0     260     209     80.38
  11  0231 David Leeder MS-Day4             0     272     209     76.84
  11  0230 David Leeder MS-Day3             0     216     165     76.39
  11  0226 Advance Poll Day 1               0      54      40     74.07 

           Day 3 TOTALS                           476     374     78.57
           Day 4 TOTALS                           563     469     83.30 

           Advance Poll TOTALS                   1131     916     80.99
           Voting Day TOTALS                     9928    7657     77.13
           Support Change                                         -3.86 

           TOTALS                       33500   11059    8573     77.52

           City-wide TOTALS            417919  140902  107643     76.40    * checked against City's results at www.mississauga.ca

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

E MALAMA KAKOU. To care for All.

ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES: A MAJOR (unexplored) ROOT OF YOUTH VIOLENCE

What effect the “robocall”? Mississauga Ward 6 percentages showing support for Mayor Hazel McCallion, Carolyn Parrish and Ron Starr by polling stations

November 21st, 2010  

Over the last few days we’ve taken the City of Mississauga’s PDF file of the official election results and converted them into a spreadsheet. On November 17th we reported the most preliminary of preliminary findings in the Blog, “Mississauga News quotes Councillors: VOTERS’ LIST WAS A “MESS”. Why didn’t the City check its own Official Election Results?!” That Blog provided insight into how Hazel McCallion’s 107,643 votes were distributed both by ward and polling stations. These data however don’t necessarily show support for McCallion because it was possible for her to receive the highest number of votes in a polling station where she only got 40-50% of Mayor’s ballots cast—a plurality, in other words.

Our November 18th Blog, “Spreadsheet into percentage of Hazel McCallion’s votes by Mississauga polling stations provides unique insights” presented McCallion’s support by polling station based on the simple equation “Votes for Hazel McCallion” divided by “Total Ballots Cast for Mayor”.  Example. There are 10 ballets cast for Mayor. 8 were for Hazel McCallion. 8/10 or 80% support at that polling station.

Our November 19th Blog, “Mississauga Ward 5 percentages showing support for incumbents Mayor Hazel McCallion and Councillor Eve Adams by polling stations” focused only on Ward 5 polling station results showing the percentage support for both incumbents Mayor Hazel McCallion and Councillor Eve Adams. We decided to report on Ward 5 first because Malton Community Centre is one of our primary Roots of Youth Violence research sites.

While my inclination was to present Wards 8, 3 and 7 first and in that order, we know most people would be more interested in the Ward 6 Carolyn Parrish/Ron Starr breakdown.

For context we also did the breakdown for Advanced Polls versus Voting Day to see if  Hazel McCallion’s robocall had any effect.  The stats for Hazel McCallion? Advanced Polls had her vote percentages at 75.34% and 77.08% on Voting Day or a difference in support of 1.74%—roughly the same. (Hazel McCallion won overall with 76.40%)

Now for the Ward 6 councillor-data. At the Advanced Polls, Carolyn Parrish received 851 out of 1,918 ballots cast for councillor or 44.37%. At the Advanced Polls Ron Starr received 901 out of 1,918 ballots cast for councillor or 46.98%.

On Voting Day, Carolyn Parrish received 5,621 votes out of 14,200 ballots cast for councillor or 39.58%—a drop of 4.79% . On Voting Day, Ron Starr received 7,460 votes out of 14,200 ballots cast for councillor or 54.54% a gain of  7.56%

In the Advanced Polls, there’s no doubt that Ron Starr was ahead 46.98% to 44.37% for Parrish. There’s a temptation to suggest that the robocall did what it was intended to do. But before we can draw that conclusion, we’d need to examine the patterns of support for Advanced Polls versus Voting Day percentages for all wards.

So. Here’s the latest spreadsheet. Ward 6. Reminder, these data are preliminary and should readers find errors we ‘d appreciate being advised.

Voter Support for Hazel McCallion (“HM”), Carolyn Parrish (“CP”) and Ron Starr (“RS”) according to polling station
NOTE: For context Hazel McCallion won with
76.40%. Ron Starr won with 51.78%.

                                   Total  Votes Votes                 Total
 Polling Location                 Ballots  for   for  Carolyn  Ron   Votes for   % for   % for   % for
                                    Cast   HM   Mayor PARRISH STARR Councillor     HM      CP      RS

0108 6 McBride Ave Public School    1198    942  1176    526    535    1175      80.10%  44.77%  45.53%
0109 6 Springfield Public School    1241    865  1221    438    713    1178      70.84%  37.18%  60.53%
0110 6 Queenston Drive Pub School    866    668   841    316    489     843      79.43%  37.49%  58.01%
0111 6 StDavid of Wales School      1614   1229  1576    514    969    1579      77.98%  32.55%  61.37%
0112 6 Edenrose Public School       1154    906  1125    465    611    1131      80.53%  41.11%  54.02%
0113 6 StBernadette School          1493   1101  1456    648    674    1450      75.62%  44.69%  46.48%
0114 6 Fallingbrook Middle School    946    678   934    395    426     921      72.59%  42.89%  46.25%
0115 6 StHerbert Catholic School    1079    847  1068    455    504    1048      79.31%  43.42%  48.09%
0116 6 St.Dunstan Catholic School    915    743   906    256    600     901      82.01%  28.41%  66.59%
0117 6 River Grove C.C.             1465   1116  1453    514    822    1435      76.81%  35.82%  57.28%
0118 6 Whitehorn Public School      1258    992  1246    538    586    1235      79.61%  43.56%  47.45%
0119 6 St.Valentine Catholic School 1301    912  1280    543    510    1267      71.25%  42.86%  40.25%
0120 6 Yee Hong Centre                43     32    37     10     16      27      86.49%  37.04%  59.26%
0121 6 Leisureworld-Streetsville      29     28    29      3      5      10      96.55%  30.00%  50.00%
0122 6 Advance Poll Day 1            151    111   149     51     86     148      74.50%  34.46%  58.11%
0123 6 Advance Poll Day 2             98     85    97     34     55      98      87.63%  34.69%  56.12%
0124 6 McBride Avenue PS-Day3        433    290   414    193    178     427      70.05%  45.20%  41.69%
0125 6 McBride Avenue PS-Day4        390    275   379    189    159     380      72.56%  49.74%  41.84%
0126 6 River Grove CC - Day 3        405    317   401    182    194     398      79.05%  45.73%  48.74%
0127 6 River Grove CC - Day 4        475    361   470    202    229     467      76.81%  43.25%  49.04%

For the record we provide this video, uploaded to YouTube on June 21, 2007. We submit it contained Councillor Carolyn Parrish’s greatest mistake. OF COURSE, the City of Mississauga is a Secret Society!


MISSISSAUGA COUNCILLOR, CAROLYN PARRISH, “THIS ISN’T A SECRET SOCIETY” (0:26 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Last, here’s the related article courtesy of the Mississauga News.

You can fight (at) city hall

Simmering tensions between Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion and newbie Councillor Carolyn Parrish erupted at council yesterday over who should maintain the city’s streetlights.

For 30 minutes, business ground to a halt and city staff appeared captivated by the exchange, sometimes dripping with sarcasm, that flew between the veteran politicians – one the longtime mayor of the GTA’s second-largest city, the other a former MP rumoured to have ambitions for her seat.

After a series of pointed questions by Parrish – on questions she’d submitted earlier that became the subject of a staff report – the mayor decided she’d had enough.

McCallion told Parrish that just wasn’t the way business was done at Mississauga City Hall, where tradition is that councillors ask staff questions about reports before council meetings, not during.

“Let me advise you, Councillor Parrish, there’s a process around here that we follow,” McCallion lectured, describing how at 8 a.m. that very morning she had met with senior staff about the report on the city’s hydro utility, Enersource.

“I got the answers, therefore I don’t have to ask them at council,” McCallion said.

Parrish responded that she wanted fellow councillors to understand the issues, which brought a retort that they could do their own homework.

That drew a muted response from Parrish at first, but 25 minutes later, after she’d had ample time to mull over the mayor’s rebuke, she let rip with her own.

“We represent the city, we don’t represent ourselves,” Parrish said.

“So if I ask questions in open session on (cable) television, I have a right to do so,” she said, noting that having worked at various levels of government, she was used to asking questions in various forums.

“And if I don’t like the answers (given privately), I will ask them again in public. Even if I do like the answers, I will ask them again in public. This isn’t a secret society.”

That ratcheted things up a notch. McCallion suggested Parrish was trying to take credit for a proposed review of Enersource when it was actually a staff idea, and accused her of grandstanding.

“If you agree with the answers (in private), let’s not go through an exercise of making you look good in the eyes of the public because you ask questions and you got the right answer from staff,” McCallion said.

She told Parrish she should only question staff in council about issues she disagreed with.

“Madam Mayor, I thank you very much for the civics lesson,” Parrish responded. “I have been in government for 20 years at various levels. I always asked questions and I will continue to ask questions.

“If we have a system around here whereby I have to check with you before I ask questions, I will do that quite delightfully,” said Parrish.

And so it went for seven more minutes before another councillor finally piped up, saying: “Let’s move on.”

That was when the vote asking staff to begin the process of getting multiple bids for the streetlight maintenance contract was called.

The motion passed unanimously.

E MALAMA KAKOU. To care for All.

ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES: A MAJOR (unexplored) ROOT OF YOUTH VIOLENCE

Video: Did Hazel McCallion deny the Mississauga News an interview on election night as “punishment” for not endorsing her?

October 27th, 2010  

This blog is dedicated to the Mississauga News.

Just quickly. I want to document one of the many things that happened at Mississauga City Hall (Great Hall) during election night as the results came in.

I was reporting into my video camera when Donald Barber interrupted and said that something was up with the Mississauga News. He’d pointed to a gray-haired man with glasses who I immediately recognized as hanging around the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry hearings —essentially making sure he was within camera shot of Hazel McCallion at every opportunity. (I have other insights into this individual. Unfortunately since I have no audiotape of our conversations anything I write languishes in the realm of his word against mine. So I can’t report on it.)

Anyway. As is my custom now, here’s video of what happened, followed by the transcript. Purely for the record. Seems unless you funnel to the public precisely what Hazel McCallion wants you to…

Did this charmer prevent the Mississauga News from getting an interview with Hazel McCallion? (2:26 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

“The Mississauga Muse”/MISSISSAUGAWATCH (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

Well, if the phone calls are anything—

Donald Barber (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

We’ve got a situation brewing over here.

“The Mississauga Muse”/MISSISSAUGAWATCH (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

A what?

[DIP TO WHITE]

I had Donald Barber saying it looked like there was an altercation and —but I don’t think so. Because we’ve got the knobs standing sort of, rather relaxed looking. But, it’s interesting —they’re like at every corner.

[CAMERA SHIFTED TO RIGHT TO DOCUMENT CROWD INTERACTION]

Donald Barber (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

The short, gray-haired guy who’s making the-uh, he’s getting in the face of the Mississauga News. Telling them to get out of the way. Don’t answer questions. Hazel doesn’t want to answer their questions.

“The Mississauga Muse”/MISSISSAUGAWATCH (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

Which one’s that?

Donald Barber (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

The guy who’s got the roses. There.

“The Mississauga Muse”/MISSISSAUGAWATCH (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

Oh.

(sees City of Mississauga Corporate Security guard approaching)

Oh, oh. It’s— Don, help ‘em (Mississauga News) out.

Donald Barber (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

What?

“The Mississauga Muse”/MISSISSAUGAWATCH (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

Just watch the knobs here.

[CAMERA ZOOMS IN ON THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS CAMERAMAN, REPORTER AND GRAY-HAIRED GUY.
THE "MISSTAPO" LOOK ON. MISSISSAUGA NEWS CAMERAMAN SMILES IN RESIGNATION TO COLLEAGUE
]

“The Mississauga Muse”/MISSISSAUGAWATCH (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

Hazel’s whores.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Last, it is our intention to upload to YouTube all raw video of what transpired in the Great Hall, the eve of election night, October 25, 2010 as a historical record. After all, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” (George Orwell). Future Mississaugans need their History.

We simply cannot allow Hazel McCallion and her MYTHissauga sycophants to invent Herstory. At least not unopposed.

UPDATE: October 27, 2010 7:44 pm. Just worked up raw video of the moment Hazel McCallion knew she’d defeated Carolyn Parrish. I offer this footage as a historical record of what transpired on October 25, 2010 at Mississauga City Hall (“Great Hall”) for a Future Mississauga.  (video from camera on to camera off. Censored between 3:16 through 3:18 for obvious reasons.)

I hope the Future gets this YouTube history in addition to MYTHissauga’s Herstory.

Historical raw video record. Hazel McCallion the moment Carolyn Parrish’s defeat is confirmed (6:32 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

UPDATE: October 28, 2010 9:24 am. Just worked up raw video footage again from camera on to camera off. Last video of the October 25, 2010 eve. The results were in. Hazel McCallion had left. The media were packing it up. And it was time to summarize what it was like to be a nobody who took seriously Councillor Nando Iannicca’s challenge, “If you don’t like what Council’s doing, run for office” and run against Hazel McCallion. I confirmed that you don’t just run against Hazel McCallion.

Rather you go up against all municipal employees who live in this city, all the $$$$$$$ backing her from Harold Shipp on down, OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System), AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) and “reporters” who just funnel what she says directly to the public (ie: that Global guy might as well work for ROGERS television.)

And I also read from from Tom Urbaniak’s book HER WORSHIP HAZEL MCCALLION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF MISSISSAUGA (p. 237)

Mississauga City Hall election coverage: Tom Urbaniak’s WARNING when you stand up to Hazel McCallion (7:41 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

UPDATE: October 28, 2010 4:57  pm.

With this next video, I’ve come full circle as a researcher into City of Mississauga municipal government. This video represents closure. Shot with a Canon Powershot SD700 that I still use to this day, the quality isn’t the best.   On November 13, 2006, I covered the Mississauga election returns at the “Great Hall’ Mississauga City Hall knowing very little about municipal government. Not knowing who’s who. Hadn’t even filed my first Freedom of Information yet. Just constantly under the watchful gaze of Mississauga Corporate Security bosses, Joe Cairney and Cathie Evans.

I fell down such a deep dark hole…. and you don’t ever get out!

Hazel McCallion historical record: November 13, 2006 Mississauga City Hall election coverage (5:25 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Last blog for a while.

Signed,

The (“Willow trees are strong enough to bend. Never like the oak that lives in fear of the wind”) Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

City of Mississauga Corporate Security: The Misstapo watch over Mississauga News reporter denied interview with Hazel McCallion

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA SECURITY GUARDS BAN 9/10 YEAR OLD GIRL FROM CITY HALL COMPLEX JUST FIVE DAYS BEFORE HAZEL MCCALLION WELCOMES GRADE 5 CLASS TO CITY HALL

The sovereign can no longer say, “You shall think as I do on pain of death; but he says,
“You are free to think differently from me, and to retain your life, your property,
and all that you possess; but if such be your determination,
you are henceforth an alien among your people …
you will never be chosen by your fellow citizens, if you solicit their suffrages;
and they will affect to scorn you, if you solicit their esteem ….
and those who are mostly persuaded of your innocence
will abandon you too,lest they should be shunned in their turn.

–Alexis de Tocqueville

from Tom Urbaniak’s book HER WORSHIP HAZEL MCCALLION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF MISSISSAUGA (p. 237)

Carolyn Parrish “we have no choice”. Mayor McCallion gets another $250,000 to cover lawyers’ fees.

August 6th, 2010  

Last Blog, Mississauga Council okays $250,000 more for Hazel McCallion’s lawyers fees. (Video of debate highlights) we showed video of Councillor Nando Iannicca’s “We’re asking for justice and a proper inquiry” speech.

Quote:

This is justice and it doesn’t matter where it takes you and who’s involved. And the last thing I’d want to do is stop if we’re trying to seek the truth and politicians are involved. That’s just not right. So, it’s not even an academic argument. It’s an argument you shouldn’t be having in society. It costs what it costs to get to the truth under the circumstances and I’m not going to deviate from that at all.    —Nando Iannicca, August 5, 2010

What follows is another excerpt of Wednesday’s Mississauga Council debate on covering the Mayor’s legal bills. This time we highlight Councillor Carolyn Parrish who strikes into the heart of the matter, that Council has no choice.

And so the video and of course, the transcript.

Video: We *HAVE* to pay Hazel McCallion’s lawyers’ fees. Carolyn Parrish explains the bottom-line. (1:22 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

And unfortunately and I guess we don’t give anybody instructions around here but, I would have felt much more comfortable had we had a detailed breakdown of the anticipated costs from the Mayor’s lawyer. Saying, this is what we anticipate. These are the hours of preparation. These are the hours of questioning. These are the hours we anticipate to be in the Inquiry.

Sending a letter kind of whining about the other Councillors doesn’t impress me and this makes me just a little bit nervous. I think Councillor Iannicca said it well. He said if you give them $400,000 you’ve set a target, not a, not a, you know, a reasonable goal.

So, the other thing that, I mean, we’re over, we’re in [sic] a rock and a hard place because the Mayor’s requests, we have no choice but to accept it.

I’m not doing it with a great deal of enthusiasm, I’ll tell you. This cost is very very high and I think the Mayor herself will have to explain this to the taxpayers. I’m not going to try.

But given the position we’re in, if you were to say no, there would be an immediate application for a judicial review and the whole thing would come to a halt.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

That’s right.

CITY SOLICITOR MARY ELLEN BENCH:

That is certainly quite possible —an application to the Commissioner.

It’s been my recommendation that you do approve the request, yes.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

Thank you.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

Good.

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS:

"MISSISSAUGA  CONFLICT OF INTEREST JUDICIAL INQUIRY OCTOBER 28" "2009 COUNCIL MEETING (Audience AGAINST the Review)"

Judicial inquiry coverage

The Mississauga News has provided a terrific resource so I’ll just cut-and-paste with special thanks to them for making my job easier.

Faces of the inquiry. From left, businessman Peter McCallion and his powerful mother, Mayor Hazel McCallion, are in the spotlight as the historic Mississauga judicial inquiry continues to unfold in the Burnhamthorpe Rd. W. courthouse. Justice Douglas Cunningham (right) is probing the extent of the mayor’s involvement in a major land deal that was being brokered by her son, and whether she had a conflict of interest.

Related Stories

The Mississauga News
Aug 04, 2010 – 8:36 PM

Did Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion have a conflict of interest when she got involved in her son’s business dealings? Or, was she just working on behalf the City of Mississauga by helping to being a major hotel and convention centre to the City Centre?

That’s what Justice Douglas Cunningham is trying to determine at the ongoing Mississauga judicial inquiry.

It’s also a hot topic of conversation for many city residents.

The City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry was established under Section 274 of the Municipal Act by a vote of City Council on Nov. 11, 2009.

It has been conducted in two sessions. The first half, which began May 25 and ran through June 15, examined a controversial Enersource Shareholders Agreement that gave unusual veto powers to the utility’s minority owner, the giant OMERS pension fund.

The second part of the inquiry, which got underway July 8, is examining the mayor’s role in a bid by a development company fronted by her son to buy a package of City Centre land from OMERS for a hotel and convention centre.

Below is our coverage of the judicial inquiry to date.

Council okays $250,000 more for mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/856578–council-okays-250-000-more-for-mayor

What price truth?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/855846–what-price-truth

Mayor should step down
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/855844–mayor-should-step-down

McCallions’ inquiry tab could top $500,000
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855622–mccallions-inquiry-tab-could-top-500-000

Mayor not helped by son’s testimony
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855587–mayor-not-helped-by-son-s-testimony

McCallion should pay: Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855047–mccallion-should-pay-parrish

‘I did nothing wrong’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854557–i-did-nothing-wrong

Firm thought McCallion was a real estate agent, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854348–firm-thought-mccallion-was-a-real-estate-agent-inquiry-told

City wasn’t fleeced in land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854255–city-wasn-t-fleeced-in-land-deal

Son misled mayor, lawyer suggests
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853946–son-misled-mayor-lawyer-suggests

McCallion sticks up for mom
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853823–mccallion-sticks-up-for-mom

McCallion’s memory tested
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853442–mccallion-s-memory-tested

Mayor pushed her son’s project
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853143–mayor-pushed-her-son-s-project

Mayor’s son on the hot seat
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853105–mayor-s-son-on-the-hot-seat

Not a principal: McCallion
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852904–not-a-principal-mccallion

McCallion co-signed loan
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852871–mccallion-co-signed-loan

Mayor an ‘emissary’ for son’s company: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852774–mayor-an-emissary-for-son-s-company-lawyer

O’Brien was also involved in Sheridan deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852668–o-brien-was-also-involved-in-sheridan-deal

Lawyers prepare for battle at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852401–lawyers-prepare-for-battle-at-inquiry

Hazel vouched for son’s partner
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852375–hazel-vouched-for-son-s-partner

Mayor’s son to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852244–mayor-s-son-to-testify

OMERS denies inflating land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/848667–omers-denies-inflating-land-deal

Code needed at City
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/847289–code-needed-at-city

Company received $4M payout
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/847088–company-received-4m-payout

City seeks public review of ethics code
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846865–city-seeks-public-review-of-ethics-code

Company received $4M pay-out over hotel deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846702–company-received-4m-pay-out-over-hotel-deal

Voters will decide
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/845495–voters-will-decide

Process can’t be muzzled
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/845494–process-can-t-be-muzzled

Mayor pushed deal, Inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845386–mayor-pushed-deal-inquiry-told

Mayor linked to meeting
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845348–mayor-linked-to-meeting

Mayor pushed for hotel in City Centre
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845305–mayor-pushed-for-hotel-in-city-centre

Judge shoots down mayor’s request
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844957–judge-shoots-down-mayor-s-request

Was it legal?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/844106–was-it-legal

Mayor cries foul at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844048–mayor-cries-foul-at-inquiry

Inquiry hits another roadblock
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/842350–inquiry-hits-another-roadblock

Questions remain
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/841093–questions-remain

Inquiry costs now expected to hit $5 million
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/840203–inquiry-costs-now-expected-to-hit-5-million

Inquiry may hurt Enersource: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/839993–inquiry-may-hurt-enersource-lawyer

‘I am not stepping down’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838087–i-am-not-stepping-down

Inquiry’s second phase begins in July
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838006–inquiry-s-second-phase-begins-in-july

‘I forget‚’ doesn’t cut it
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/837377–i-forget-doesn-t-cut-it

Council told of veto: Mahoney
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833782–council-told-of-veto-mahoney

Mahoney set to testify at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833374–mahoney-set-to-testify-at-inquiry

Mahoney called to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/832789–mahoney-called-to-testify

Councillor asks for fees
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831724–councillor-asks-for-fees

Mayor’s legal fees capped
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831432–mayor-s-legal-fees-capped

Inquiry costs climb
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/830589–inquiry-costs-climb

Lawyers want more to represent mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/829779–lawyers-want-more-to-represent-mayor

McCallion calls out Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/828112–mccallion-calls-out-parrish

Mayor denies knowing of veto
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/827766–mayor-denies-knowing-of-veto

Deal negotiated improperly, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/826715–deal-negotiated-improperly-inquiry-hears

Mayor on stand tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823922–mayor-on-stand-tomorrow

Enersource deal ‘terrific’ for Mississauga
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823722–enersource-deal-terrific-for-mississauga

Enersource deal nixed by inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823414–enersource-deal-nixed-by-inquiry

We’ll all pay a share
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/822510–we-ll-all-pay-a-share

Former City manager vague in details
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/822193–former-city-manager-vague-in-details

Councillors should have known about veto, deal maker says
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821795–councillors-should-have-known-about-veto-deal-maker-says

Files stay sealed
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821442–files-stay-sealed

City set to approve full funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821229–city-set-to-approve-full-funding-for-mayor-s-son

City key to OMERS, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821186–city-key-to-omers-inquiry-told

No common sense
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/821055–no-common-sense

High stakes drama
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/821054–high-stakes-drama

Enersource powers ‘changed’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820981–enersource-powers-changed

Hydro deal took years to probe, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820827–hydro-deal-took-years-to-probe-inquiry-hears

Judicial inquiry starts today
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820606–judicial-inquiry-starts-today

Inquiry starts tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820581–inquiry-starts-tomorrow

Mayor to testify June 2
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818995–mayor-to-testify-june-2

Councillors consider code of ethics
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818976–councillors-consider-code-of-ethics

Council code of conduct on agenda
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818368–council-code-of-conduct-on-agenda

More money for Mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817504–more-money-for-mayor-s-son

Commissioner to rule on funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817197–commissioner-to-rule-on-funding-for-mayor-s-son

Inquiry costs at $1.5M and rising
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/815604–inquiry-costs-at-1-5m-and-rising

HAZEL MCCALLION HOARDS EMAIL STASH ON COUNCILLORS –yet FEW DOCUMENTS FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY? (video)

March 8th, 2010  

Yes, Hazel McCallion apparently hoards an impressive stash of emails on her Councillors but looks to be falling “surprisingly” short providing documents to the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. (Who’d have thunk it?)

So. Time for a video duet of sorts —our first Barber/Bennett production.

A BIG BROTHER spoof that weaves Donald Barber’s video of the March 4, 2010 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry proceedings with MISSISSAUGAWATCH video of the February 3, 2010 Mississauga General Committee meeting showing Mayor Hazel McCallion at her Big Sister best as she talks about BIG BROTHER surveillance.

And, of course, the video transcript.

TRUST  QUALITY  EXCELLENCE!  Giddy-yup!

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION’S HOARDS EMAIL STASH ON COUNCILLORS –yet FEW DOCUMENTS FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY? (2:28 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (February 3, 2010 General Committee):

In my opinion, you don’t have to worry about monitoring if you’re doing the right thing. If the Staff of the City is following the Policy, the policies of the City, then they shouldn’t have to worry about it.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH comments into camera (February 3, 2010 General Committee):

That’s riiiiight…

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (February 3, 2010 General Committee):

And that applies to Council as well. If we’re using the equipment as we should then we won’t have to worry.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (February 3, 2010 General Committee):

I have a pile of emails —written stuff, that would make your hair curl. Emails between Councillors etc.

WILLIAM MCDOWELL, INQUIRY COUNSEL (March 4, 2010 Judicial Inquiry):

There has been an issue which has arisen concerning the practice followed by the Mayor’s office in the retention of documents.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (February 3, 2010 General Committee):

I have a pile of emails —written stuff, that would make your hair curl. Emails between Councillors etc.

WILLIAM MCDOWELL, INQUIRY COUNSEL (March 4, 2010 Judicial Inquiry):

—we have a concern in that we received correspondence on the 26th of February which indicated that, in a number of areas, the Mayor really doesn’t retain documents.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (February 3, 2010 General Committee):

I just want to comment. I’d assume, Councillor Parrish, you have a copy of the emails that you’ve sent to me.

Oh.

I just want to ask you, have you kept a copy of the emails that you’ve sent to me? No?

Well, I have copies of them.

WILLIAM MCDOWELL, INQUIRY COUNSEL (March 4, 2010 Judicial Inquiry):

—that with respect to electronic correspondence, letters FAX and emails,

“Once emails are printed off they are deleted from the system. They aren’t archived. The Mayor doesn’t use email. All email sent to the Mayor’s email account are opened and read by the Mayor’s executive assistant and are given to the Mayor either directly or through daily mail log. The Mayor’s office does not keep electronic copies of any emails or responses.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (February 3, 2010 General Committee):

I have a pile of emails —written stuff, that would make your hair curl. Emails between Councillors etc.

WILLIAM MCDOWELL, INQUIRY COUNSEL (March 4, 2010 Judicial Inquiry):

Hard copies of general mail items are kept for a couple of years in storage and then destroyed.

So, I am not immediately critical of that but what I do say is that it’s a little bit surprising to us as Commissioner Counsel and that we are proposing to have some evidence on that issue.

CROSSFADE/LOGO

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Signed,

The (plot sickens) Mississauga Muse

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA "RECORDS ACTION WEEK" (aka: DELETE THOUSANDS OF "OBSOLETE" RECORDS)

Safe City Mississauga/Mississauga Crime Prevention Association: Inventing Successes since ?…

January 31st, 2010  

[This is a follow-up to our January 28th Blog  "Mississauga Council deputation: MISSISSAUGAWATCH *OPPOSES* $199,627 Corporate Grant (upped to $318,075.00) for Safe City Mississauga to “celebrate” (invent) their Successes."]

On Wednesday, January 27, 2010, I went before Mississauga Council to oppose Safe City Mississauga receiving a Corporate Grant of $199,627. Even before I had my chance to get “up there”, Mississauga Council actually rubber-stamped approval of upping the amount of taxpayers’ money to $318,075.00.

And it’s worse than that.

I’d drafted my deputation script so that the 1994 Peel Police Services Board recommendation that “A process of accountability and evaluation should be built into programs to ensure achievement of goals and cost-effectiveness” was repeated eight times in 12 minutes 52 seconds in the hopes that Mississauga Council would Get It.

Fact is, I suspect Mayor and Councillors Got It  —just Avoided It.

Here’s the exchange featuring Mississauga Councillor George Carlson commenting on a Safe City Mississauga that he’s never filed Freedom of Information on. And note, I did not suggest hiring police officers to drive around the roads but rather youth-friendly youth-expert Peel Police youth-advocates. Huge diff.

Video: “SAFE CITY MISSISSAUGA LACKS “A process of accountability and evaluation” says MISSISSAUGAWATCH (4:01 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS

MISSISSAUGAWATCH:

“A process of accountability should be built into programs to ensure achievement of goals and cost effectiveness.” –Peel Police Services Board 1994.

There’s one other quote I need to share in closing and I found it visionary.

The words of Larry Zacher, Safe City Brampton, at the October 25, 2007 Peel Regional Council meeting. (This is a video freeze-frame.)

He said:

“The absolute best thing we can do in the community is to provide seamless care for our children from the day they’re born til the time they become responsible adults.”

“seamless care” That’s Perfection!

And I hate to end on a Negative but Freedom of Information confirms that “seamless care” is no more out the starting gate than a “process of accountability and evaluation built into programs to ensure achievement of goals and cost-effectiveness”.

And in my opinion that is the tragic gap and I submit that it’s also a contributing Root of Youth Violence. I don’t have any answers. It’s kind of a moot presentation right now¹ But I’m just satisfied that I got it into the records today.

Thank you, Council.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH (Acting Chair):

Would you stay in place Ursula, we may have some questions. Councillor Carlson.

COUNCILLOR GEORGE CARLSON:

More of a comment, Madam Chair and I appreciate Ursula taking the time today to do the math for us and of course it’s pretty straight forward to figure out how many police officers you could add at a hundred thousand per.

But I like to think of Safe City and other organizations as a group of people who put a community face on law enforcement with a focus on prevention. As well as an opportunity for average citizens to become involved.

The police department, being for lack of a better term, being a quasi-military organization doesn’t really welcome a lot of people wandering through the building —their volunteers and so on. They need an auxiliary if you will, of volunteers within the community to come out and speak with the [inaudible] students and involve them in a non-confrontational non-enforcement basis.

So I see them as partners and to say we could buy three or four more officers is quite true but I think you’re buying a lot more at something in the neighbourhood, I think at two dollars per house if my math is correct.

I think of a couple of seminars just lately in Streetsville area where we didn’t really require more surveillance but the residents needed more help in trying to prevent crime in a neighbourhood and so on.

So it’s a little bit different angle and much like most prevention programs, they seem to be the first to get cut. There’s always money for treatment but never seems to be very much money for prevention. So I’m quite happy that the balance is there. In fact, overall, I think it’s a little bit light in terms of the work that they do and the value they add for that three hundred thousand so —although [turns to Safe City Mississauga Executive Board Members] I’m not suggesting you ask for more money this year.

But I think it’s a nice balance. It provides police with more of a community face to look after these kinds of issues so I don’t see it as Either Or but I certainly think that that request —and I didn’t speak earlier on your request. I supported it whole-heartedly and I think, you know, if we need to add more officers, we should do that with the Peel Police Budget to do that if that’s necessary.

And I know that through the closing of Community Stations, we’ve added, I think 17 officers back on the road. So I think it’s a pretty good balance and I’m prepared to continue to support the good work of Safe City —and other organizations that have the same sort of principles.

Thank you.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH (Acting Chair):

Seeing no more questions, thank you Ursula and we’ll go to….

VIDEO SWITCHES TO ENDORSEMENT OF PEEL YOUTH CHARTER
(October 25, 2007 Peel Regional Council)

LARRY ZACHER (Safe City Brampton):

“The absolute best thing we can do in the community is to provide seamless care for our children from the day they’re born til the time they become responsible adults. So it’s very timely that they’re here with the Children’s Charter and we’re here with the Peel Youth Charter…”

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS

What’s Absolute Gold about this video is that it crystallizes to Perfection two Roots of Youth Violence.

MISSISSAUGA COUNCILLOR GEORGE CARLSON avoids ACCOUNTABILITY-ISSUE raised regarding SAFE CITY MISSISSAUGA (January 27, 2010)

POLITICIANS’

1. REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT’S REALLY WRONG (ie:  a 1994 Peel Police recommendation that a “process of accountability and evaluation built into programs to ensure achievement of goals and cost-effectiveness” still hasn’t been begun for Safe City programs as of 2010.

and

2. NOT A SINGLE COUNCILLOR ASKED ME A QUESTION (or disputed my assertions that (quote) “’seamless care’ is no more out the starting gate than a “process of accountability and evaluation built into programs to ensure achievement of goals and cost-effectiveness”.

SAFE CITY BRAMPTON PEEL REGIONAL COUNCIL, LARRY ZACHER, "The absolute best thing we can do in the community is to provide seamless care for our children from the day they're born til the time they become responsible adults."

A process of accountability and evaluation should be built into programs to ensure achievement of goals and cost-effectiveness.” –Peel Police Services Board 1994.

Signed,

The (Inventing Your Successes: it can only get worse) Mississauga Muse

CAROLYN PARRISH VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: “This Inquiry is about things that have been going on —murky things that have been going on around our city for quite some time.”

November 8th, 2009  

Yesterday, we posted video of Councillor Carolyn Parrish’s explanation as to why Mississauga needs a Judicial Inquiry.

By way of introduction to today’s Blog, I will simply repeat what I wrote yesterday. The reader can regard this as my official position on the Judicial Inquiry. Yesterday I wrote:

I’ve filed two years and $2,100 worth of Freedom of Information on City of Mississauga Corporate Security. If the rest of the City of Mississauga is as corrupt and unaccountable as their Security operation, this judicial inquiry is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overdue!

There you have it.

And now, the video, followed by the transcript.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH: JUDICIAL INQUIRY WILL LOOK INTO “MURKY” DEALS AROUND THE CITY (10:04 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:

NOTE:  Councillor Parrish really did say “one hundred million” and the City Solicitor also did say “ten million”. Next, regarding OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retiredment System) Councillor Parrish really did say, “They gave us ten percent of Enersource” —this is clearly in error and can’t be what she meant to say based on the rest of her comments.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Councillor Parrish.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I know you’re all going to want to boo. So if you just be patient and wait til I finish speaking and then boo maybe we’ll get through this a little more quickly.

First of all I’d like to tell you, and get on the record that there’s a procedural problem here in that the judicial review was passed four weeks ago. So what Councillor Mullin has done is defer the Terms of Reference. She hasn’t asked us to reverse that decision yet. So the procedure to do that is quite different and we’ll have to discuss it.

Secondly I would like to ask the lawyer, the City’s lawyer, if in fact we can get to a 100-million dollars in your wildest dreams and secondly, can a judge order us to pay the costs of the witnesses that come before the judicial review.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Through the City Solicitor.

CITY SOLICITOR MARY ELLEN BENCH:

In my report, I set out the reasons for why I’ve estimated the costs the way that I have. I don’t think the costs are going to  be anywhere near the range of  10-million dollars. They could definitely go higher than what I’ve estimated because as I’ve said in the report, there are a number of variables depending  on what the investigation turns up and how the Commissioner decides to handle those matters.

In terms of the Third Parties or Corporations or outside parties, the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to provide funding and I set that out on page 11 of my report. In terms of who has Party status and who can participate fully in the Inquiry, if the Inquiry is held, that is a matter that will be determined by the Commissioner.

The Commissioner establishes the rules for a Judicial Inquiry —Council does not. So they will determine the rules. They will determine the Parties. They make —may make  recommendations on funding if they think it’s appropriate. But they do not have any jurisdiction to make that decision.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

Thank you. And another comment I would like to make is, with the exception of Mr. Shipp who took a direct shot at me, and I will discuss it with you later because I want you  to know what you said about me is not true.

I agree with everything that was  said today about Hazel McCallion. This Inquiry is not about Hazel McCallion. This Inquiry—no—

[Protests, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Let her finish please.

[Protests, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

You’ve had your opportunity.

[Protests, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Order.

[Protests, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Order!

[Protests, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Order. Please proceed.

[Protests, jeers from audience die down]

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

This Inquiry is about things that have been going on —murky things that have been going on around our city for quite some time.

And if you want to talk about money and you want to talk about OMERS, the first thing that was discovered after I was elected, through a very laborious process that cost us over a million dollars, was the Enersource agreement that was signed in 2000 was altered two days before it was signed on direction from the lawyers from OMERS and accepted by then City Manager.

It was altered to give Veto Power —one hundred percent Veto Power to our ten percent partner.

Now you need to understand, that’s OMERS.  They came in. They gave us [sic] ten percent of Enersource and they took one hundred percent control.

They have excuses for doing it but the main excuse was that we have a Put agreement, which is too complex to get in to. If it was a good excuse, why didn’t they bring it to the Councillors of the day in 2000 and say this is why we need this little veto in here. This is why we have to be able to veto one hundred percent of your decisions. You’re ninety percent, we’re ten percent. We have a good reason but you know what? We’re not going to tell you what it is. We’re gonna send a letter from OMERS to the City Manager of the day and to our Lawyer of the day and say, “Just slip that in.”

So that when we were looking into selling Hydro, which we subsequently decided not to, cost us one-hundred-fifty/two-hundred thousand dollars to find that little mistake. And the clock has been ticking ever since.

So OMERS, who sent us a threatening letter last night, saying, “We’ve just spent nine months trying to re-negotiate that deal because we know we shafted you, we’re going to draw the re-negotiation out of the ballpark. We’re taking it back. We don’t like what you’re doing with the Judicial Review. We don’t like being named in it. And by the way, we want you to pay for our lawyers for the last nine months while we were trying to figure out how to fix the mistake that was done without the knowledge of your Councillors or your Mayor!”

The City Manager of the day slipped the papers to her, said go ahead and sign them [inaudible word] the same as the ones Council looked at.

So Number One, I want to look at OMERS, I’m sorry. We’ve have a few deals with those guys.

Secondly, we tried to buy a piece of land to build Sheridan College here in City Centre.  What was discovered was affidavits were sent through the courts where certain persons involved in World Class Development said you have to pay us off. We’ve put in two-point-three-million dollars that we’re not going to get back. So we’re going to take you to court, hold this whole thing up and Sheridan won’t get built because they have to get built by 2011 just like the other infrastructure money.

So if we have to go to court and fight with these guys, W. [sic] World Class Development, Sheridan won’t get built!

So what do we do? World Class Development does all these affidavits, tells us about off-site meetings, tells us this, tells us that. And they say, “But you know what, for a cash settlement from OMERS we’ll withdraw our objection.” In my world, that’s blackmail.

So I want those guys looked at. Because they affect our city and they affect the prices we pay. If OMERS paid them three million to go away, I’m sure we paid them three million more than we should have for that land.

So that’s what I want to look at and that’s what we all wanted to look at.

Mayor McCallion’s Conflict of Interest is a small technicality that is absolutely irrelevant to me.

[Murmurs, groans from audience]

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

What is relevant, what is relevant, is the fact that six days after the minutes of the meeting was [sic] taken care of, somebody in this building changed those minutes. And we’ve never had an explanation.

The other thing you need to know, ‘cuz we’ve asked the City Manager in-camera, you know when you Blackberry each other in business —you guys are all in business, you all have those little Blackberrys, this City monitors our PIN to PIN conversations.

That was admitted by the City Manager that the City has the technology to do that…

[MISSISSAUGAWATCH turns video camera to video surveillance camera over Councillor Parrish's left shoulder.]

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

So somebody can find out who instructed the minutes to be changed or go into the minutes and change them. To me that’s an issue!

I’m sure you’d like to know that your minutes, when you read them from a meeting are honest, nobody has the ability to change them, and we’ve never had an explanation as to why they were changed.

So when you look at the Terms of Reference of this, it was a lengthy conversation by all the members of Council —and I didn’t give them something in their drinking water, and I didn’t promise them jobs or Heaven, or anything else.

I merely looked into this because I’m a bit of a ferret and I follow Hazel’s instructions which are “Do Your Homework” and when you keep doing your homework and you keep finding problems that you can’t answer or solve —the rest of your colleagues say, “Hey, we got to look at this.”

Now if there’s a way of doing the Terms of Reference that Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest is taken out of it, I have no problem with that because she’s admitted she had a Conflict of Interest.

I want to find out how the minutes got changed, I want to find out why OMERS took what they paid World Class Development to go away. I want to know what other deals have been going on at the City Centre like that. I want to know why we’ve spent a year-and-a-half trying to fix a deal that was signed by the Mayor without her knowledge or Council’s knowledge slipping in a huge Veto Power in there for a little ten percent partner!

My colleague, Nando, has often said, if that is acceptable in business, he’s going to buy ten percent of every one of your houses—

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

(whispers) And tell you what to do.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

—and then tell you what to do with them. When you can live in them. Who can live in them with you. He’s In Charge.

So please get it out of your heads that I— and by the way I was told by Hazel McCallion when she announced six weeks ago or whenever that she was running again, I was the only one who sent her a note congratulating her. I want her to run again!

[Laughter, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

No, I’m sorry…

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Order. Order.

[Laughter, jeers from audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Order.

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

But I also want this judicial review to clear the air.

And I’m also surprised at how little faith you have in the Mayor when you all keep talking about this thing growing like a giant mushroom cloud.

If it’s a little Conflict of Interest, it’ll be over in ten minutes.

If it’s OMERS it might take longer.

If it’s people in this building snooping on all our PINs and changing minutes—might take a little longer. But these are the things that we want to look at.

[MISSISSAUGAWATCH BATTERY CHANGE —SPECIAL THANKS TO ROGERS CABLE 10 BROADCAST for remaining 17 seconds]

And if there’s a way in the Terms of Reference and I’m going to ask our lawyer, if we can take Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest out of it at that meeting on May 21st, I’d be happy to do so. Could I, through you, ask our lawyer?”

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Through the Solicitor.

—VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS—

Please note that video ends because YouTube allows a maximum of 10 minutes per video and this video is exactly 10:04 including the MISSISSAUGAWATCH logo.

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse

MISSISSAUGA Conflict of Interest Judicial Inquiry VIDEO TRANSCRIPT COMPILATION-1: IN THEIR OWN WORDS, Councillors Corbasson, Dale, Carlson, Iannicca

November 6th, 2009  

At the October 28, 2009 Council meeting, despite blistering opposition from the “Our Hazel Can Do No Wrong” crowd, seven City of Mississauga Councillors voted for a judicial inquiry into the inner “murky” workings of the Trust, Quality, Excellence people.

While the traditional media have taken considerable interest of late, the reader/viewer is limited to reporters’ version of events which in some cases are as ghastly and non-researched as what is churned out by the “Our Hazel Can Do No Wrong” crowd.

Again, to repeat, I’ve been filing Freedom of Information on City of Mississauga Corporate Security conduct, operations and adherence to policies. If there are similar WThuh?! open cesspools like I’ve dredged up with $2,100 worth of Freedom of Information, this judicial inquiry was long overdue.

So MISSISSAUGAWATCH will turn today’s Blog over to a compilation of video transcripts of four Councillors as they explained why they voted for a judicial inquiry.

These transcripts appear in the order presented in previous Blogs: Councillor Carmen Corbasson (Ward 1), Councillor Frank Dale (Ward 4), Councillor George Carlson (Ward 11) and Councillor Nando Iannicca (Ward 7).

The reader who knows a thing or two about Mississauga will notice Councillor Carolyn Parrish (Ward 6) is not among these four and not addressed at all so far.  That’s because Councillor Parrish’s October 28, 2009 comments were extensive and will need more time to work up in video as well as provide transcripts.

The next Blog (and possibly a second) will deal exclusively with Councillor Parrish’s October 28, 2009 comments.

As I’ve said in my previous Blogs, all video and transcripts will be submitted to the Mississauga City Clerk for inclusion in the October 28, 2009 minutes because frankly, I do not want Future Mississauga 30-40 years from now to read only the Corporation’s side of the story (aka manicured minutes). (As a historical record it can’t get better than video and the transcript).

Here we go.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

IN HER OWN WORDS

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON:

Thank you Mr. Acting Mayor and I will be brief. Um, let me first say that this isn’t an easy time for any of us around this table just like it’s not an easy time for you. I don’t think we take comfort in any of the decisions we’ve had to make of late. But notwithstanding, we are elected to make some tough decisions and I think that’s the type of comment you’re gonna hear around this table today.

I am not at all overwhelmed by the number of people who showed up, Councillor Prentice. In fact, I’m surprised there wasn’t more.

And I’ll tell you why I’m surprised because we all know Madam Mayor is loved, admired and respected. And I for one moment am not going to take away that from her. For me, she has been a role model in many many ways. We both started here in the City in 1978 and I’ve learned an awful lot from her.

I— my biggest difficulty is, and I hope you can understand and appreciate that when we have in-camera sessions, we are privy to certain comments and information that the general public is not.

For me, the in-camera session on the judicial inquiry opened up more questions than it answered.

I— that Madam Mayor didn’t declare one Conflict of Interest for a 17-minute or a 17-second, whatever it was, I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem that official government documents got changed with no satisfactory explanation.

I do have difficulty that any member of Council, doesn’t matter if it’s Madam Mayor, or me, or anyone else, can have off-site meetings, with a landowner, who has an interest in the City of Mississauga, that is going to financially benefit a member of any one of our families.

That may not be against the Conflict of Interest Act. But in my opinion, I would hope, and it’s my understanding that a judicial inquiry can —and most probably would, depending on their findings —make some very strong recommendations to have either the Conflict of Interest Act or the Municipal Act changed.

That’s simply put, Ladies and Gentlemen, for me —I’m not going to speak, I’ll let the others speak for themselves.

This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it ten million? I don’t know.

But I would like to see this City in particular, and certainly Madam Mayor come out with credibility, integrity and that we all maintain our dignity.

I do thank you for coming out today, Ladies and Gentlemen and I will turn it back to the Acting Mayor.

Video: Councillor Carmen Corbasson  (3:50 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

IN HIS OWN WORDS

COUNCILLOR FRANK DALE:

Thank you Mr. Acting Mayor. I certainly just wanted to make a point, that I want to be clear as a member of Council that I always examine the facts that are before me and weigh them in any decisions that I make as the Councillor. And taking into, of course, the consideration, uh, taking into consideration, the best interests of this great city as well as the community in which I represent.

And I stand behind the position that that I took with respect to the inquiry primarily for the same reasons that Councillor Corbasson eloquently described.

And I do want to make it clear that this was not personal to the Mayor. This was just based on the facts that was presented before us and the recommendations that were before us by outside legal counsel —and reviewing that, and examining that, made that decision. And I stand by, and will support the recommendations that are before us today, with respect to the terms of reference.

I want to be clear though that the decision I make, the decision then—the decision I make today is for no one’s political gain.

Jeer from audience

I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.

Video: Councillor Frank Dale (1:58 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

IN HIS OWN WORDS

COUNCILLOR GEORGE CARLSON:

Thank you very much Mr. Acting Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity just to say a few words that may be a slightly different tone than some of the other comments made. I think it’s sad in a way that it’s looked as a win-lose here today.

This was a process because we really, as a governing body, find ourselves vexed by the issues we’re reading about here today. And they haven’t just started dogging us yesterday at noon. This has been going on for some years.

And we’ve spent a considerable amount of money trying in our own way to get to the bottom of many of these issues. And in my opinion, I don’t think we’ve been all that successful. And it continues to hang over Council .

And when you read of the divisions on Council, you’re mostly talking about Enersource and the issues associated with OMERS and partnerships. So to me, I’m delighted that the motion is to delete Madam Mayor from that minor Conflict of Interest, which she’s already said she accepts responsibility. That is a nothing-issue as far as this inquiry is concerned

And as far as I’m concerned, Explanation Accepted. Forgotten about. That part is a Big Zero to me.

So because it’s so obvious from the heartfelt response from the folks here today that this appears to be a first-class witch hunt —must be Hallowe’en, we’re too much into the witch stuff, that we need— This helps to de-focus that and gets us on the other issues which I’m afraid the media find a lot less interesting than going after dear old Hazel.

The kind of stuff about governance and ownership and shares puts most people to sleep. I have to agree with you. But, it’s Big Bucks and we have never properly settled that issue. And I don’t know how to do it other than this.

But I think another point of view as well too, the fact that we’re going to a judge, that speaks volumes to me as a Canadian. I love that we have a country where we can go to an impartial judiciary and say look, we’ve played with the damn thing for two years and we’re not lawyers, judges.

And as I said to one resident today, if there was anything going on here, I would not want this group, much as I love them all, to be sitting in judgment of me. This is a non-starter —reat group of people to work with but, this is not a court of law.

So I think sometimes when you’re stuck, you’re stuck and you’ve got to get some help from somebody. And for me, that’s all this is about and the speculation about politics and who’s the Mayor—

I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. And she gettin’ a lot of advice that brought this because for sure this is costing her votes if she ever were to run for Mayor.

So you may get your wish in that she’ll never be elected Mayor but we still have to sort out these problems and that’s why I’m supporting — It has nothing to do with the Mayor. I’ve known her —I’m trying to think when I first met Hazel, I think I was probably three years old or something. I have no interest in any vexatious action against her.

But by golly, I don’t know what else to do. I guess you could hire a consultant —we’ve done all of the consultants. We’ve done, we’ve asked for outside lawyers and asked for —we need someone who can come in and sort out the stuff and say, here’s what you need to do and what/where you went wrong, if we did go wrong. And here’s how you can improve it for the future.

That’s all I’m voting for and if that’s bad, I guess that’s bad but that’s all I can say about it and I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chair

Video: Councillor George Carlson (3:53 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

IN HIS OWN WORDS

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

And if you don’t mind, as Chair, I would like to speak if someone would so move.

[Someone does]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Thank you, I—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH into camera:

Here he goes.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

—have an obligation to my consitituents and I’ll be very very brief but I think Councillor Carmen (Corbasson) hit on the fundamental point that we’re all grappling with. This is not a fun day for us. This is a heart-wrenching decision.

The reason that I was one of the proponents of the Inquiry —the reason I stand by it emphatically needs all of ten seconds to explain.

Number One, I don’t have a crystal ball. I don’t know where this is going.

I do know that minutes have been altered —there some other things have gone on that I cannot explain to my taxpayers and I owe them an explanation.

Point Number Two, the Lady of Justice is blind for a reason. It matters not who she judges over —whether that’s your Mayor, whether that’s my brother, whether that’s the local parish priest. And I have to hold that close to my thoughts as well.

I also have a concern to be brutally candid with you of my understanding of some of the conduct that has been outlined —because, to be brutally candid with you, I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar manner.

It is not a city that I would want to live in. I’ve never conducted my affairs in that manner.

I’m shocked that anyone in the audience or anyone in this city would put the cost of such an exercise ahead of having to ensure you have Integrity and Accountability in your political system.

[Jeers and protests from the audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

I beg your pardon.

And so to conclude, at the end of the day, I was not elected for my love of the Mayor. I was elected to do the right thing.

This, as difficult as it is on an emotional level —I want you to hear from me directly, from many of you that I’ve known for a long time, on an ethical, moral, and the-right-thing level, this is one of the easiest decisions that I’ve ever had to make though I’ve never regretted a decision more.

With that I now turn to the motions before me, I need the assistance of the Clerk to make sure…

Video: Councillor George Carlson (2:23 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

MISSISSAUGA CONFLICT OF INTEREST JUDICIAL INQUIRY RECORDED VOTE, October 28, 2009

Again, Councillor Parrish’s comments are on-deck and for historical reasons, transcripts and video of the Councillors who opposed the judicial inquiry will also be recorded here for posterity.

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse

LINKS TO PREVIOUS BLOGS of the October 28, 2009 CONFLICT OF INTEREST/JUDICIAL INQUIRY meeting

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Carmen Corbasson, “This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that”

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Frank Dale, “I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.” November 4, 2009

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor George Carlson, “I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. November 4th, 2009

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Nando Iannicca, “I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar manner. It is not a city that I would want to live in.”

Best quotes for people to Get It.

“This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it ten million? I don’t know.”

—Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

I want to be clear though that the decision I make, the decision then—the decision I make today is for no one’s political gain. (Jeer from audience) I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.

—Mississauga Councillor Frank Dale regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. And she gettin’ a lot of advice that brought this because for sure this is costing her votes if she ever were to run for Mayor. So you may get your wish in that she’ll never be elected Mayor but we still have to sort out these problems and that’s why I’m supporting — It has nothing to do with the Mayor.

—Mississauga Councillor Frank Dale regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

And I also have a concern to be brutally candid with you of my understanding of some of the conduct that has been outlined —because, to be brutally candid with you, I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar matter. It is not a city that I would want to live in.

—Mississauga Councillor Nando Iannicca regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

Video: features Mississauga Council’s announcement of the St. Joseph Secondary School lockdown and –After the Storm

June 18th, 2009  

I’m thoroughly spent. Bare bones blog today.

Just going to rely on a Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words (and presumably a YouTube video is worth a Million).

So. Here’s video of yesterday’s Mississauga Council announcement (delivered by Councillor Carolyn Parrish) of the St. Joseph Secondary School stabbing incident and lockdown. The rest of the video shows the calm after the storm. Anyone expecting video of police arriving with sirens blaring and lights flashing followed by ambulances will be disappointed.

I stayed for the entire General Committee meeting and so showed up at the school well after our Peelers had restored calm.

I’ll also re-run video of the October 30, 2008 Peel Regional Council announcement of the lockdown at Lincoln Alexander Secondary as well.

Followed by video of me asking Roots of Youth Violence co-author, Dr. Alvin Curling whether the Roots of Youth Violence authors had researched their report using Freedom of Information (Answer: No).

For the record.

LOCKDOWN LIFTED: St. Joseph Secondary School calm restored (features City Council’s announcement)  3:27 min

UPDATE: June 18, 2009. The original video was replaced for the sake of brevity (seems some people didn’t like the extra 90 seconds worth of police cruisers).

(Please click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

MALTON HIGH SCHOOL LOCKDOWN: MESSAGE TO PEEL POLITICIANS 4:36 min

(Please click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

“ROOTS OF YOUTH VIOLENCE” co-author, DR. ALVIN CURLING interviewed by MISSISSAUGAWATCH (4:40 min)

(Please click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

That’s it.

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse

UNACCOUNTABLE ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES: A major Root of Youth Violence

Councillor Carolyn Parrish slams City’s $731,485.00 “goof up” that “flew through” Mississauga Council with ZERO discussion.

April 2nd, 2009  

Just thought I’d share video of yesterday’s $731,485.00 General Committee meeting.

Long story short, regarding Mississauga’s transit revenue loss of $731,485.00 , I was advised (thanks to the tipster) that the Ottawa Citizen first broke the story of Infoplace Ticket Centre woes on January 27, 2009 but didn’t name Mississauga as a creditor.

Money woes shut lottery kiosks

Five area booths affected; company owes $9.7M

By Tony Lofaro, The Ottawa Citizen January 27, 2009

OTTAWA — Five lottery kiosks in Ottawa and others across the country closed on the weekend, and threw close to 800 people out of work.

The kiosks, owned by Infoplace Ticket Centres Ltd. and located in Carlingwood Mall, Billings Bridge Plaza, Place d’Orléans, Lincoln Fields and Hazeldean Mall and 180 other locations across Canada, shut down Friday night. The kiosks sold lottery tickets, bus passes and postage stamps and were franchise operations with five or six employees at each location.

“We disabled the terminals so that lottery business could no longer be conducted, given their situation. We had no alternative,” Don Pister, a spokesman for the Ontario Lottery Corp., said Monday.

He said the Infoplace Ticket Centres Ltd. represented “less than one per cent” of retailers that sold lottery tickets across the province. In Ontario, more than 10,000 outlets sell tickets on behalf of the lottery corporation, he said.

“It’s too soon to say what happened, but the company ran out of money,” said Hassan Jaffer, a trustee with Grant Thornton Ltd. Trustees in Toronto. He said the Toronto-based company owes 40 creditors about $9.7 million…

By February 11, 2009, The Ottawa Citizen listed Mississauga out by $600,000.

Bankrupt ticket firm owes city $1.9M

Ottawa officials to attend upcoming court hearing in hopes of getting money back

By Jake Rupert, The Ottawa Citizen February 11, 2009

The city’s 2009 financial outlook has taken a potential $1.9-million hit with the bankruptcy of a kiosk company that used to sell bus tickets and passes, and one councillor is angry the municipality was doing business in a manner that left it exposed to that high of a loss.

Infoplace Ticket Centres Ltd. had five kiosks in Ottawa shopping malls. The company largely sold lottery tickets and bus passes and tickets near major transit stations. It filed for bankruptcy at the end of January.

According to the trustee appointed to oversee the bankruptcy process, the company owes $9.7 million and the City of Ottawa is its largest unsecured creditor. Infoplace Ticket Centres operated 180 kiosks across Canada.

The list of creditors includes several other municipalities including:

Yet it took the Toronto Star (and Mississauga News) until March 25, 2009 to pick up the story. Why?

Mississauga mayor calls for audit after city fails to collect $731,000 owed by bus ticket firm

Mar 25, 2009 04:30 AM

Comments on this story (4)

Phinjo Gombu URBAN AFFAIRS REPORTER

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion has ordered a city-wide audit of money owed to the municipality after she learned her city could be out $731,485 in transit ticket revenues with the collapse of a kiosk chain.

Why did it take two months after the story appeared in the Ottawa Citizen for it to break in Toronto/Mississauga?

And it seems that I’m not the only one asking for details.

The $731,485 revenue-loss appeared as Item 29 on yesterday’s General Committee “additional” agenda.

Zero discussion, just “flew through” and it was moved for receipt in 19 seconds then neatly swept behind the secrecy of closed doors.

However Council did talk for over ten minutes on whether to spend $15,000 to remove a wall that was ordered built by just one councillor who wanted a wall where one originally wasn’t (you’re getting all this down, right?). I managed to videotape eight minutes of wall-discussion but there was actually more that didn’t get documented (perilously low battery).

To Councillor Carolyn Parrish’s credit, she’d finally had enough. Here is the transcript.

Councillor Carolyn Parrish:

I find it fascinating that we’re spending this much time on it [talking about $15,000 on a wall] and the report where we lost $750,000 on bankrupting [inaudible because I said, "Exactly" into the camera] just flew through. And I’m going to tell you the reason it flew through without my asking the questions that I want to ask is that I think it involves personnel.And I want to know why —and it’s coming up again in-camera, and I want to know why it took four months for us to be informed and I want to know who goofed up when it says in the policy, “Cash or cheque on delivery arrangements for tickets”. But I don’t want the audience or the people watching on television to think we spend all our time on a $15,000 wall and we’re ignoring the $750,000 mess up on tickets that we’ll never get back plus the other amounts —the outstanding tickets that we won’t get back.”

Then they went behind closed doors (called “in-camera”) came back to make their announcements. All except for Parrish. Her seat was empty (the lady’s not good with pretending)…

Called out the Item then —nothing. “Flew through” again and adjourned.

Here is video.

MISSISSAUGA COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH SLAMS $731,485 COUNCIL “FLEW THROUGH”

(1:37 min: 8 minutes of which was compressed into 5 seconds)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Ask yourself why Mississauga Council  “flew through” Item 29 without a word, whisked it behind closed doors ( in-camera) and then “flew through” again once out from behind closed doors.

Control the Message.

If Rick Mercer is reading this, that’s how you “stay in power for 31 years.”

And that’s why citizens need The Province to grant  the Ontario Ombudsman  full investigative powers into municipalities as well as the rest of the MUSH sector.

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse

UPDATE: THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2009 11:30 pm Special thank you to the YouTuber who emailed me and requested that I cut down the wall-discussion even further. So now the 8-minute wall-discussion is compressed down to 5 seconds. And I’ve replaced the original vid. Thanks again to the viewer for the comment. You made the video much better.

Mississauga Muse at April 1, 2009 General Committee meeting (splitting headache in need of caffeine)

“But I don’t want the audience or the people watching on television to think we spend all our time on a $15,000 wall and we’re ignoring the $750,000 mess up on tickets that we’ll never get back plus the other amounts —the outstanding tickets that we won’t get back.”


Bear