MississaugaWatch Mississauga Watch

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing. The Mayor’s Testimony Day 2. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 12, 2013

April 20th, 2013  

Hazel McCallion leaves courtroom after conflict of interest testimony (April 12, 2013)

What follows is a summary of notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s 2nd day of testimony during her conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house on April 12, 2013 —Hazel McCallion testifying. If anyone finds any errors I’d appreciate being advised.

COURT NOTES DAY 5 April 12, 2013  2nd day of Hazel McCallion’s testimony

McCallion jokes with court staff.  Confident, up-beat, ain’t no big thing.

10:04  am  Judge Sproat enters.  Court in session. Hazel McCallion on the stand.

Thomas Richardson (Elias Hazineh’s lawyer) up.

Richardson refers to buff booklet and the Mayor’s January 24 and 25, 2013 cross-examination. Richardson asks McCallion whether since that time what she’s prepared since. Richardson asks what other documents did McCallion review in preparing to testimony today? Richardson asks if she reviewed her affidavit as well as those of Mayor’s Fennell and Morrison.

Richardson mentions that he was provided a booklet yesterday and in there is new evidence that was not provided on application record.

Richardson refers the Mayor to Tab 3 in the booklet. It’s a February 2, 2009 letter to Pat Bennie. Richardson asks McCallion what motivation did she have to provide this letter at this stage in the hearing?

Richardson asked why she inserted that letter now. Richardson claims to have read many articles in Municipal World. Neatly avoiding Richardson’s question.

Richardson notices her avoidance and rephrases his original question. He asks McCallion what import does this letter have to the proceedings today? Ask why did she present the letter as new evidence? [McCallion dances again.]

McCallion states that “Conflict of Interest Act may be interpreted in different ways”. And that she’d been on the AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) Board for 30-some years and that she’s “very aware of the history of the Conflict of Interest Act.”

McCallion states that the letter was triggered by WeirFoulds… [Ed. missed it.]

McCallion says it highlights the fact of her concern regarding the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. [Ed. still avoiding question]

Richardson lets her talk but eventually calls McCallion out and says it’s Paragraph 2 that motivated her to write letter. Paragraph 2 states that a member can’t always know what their family is up to and asks how do you know what dealings your children are having?

Richardson reminds McCallion that earlier she’d testified that she did not know Peter’s dealings with World Class Developments (WCD).

Richardson suggests McCallion’s February 2, 2009 letter was triggered because she suspected that her son Peter didn’t reveal his relation with WCD. McCallion asks what do parents do when they have very poor relations with their children and do not communicate?

Richardson asks McCallion whether the letter was triggered by her realization that Peter didn’t inform her adequately as to his involvement in WCD.  McCallion: No. Denies.

Richardson asks whether McCallion was aware that Peter was involved in WCD/OMERS, knew he was acting for Leo Couprie.  When did you become aware that Leo Couprie became involved in WCD? McCallion says “Can’t recall”.

Richardson said McCallion testified she was not aware of details of any financial arrangements. McCallion said she assumed that Peter would be compensated as a real estate agent. Richardson then asked McCallion if Peter had been involved as a real estate agent in other $14M real estate transactions.

Richardson asks whether McCallion the degree to which she was aware that the process was a complex one? McCallion replied that she estimated that the hotel project would take 2-3 years for approval —maybe even more.

McCallion added that she knew the hotel would “obviously” come before Council.

Richardson asks McCallion if she were aware of the financing arrangements? McCallion: Not at any time was she aware of the financing.

Richardson got McCallion to admit WCD/hotel would come before Council once the financing was in place.

Richardson says site plans don’t come before Council. McCallion agrees.

Richardson asks McCallion whether she expected a project of this complexity to come before Council as a site plan? McCallion: It could…

Site had “H” –for Council to have control.

Richardson asks whether the removal of the H was conditional on the site plan approval? Richardson says the H symbol would only be removed after site plan had been granted.

Richardson asks what requirements that had to be met for the H designation to be removed? McCallion: “I’m not sure.”

Richardson asks establishes that McCallion knew the project required building permits? McCallion Yes. And that to get a permit they must pay development charges. McCallion Yes.

Now considering any transition provisions, WCD would have to pay either new charges or old –applicable at the time it got its building permit. And depending on date either new or old.

Richardson asks if McCallion would agree that for any project, paying less charges would help viability of the project. McCallion: First said “not necessarily”.

Richardson now tries that it would be the developer that would “reap the savings”.

Richardson adds that new development charge could “can the deal”. The benefit of the savings would go to the developer. McCallion: Yes.

Richardson then states that the benefit of a reduced development charge would not benefit the electorate. McCallion agrees.

The court is told that when a developer pays a reduced development charge, the loss of revenue would negatively impact the capital budget. Loss of revenue means there’s a loss of money for capital projects. McCallion keeps emphasizing “projection”.

Richardson points out that any revenue deficit must be made up on the tax levy to the electors at large. McCallion says it would not necessarily affect the tax rate —it can come out of the reserve.

Richardson asks McCallion if she disagrees with the opinions of LeBreque that reduced developmental fees revenue would affect taxes? McCallion dances and offers, “I guess if you take it out of the reserve fund, yes.”

McCallion says the only condition she knew about was that the hotel had to be built first. Repeats her comments that residential development comes quickly and non-residential takes a long time “or never”.

McCallion then says that she was concerned the residential would go ahead and the hotel “would never come”.

The court was told that the Sept 6, 2007 approved permits must be acquired from April 1st to May 1st. McCallion says that both Fennell and Morrison concerned and to extend the date.

McCallion also says that elected officials usually aren’t aware of the status of a project unless the developer tells them.

Richardson asks McCallion that it’s her evidence today is that the transition provision was brought up by Mayors Fennell and Morrison.

Richardson asks McCallion whether she had a resolution from Council to seek the amendment. Or Staff. Asks whether she had a recommendation from Regional Staff. McCallion says that the amendment was strictly from Fennell and Morrison. Richardson asks McCallion if she were aware of the fiscal implications to the Region re extension.

McCallion responds that “Transition is a usual policy” —like planning fees, transit, user fees… [Ed. same song as yesterday.]

The transition provision requires that a developer must have a site plan in by [Ed. —missed the date.]

Richardson asks McCallion if she would agree that the transition provision would not apply to citizens of Mississauga but only to apply for site plan approval by September 2007.

Richardson observes that the financial interest of the developer by September 13, 2007 would save the increase of 85% increase in fees.

Richardson now moves to September 13, extending transition period by 18 months. That there was no resolution. That McCallion didn’t discuss this with Councillors. Didn’t discuss with Mississauga Staff.

McCallion responds that this was a Peel matter not Mississauga.

McCallion adds, “We sometimes lose and sometimes win.” McCallion mentions “team approach”.

Richardson then revisits that McCallion didn’t discuss with Peel Staff either. [Ed. So much for team approach.]

Richardson asks McCallion that when she seconded Fennell’s 18-month extension, whether she considered fiscal implications. McCallion: “Don’t recall the discussion”. 

Richardson later pointed out that the Regional staff said $28M. It’s strictly an estimate.

Richardson: You have reputation of running a very tight fiscal ship, why approve transition? McCallion: “Very good question” [Ed. —here’s her prep.]

McCallion says that residential usually doesn’t pay its way and she’s worried she might lose industrial/commercial –a tough balancing act.

[Now she’s dancing about her role in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and concerns regarding infrastructure, stimulus programs –and whether you’re going to lose your economic base. McCallion then states that losing a hotel was a “major, major loss” to Mississauga.

Richardson says that by September 13, 2007 the Development review had been going on for a year and a half and that Staff and Council had addressed the balancing act she was worried about. Richardson then asks McCallion what infformation she had on September 13, 2007 —what new information the Mayor got to prod her to extend the transition provision.

Richardson then asks McCallion had she known on September 13, 2007 that the provision she approved would save World Class Developments (WCD) $11M would she have declared a conflict of interest? McCallion responds with a swift, firm, “No” and that she feels very strongly that the development charge is like a tax and applies to everybody.

Richardson asks McCallion if her evidence was that she was not aware of WCD’s status? McCallion agrees, not aware. Then he mentions that McCallion expected Staff to keep her apprised of the progress of the WCD site plan application. McCallion replies no, that her instructions to Staff was that she did not wish to be aware of any part of when World Class Developments put anything in the hands of the City. Whether site plan or whatever.

Richardson then asks McCallion to turn to her January 25, 2013 cross-examination, page 248. Question 1172.

Richardson reads her testimony…

Q You were aware that WCD has filed a master site plan application.

Q Would it not have been prudent of you to have read the Sajecki letter to ask “If the Staff had drawn to my attention, there was no discussion”

On January 25, 2013 McCallion said, “Anything to do with WCD I want you to draw my attention”. Now, on the stand, McCallion takes that back! The Mayor clarifies that she did NOT wish to be informed. McCallion says that Marilyn Ball approached her and McCallion had said sorry, I don’t wish to be involved whatever it was (application, plan etc).

And she did this worried it might be seen as having influence on Staff.

Richardson continues to read from the Mayor’s January 2013 cross-examination. [If I can rely on this sentence… ] At some point, McCallion states that Ball told her that WCD was now active at the City.

January 2013, McCallion cross-examination shows that Council and Staff were conscious of a conflict with WCD. [Notes, say “Amazing! McCallion now retracts even more of her cross-exam re Ball and Staff all knowing. Cross-examination said even the public knew Peter was involved!”]

Hazel McCallion then states, “I have to apologize that is not the direction I gave to Staff.”

Richardson then asks whether McCallion made any inquiries as to the status of the hotel project? Richardson lobs out the names, Sajecki? Or Ball? McCallion offers, “Not that I recall” “And I made no inquiries.”

Richardson turns to exhibit booklet tab 2. Journal entries of the Mayor’s daily appointments. Fast out the gate McCallion says that her schedule is changed frequently —and now says she’s not sure if a meeting actually occurred. [I think, “Well played Moriarty!”]

Richardson then asks whether they could agree that the meetings MAY have occurred? Or occurred at another date? McCallion avoids a yes and no and goes with saying that meetings are deferred and some never happened.

Richardson now skims through the Mayor’s schedule as it relates to her son’s World Class Developments cast of characters. Richardson lists the following:

February 12, 2003: Peter McCallion and Tony DeCicco to meet with her.

November [missed date] 2003: Peter and Tony again at her home.

Richardson asks whether Peter and Tony were involved in business in 2003? McCallion now takes the opportunity to repeats her Olympic Flame problem story and finally gives Richardson a “Not sure.”

Richardson then asks McCallion why Tony DeCicco would go through her son to meet with her when it’s common for developers to contact The Mayor directly?

Richardson asks McCallion if Peter and Tony involved in Derrydale? McCallion responds, “I don’t know.”

Richardson then refers to another meeting in the Mayor’s schedule. May 1, 2004. A meeting with Peter, Digasperus [sp?] and David O’Brien (City Manager at the time) [Note also, husband of the City’s Director of Development and Design Marilyn Ball, trustee of McCallion family trust, OMERS/Enersource director etc etc].

Richardson lists off more meetings from the Mayor’s schedule.

June 3, 2004 meeting: Peter McCallion and Leo Couprie with President of Seneca College in development of Seneca.

July 13, 2004 lunch with Peter and Tony at Ruth/Chris steakhouse.

[Ed. missed the date.] Dinner with Peter and Tony.

Jan 29, 2004 lunch Peter and Tony. [Ed. out of order.]

March 14, 2004 Peter and her at dinner at father’s home.

April 14, 2004 Peter, Tony breakfast meeting “at Peter’s urgent request”.

Oct 30, 2004 breakfast with Tony and Peter.

Richardson then asks the Mayor why there were so many meetings with Tony DeCicco and her son in 2004? McCallion responds that there were lots of problems with the Region –something about a road, that she didn’t remember the details. And then mentions that Hwy #10/Derry was a major problem.

McCallion adds,  “I get calls on a lot of developers”…

Richardson gets her to admit she was “familiar” with Tony. The Mayor clarifies, “I had no special relationship with Tony DeCicco” and that she didn’t know his activity in rest of the GTA.

Richardson then turns his attention back to the Mayor’s journal entries.

September 22(?), 2004.

Jan 17, 2005, Peter, Tony dinner at Peter’s request.

May 18, 2005 Peter and Murray Cook. Meeting WCD.

Richardson asks if these meetings were around the time that Murray Cook would get involved in World Class Developments. McCallion says that she can’t recall, but assumes so. And that Peter knew that she knew Murray Cook because of his experience. [Ed: Murray Cook was a longtime friend of the Mayor’s husband, Sam McCallion.]

Richardson asks the Mayor if she encouraged Cook to get involved. McCallion responds, no. She states that she seemed to recall Peter told her in advance that Murray Cook was already involved.

[Ed. there was mention of a dinner with Peter, DiPocce etc. But notes too brief and I can’t recall in what reference.]

Richardson turns to page 15. Says there’s a note on in-camera issues regarding OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) that came up at the AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) conference. Richardson asks if McCallion arranged for a meeting.

Dec 18, 2005, dinner meeting, Leo, wife etc. The Mayor says the dinner was social.

[Ed. Missed hearing what came next.]

May 29, 2006 at Delta Meadowvale hotel.

July 9, 2006 Peter barbecue at Peter’s home. McCallion says she can’t recall.

Sept 22, 2006 Peter and Murray at the Mayor’s house.

Lunch at Zorro’s. McCallion says she doesn’t recall.

[Ed. re Dec 2006 –missed what was said.]

Jan 25, 2007, Dinner with son, Peter, Leo Couprie , and Leo’s wife at Pier 4. This was the witness document session.

Richardson says that a review of the Mayor’s journal entries indicates “substantial number of meetings” with Tony, DeCicco, Leo Couprie and Murray Cook.. Meetings at the Mayor’s home, Saturdays and Sundays… McCallion agrees and then says, “if they all occurred” She adds that she can’t recall which ones did occur or even that they all did.”

Richardson says that these journal entries end with a meeting re January 25, 2007.

Nov 20, 2007 Peter and [Ed. missed name.]

Dec 14, 2007 Peter, Tony DeCicco and John DiPocce.

Richardson asks if this means that there were no meetings in between. McCallion responds that doesn’t mean there were meetings that weren’t entered in a journal. It was and still is, standard practice that if her family wants dinner they have to go through City Staff.

March 19, 2008 Mayor has a meeting with Tony DeCicoo, Steve Gupta and Ed Sajecki in Toronto. Richardson reminds the Mayor that she’d testified this meeting was the one occasion the she attended with people involved in WCD. McCallion replies that Ed Sajecki urged her to go.

Richardson asks as of that date, March 19, 2008, whether the WCD site plan was still in process. The Mayor says No.

Richardson then asks the Mayor why she would examine a hotel for a World Class Development site. Th “I guess i was so enthused in the project” and “Obviously Ed had convinced me…”

Richardson says that it seems The Mayor had a substantial number of meetings both socially and otherwise. Then asks if it’s her testimony that at no time did any of the World Class Developments people inform her as to the progress of WCD/hotel matters. McCallion responds that the hotel was the “mission of the City Council”.

[Ed. From there, Hazel McCallion went into her Hotel/Misssissauga pitch —that Mississauga is the 6th largest city, that its city core will never move to the extent that it should until they have a convention centre etc etc… ]



Richardson still up.

Richardson refers to a document on November 2007. Context, one month after the introduction of deadlines and World Class Developments was scrambling

Re December 2007 Richardson asks McCallion if she was able to get Murray Cook to sign the agreement terminating the call —and about the sooner we get it the better we are.  McCallion says she didn’t recall what the agreement was.

Richardson continues and asks the Mayor why she would be involved in getting Murray Cook to sign the agreement. Richardson also asked if the Mayor recalled the agreement being sent to her. McCallion responds, No. Never sent.

Richardson refers to exhibit 50. He says that the document referred to above is the Shareholder and Transfers Agreement.

Richardson presents a FAX transmittal sheet 905-813-XXXX —the Mayor’s Home Fax number. McCallion tells Richardson “The FAX doesn’t always work, I can assure you. I’ve had great problems with the FAX machine. I’ve advised my lawyers to fax to City Hall.”

Richardson refers to FAX status 14:29 Job Status is OK. McCallion insist that though the FAX status says “OK” she didn’t receive it.

Richardson refers to terminating the call and asks that Mayor what efforts she made when she received the phone message from Tony DeCicco about “the sooner we get it”. McCallion simply replies that she’s not sure.

Richardson then refers to page 29 and another message.  The November 5th message would come in shortly before the 9:03 one. That message said, “I spoke with Barry at length. We can resolve this….etc Thanks for your help. I thought we were being ransacked.”

Richardson asks the Mayor, “Who is Barry?” McCallion answers, Barry Lyons.

Richardson asks McCallion, if it would it be fair to say this message related to the WCD budget?

Elizabeth McIntyre objects to Hazel McCallion being asked what might be in the mind of Tony DeCicco.

Judge Sproat coaches Richardson to rephrase the question. Richardson then asks the Mayor to relate HER understanding of the DeCicco’s message. McCallion answers, “I don’t recall the message, I really don’t.” And then McCallion adds or whether I took any action on it. And declares “I’m known for not doing it.” [Ed. helping developers]

Richardson refers to small booklet tab 2 page 29. November 5, 2007 message at 8:52 am. “…when Peter comes back”. McCallion replies re who is Peter,  “I assume it was my son.”

Richardson asks, what were the bills? McCallion responds I don’t know.

Richardson asks the meaning of “thanks for your help?” How did McCallion help? The Mayor responds, “I can’t recall. I don’t know.”

Richardson says that two messages came in on November 5th from Tony DeCicco. DeCicco left a message that essentially said that he’d just spoke with Sol. If Murray knew of outstanding amount…I’ve asked Sol to forward everything, budget/bills.

Richardson asks the Mayor, Who is Sol? McCallion responds, “I don’t know”

Richardson then asks the Mayor if she knew what this message was about McCallion offers “I guess it was outstanding fees…”

Richardson asks why Tony DeCicco would share such information with her. McCallion cleverly offers, “I don’t know. I get a lot of funny calls.”

Richardson then turns to Application Record vol 4. Additional message not in the thin book. Telephone March 19, 2008. Tony “We just finished with Ed. Did a tour etc…Need answer soon…”

Richardson asks who is Ed? McCallion says Sajecki.

Richardson then asks what this message was about. [McCallion really tap-dances here Lots of words but not answering his question.]

Richardson asks McCallion what her understanding was of the phrase  “in order to move forward…” McCallion serves up, “Guess he was trying to get me to decide on the hotel.”

Richardson now introduces another message. April 25, 2008. Tony DeCicco left a long, detailed message. Advised that he has met with City officials. Richardson asks McCallion what she understood met with City officials to mean. McCallion responds, “Don’t know.”

Richardson asks if the Mayor followed up. McCallion says, “I don’t know.”

Richardson then asks if McCallion listened to the very long mobile phone message. McCallion counters that she seldom listens to mobile messages. She says, “I don’t check it. In fact I get criticized for it. I’m not a technical person.” [Ed. I believe that. I have hundreds of text and likely voice messages on my mobile phone…]

Now the Mayor appears to be trying to get judge to swallow that World Class Developments is just any developer.

The Mayor at this point offered up an observation Ed Sajecki made about Tony DeCicco’s reputation…

Richardson is now onto the thin book.

Richardson asks the Mayor if the emails of 2007 resulted in her holding a meeting with Peter and Leo Couprie? McCallion responds, “I don’t recall” [Ed. How many is that now?…]

Re: November 20, 2007. Richardson asks whether it was possible that the Mayor met as a result of the telephone messages DeCicco had left on November 5th? McCallion responds “I don’t remember.”

Richardson then asks, whether the Mayor had a meeting with Tony and Peter as a result of these messages? McCallion responds “Don’t remember. 2007 is a long time back”.

Richardson then refers to the cross-examination of Leo Couprie (December 2012).

Q 372. In the fall of 2007 did you have any discussion re Murray and DeCicco.

Richardson follows up asking, what the problem was. McCallion: A question of who would put the money up.

In further cross-examination Couprie was asked if Peter wanted Leo to consult his mother. Couprie responded that it was a disagreement between Murray and Tony and that he didn’t know either one very wel. Couprie said that he let McCallion know that. Peter arranged the meeting. Couprie said it was a two-minute meeting with McCallion and then he left.

McCallion still denies remembering this meeting.

Richardson now turns to witnessing of signatures. [Ed. 11:18 am. I really think McCallion is enjoying this!]

Richardson asks McCallion if she recalled attending a meeting with Leo and Peter at Pier 4? What was understanding was the purpose of the meeting? McCallion responds it was about going to China. They were asking advice re contacts in Hong Kong and getting investment for the city core hotel.

Now McCallion slips into a song and dance about “the wonderful benefits of the City of Mississauga…. etc etc”. Richardson lets her soar…

McCallion says that she also suggested Peter and Leo approach the principals of the Shangri-La.

Richardson asks if McCallion was aware beforehand that there’d be a witnessing of documents. McCallion: No.

Richardson asks the Mayor if she were informed of the purpose of the documents. McCallion: No.

Richardson asks about the number of copies signed. McCallion: Don’t recall.

Richardson asks if McCallion’s understanding was that Peter was a realtor, why would he need such a document? McCallion says that Peter and Leo explained some arrangements had to be prior to their Asian trip.

Richardson asks McCallion if she were interested in what Peter was signing? McCallion: No. [Ed. Yet The Mayor moans about how little information son-Peter shares with her…]

Richardson now refers to the affidavit.He tells McCallion that Peter probably had made her aware that the Agreement of Sale had been finalized.

McCallion replies  “I did not see the Agreement of Sale” but that she did become aware. McCallion observes that she did not learn about Agreement of Sale at that meeting. McCallion speculate that it could’ve been OMERS telling her. Could’ve been Peter….

Richardson then suggests that by January 2007 that at least then, the Mayor knew about the agreement had been finalized. Richardson’s point being she was aware, just not when.

Regarding the January 25/26 Pier 4 meeting, Richardson asks McCallion if they were celebrating the finalization of the meeting. Documents signed on the 29th around the same time as the Pier 4 meeting was. Then McCallion responds, “As I say, did it occur?”

Richardson refers to the slim volume provided yesterday Tab 2, page 23. Dinner January 25, 2007 at Pier 4. That was the dinner where McCallion witnessed docs.

Richardson asks for Mayor’s affidavit to be put in front of her. Page 51 par 167. “I also knew from Peter or Murray that it was a condition of the agreement was a hotel, or certain size, amenities etc.”

Richardson asks if Murray Cook also informed her that the hotel would be connected to the LAC by walkway. Richardson then asks if Cook informed her of any other terms of the agreement of sale?

Richardson asserts that in Spring 2008 the Mayor became involved in the negotiation of the Agreement of Sale. McCallion justifies this with they were having difficulty…

McIntyre objects saying that the time frame is beyond May 31, 2008.

Richardson then asks McCallion if she were involved in negotiations before May 31, 2008? McCallion: “I don’t recall.”

Richardson asks McCallion if she met with Mr. Fillipetti (Oxford) in March 2008. And whether it were possible that she were involved prior to May 31, 2008. He also asks if she knew about the nature of the proposed amendments McCallion replies “I did not know the details.”

Richardson then asks McCallion why she was called upon to be involved in the terms of the agreement. McCallion insists that she doesn’t recall meeting with Fillipetti. Exact quote, “I don’t recall. I’m sorry.”

Richardson asks if McCallion made contact with OMERS on or before May 31 2008. McCallion, yet another “I don’t recall.”

Richardson asks for break now.



Richardson refers Aug 29, 2007 Mississauga News. Headline “City Centre gets second major hotel”. Richardson reads opening four paragraphs and the article clearly mentions World Class Developments.

McCallion says that she doesn’t recall seeing the article.  Richardson not quite believing, tells the Mayor that the article was  an announcement that her long-held dream of a hotel is to be fulfilled —and no one brought it to her attention?

McIntyre objects to any further questions on the clip. Judge Sproat tells Richardson to go ahead because it could be relevant.

Richardson asks several question, if any person brought this article to McCallion’s attention. Anyone advise her that WCD was commencing the project. Mayor replies no to both. Richardson then comments, “So no one informed you that your dream project was about to commence?”

Richardson then asks McCallion if she was informed around October 3, 2007 that Ed Sajecki appeared for an interview on Rogers TV announcing commencement of World Class Developments project. McCallion replies “I very seldom watch TV.”

Richardson now refers to the Ed Sajecki letter. McCallion acknowledges that Sajecki’s letter was removed from the file and had not returned.

Richardson, says that there were attachments. However as far as McCallion recollects the attachments were not attached to the letter. McCallion says that staff conducted very thorough search –and far as they know only two copies were made of the document (of the list of 84 site plan applications).

Richardson now refers to two maps. City of Mississauga Urban Growth Centre. And second page entitled Community Approvement…

[Ed unable to make sense of the next entry of my notes.]

The Sajecki letter describes the area affected as an Urban Growth Centre (UGC). Richardson asks whether the WCD lands located in that UGC? McCallion reads the paragraph and then answers, “I’d assume it would, yes.”

Richardson reminds McCallion she indicated Sajecki’s letter was not sent to Council. Richardson reminds Peel resolution wasn’t either.

Richardson is trying to understand…formulate his question  –but McCallion can’t follow Richardson [Ed. neither did I!]

Richardson suggests that within City’s UGC areas, special transition provisions would apply.

Richardson says that he’s trying to understand the effect of the motion she seconded. McCallion asks to see the resolution. [Ed. 2:17 pm. Hazel calm, confident]

Richardson refers to application record Vol 3, Tab 21. Page 1252.

Richardson explains that it was moved by Fennell, seconded by McCallion. That the resolution be amended to include medium-high density residential and mixed use project be extended to November 1, 2009. This xtension would apply to all three area-municipalities? McCallion admits, Yes.

Richardson asks McCallion and this resolution is to apply in these three municipalities only to areas identified by each municipality

Richardson asks whether that was the intent of Sajecki’s letter.

McIntyre objects. She says that the Mayor can’t speak for Sajecki.

Richardson rephrases and asks whether the effect of the Sajecki letter showed the Urban Growth Centre areas that could benefit from transition provisions.

Richardson suggests the second paragraph in Sajecki’s letter directs Staff. McCallion agrees this paragraph gives direction to Staff.

Richardson goes back to the first paragraph. With your resolution and the Sajecki letter, if those two resolutions had succeeded on the October 4, 2007 vote, the transition provisions would apply to WCD lands.


Richardson explains that Fennell introdcued the resolution to address her Brampton-specific concerns. That she understood the resolution only applied to Brampton. Brampton is exempt.

Richardson reminds that with McCallion’s resolution the provision was extended to all three municipalities.

McCallion responds that any policy Peel tries to approve applies to all municipalities.

Richardson manages to get McCallion to admit that she passed a resolution that was not of concern to Mississauga.

McCallion offers that “We (Regional Councillors) don’t see bylaws” “Copies of the bylaw are not provided…” So the resolution of Council is then not reflective of will of Council.

Richardson then says that Mayor Susan Fennell said that the Region Clerk “regionalized” the Brampton resolution. Richardson asks McCallion if it is her experience that the Regional Clerk “regionalizizes” resolutions from area municipalities.

Richardson raises the issue if McCallion would expect a resolution passed by Mississauga Council to be regionalize at Peel Council…


McIntyre up. No questions.


NOTE: When I set to editing all my court notes to publish as separate blogs, I had absolutely no idea how detailed each day’s court notes were. Polishing my notes did not only became a daunting task but one that I did my all to avoid.

Jotting down notes during court testimony is interesting. But taking those point-form scribbles and fleshing them into sentences after the fact is indescribably tedious.

The next set of notes is the Hazineh court appearance. His are the toughest of all to transcribe. At one point during Hazineh’s testimony Judge Sproat interrupted, telling him to wait until McCallion’s lawyers were finished asking their question. Sproat explained that the court clerk was was having a difficult time recording what was being said —getting everything down. And that’s someone experienced!

Since Hazel McCallion and Elias Hazineh were the only two witnesses called to testify at this Superior Court conflict of interest case, it’s important that I also transcribe my Hazineh court notes.

But after that, I’m not prepared to commit what would amount to days-on-endless-end on something I could just buy as court transcripts!


Hazel McCallion: Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Report "Updating Ethical Infrastructure"

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing. The Mayor’s Testimony Day 1. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 11, 2013

April 14th, 2013  

What follows is a summary of notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house on April 11, 2013 —Hazel McCallion testifying. If anyone finds any errors I’d appreciate being advised.

COURT NOTES DAY 4  Thursday, April 11, 2013  1st day of Hazel McCallion’s testimony

9:50 am  Mayor Hazel McCallion arrives and goes straight to the stand (upbeat, confident, laughing with court staff.)

9:55 Diane Kalenchuk, Fran Rider arrive (both involved in December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally opposing Judicial Inquiry) .

10:07 am  court session begins.

Elizabeth McIntyre (lawyer for the Mayor)

McIntyre calls McCallion to the stand. McCallion swears on Bible with a “So help me God.”

McIntyre refers to a document and includes an “accumulation of documents” extracted from other parts of the record (to be presented in chronological order).

McCallion swore an affidavit and states that she stands by evidence in that affidavit. [Ed. On Friday, Day 2 of her testimony, she will retract statements made in her sworn affidavit that she stood by today.]

McIntyre now refers to McCallion’s biography. McIntyre highlights that McCallion was first elected Mayor of Mississauga in 1978. Re-elected all the way to 2010. Involved in municipal politics for an extended period of time. Prior to that McCallion was involved in working for Canadian Kellogg. Worked for Kellogg for 19 years and left in 1967.

McIntyre relates that McCallion started off her political career on the Streetsville Planning Board. There she served as Chair, then became Deputy Reeve of Streetsville and then Mayor of Mississauga.

McIntyre then requests the Mayor to turn to paragraph 8 and reads that Mississauga was once a small collection of towns blah blah etc etc –and one of priorities of the Mayor was to “create a dynamic downtown city core”.

McIntyre then prompts McCallion to give Judge an idea of her  list of challenges.

McCallion states that when she first moved into City Hall, cows and horses were grazing across the  field when she went into her office. Square 1 started in a hayfield. McCallion said that she was successful in making “some progress” towards a city core. They built City Hall and Central Highway for example. Then they built the YMCA. McCallion said, “We tried to demonstrate that the City core had a future.”

McCallion states that office development has been a challenge. That she wanted 12 million sq ft of office space in the City core –and that has not been accomplished.

Then McCallion started on a favourite subject —about the number of Fortune 500 companies in Mississauga etc etc….

McCallion claimed that with these companies, Mississauga needed a convention centre. She stated that the main mission of Council and Staff was to get a convention centre tied in with Living Arts Centre.

But they had no success.

McCallion continued that the ideal location of hotel would be right next to Living Arts Centre along with a reasonably-sized convention centre. That, the Mayor claimed was the mission of Council and Staff —a 4 or 5-star hotel.

McIntyre asks McCallion what time frame. For how long has this hotel/convention centre been a goal.

McCallion says 10 or 15 years or longer. The Mayor explains that Mississauga’s Fortune 500 companies were drawn here by the airport. But they would have to stay in downtown Toronto hotels and then get carted to Mississauga.

McCallion claims she had received “a lot of complaints” about no hotel/convention centre.

McCallion then goes on to say that she’s been the Chair of Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)  and wanted to invite AMO conventions to Mississauga but can’t.

McIntyre asks, so goal of Council was to have convention centre next to LAC.  McCallion responds, yes, goal was to accommodate 1500 delegates to a conference.

McCallion revealed that “OMERS owns a lot of land around City Hall” (including Square 1).

McCallion says the City called for a proposal for a convention centre but got no response.  They went to Hong Kong, China on trade missions hoping to get hotel owners –ie Shangri la (a lot of regurgitation of Inquiry material…).

“Toronto beat us out on it” (re the Shangri la) McCallion says.

McIntyre asks McCallion if the official plan in question pre-dates 2005.

McIntyre refers to McCallion’s affidavit. McIntyre asks McCallion  to tell the court what she recalls she was advised by Peter during this time.

McCallion recounts that Peter knew the City was “anxious” to get a hotel and convention centre. So he approached his mother and said he had an investor to build a hotel/convention centre.

McCallion said that in all this time, Peter’s investor was the only one to express interest at any time.

McCallion said she knew the investor to be Leo Couprie.

McIntyre asks McCallion that In 2005 to what degree was she familiar with Leo Couprie. McCallion responds that she was invited to dinner at his home. But that she didn’t meet that many times with him.

McCallion knew Couprie’s background to be strictly importing.

McIntyre based on what you knew about Couprie did you have any reason for him not to invest?

McCallion said she had no idea how much money Leo Couprie had. She said that Couprie would put down the money (deposit) to buy the City core land.

McCallion  states that in 2005 she knew nothing of the details regarding how much money Couprie would put up in this venture.

McCallion understood Peter would be Leo Couprie’s legal representative as real estate agent.

McIntyre asked the Mayor it came as a surprise to her. McCallion said yes and that maybe it was the opportunity to get what City wanted.

McIntyre asks what came as a surprise. McCallion says the surprise was that Peter was able to convince someone to invest in the City core.

McIntyre then relates a short biography on Peter McCallion. She asks the Mayor when Peter was born. 1953. His occupational history. Residential real estate to industrial/commercial real estate.

McIntyre then asks McCallion, In 2005-2007,  what extent would you have known his real estate practices. McCallion  responds, “Very little.” “He did not share his successes with me.”

McIntyre asks what she understood re him being real estate agent.

McCallion says that she understood that Peter would make sure Leo Couprie didn’t lose money and because Couprie wasn’t experienced, that Peter would help him with real estate issues.

McCallion said she had no idea if Peter had equity in development projects. She adds that to her knowledge Peter did not have a history in investing development projects.

McIntryre says that Mayor McCallion has three children. Paul lives in Milton. Peter in Mississauga. [Ed. At this point the discussion became a bit hard to hear so McCallion admits to having a hearing aid –and needing it.]

McIntyre asks what McCallion’s relationship with Peter was in 2005-2007.

McCallion explains that her husband died in 1997. And that she would count on Peter to look after a lot of the household chores. McCallion said that her son Paul can’t, but because he’s a real estate agent, Peter has flexible hours. And that she has to depend on Peter a lot.

McCallion said that she had frequent contact with Peter. And also that Peter was her driver.

McIntyre asked McCallion about the “flow of information” between Peter and the Mayor. McCallion responds very little. That Peter keeps it to himself. That Paul is different –very open.

McIntyre then asks what McCallion knew about Peter’s financial situation. McCallion explains that she didn’t know Peter’s “financial standing”. McCallion says that “None of my children share their financial status with me.”

McCallion says that she never believed that Peter had the money to pull off The Project (the land, all the hoops to jump through) McCallion knew that would require “Major finances to do it.”

McCallion says that she understood that major investors would still be needed down the line.

McCallion explains that the hotel must be “Not less than a 4-star.” McIntyre asks McCallion for details. McCallion says that the City core would need the minimum of a 4-star hotel to “satisfy the needs of our economic base.” Convention delegates, McCallion says, expect at least 4-star accommodation and as a result they go to Toronto for those 4 or 5-star hotels.

McCallion says that she knew too The Project was “an extremely complicated process” and that Peter would not have the “technical expertise” to pull the process off.

At some point McCallion says she became aware that long-time family friend, Murray Cook would come in. McCallion says that she knew Murray Cook has “vast experience in the development industry —nationally and internationally”.

McCallion says she didn’t know who “they” were. But she guessed one of the investors would be Leo Couprie. And McCallion  knew that Peter would be involved  –in seeking the consultants necessary to grapple with such a major project.

Re World Class Development. McCallion  says that “from Day One” she understood that Leo owned all the shares in the corporation. But that she had no knowledge that Peter was a shareholder.

McIntyre asks McCallion if she thought Peter might be an officer of the company? Employee? McCallion responds no both times.

McCallion repeats that she understood that Peter “represented Leo”.

McCallion testifies that she advised Peter and Murray Cook that she would declare pecuniary interest at City Council should the issue come up. The court determines that it was 2005 that Peter first informed her of his involvement in this project.

McIntyre asks McCallion when did she advise Peter and Murray Cook that she’d have to declare a conflict?  The Mayor said she can’t recall.

McCallion  testifies that she knew that she’d have to declare a conflict at council, planning committee —“or any other committee”.

McCallion testifies that elected officials are not advised as council members when site plans come into the City. Like in any list.

McCallion testifies that developers might approach a councillor before he puts in a site plan application. And that some do. Some don’t.

McIntyre asks McCallion in a project of this nature what would come before council? McCallion says perhaps zoning amendments, official plan impacts. Then it comes to the planning committee. If WCD were to come before the planning committee, McCallion said she’d have declared a conflict of interest.

McIntyre then turns McCallion’s attention to zoning changes. McCallion said that matters related to zoning changes would come as a report with a lot of details about how those changes affect services/infrastructure.

McCallion repeated that anything related to World Class Developments that came before a committee or council she would declare a conflict.

McCallion said she’d seen a lot of development processes come through Mississauga. McCallion testified that she had OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) to lay down the condition that the hotel must come first, then the condos because she knew that developers prefer to build residential first. McCallion states that she felt the hotel must come first and be a condition in the sale of the land.

As a result of the hotel condition, McCallion says, the project failed. McCallion stated that they just couldn’t get 4-5 star hotel with the capacity to serve as a convention centre.

McCallion testifies that the details surrounding a hotel are uncertain because it depended on what the developer envisioned.

McCallion states that she definitely had a personal interest in hotel but that she never had a direct (personal) pecuniary interest. And that the hotel is key to convention centre.

McCallion  testifies that she had no problems attracting condos in city core. That residential development is not a problem. That the major problem is attracting office development.

McCallion  testifies that she had no involvement in residential developments –that she zero’d in on the hotel for involvement.

McIntyre asks if the Mayor would know the process/conditions, the hoops to jump through in the hotel process. McCallion then estimates that the project might take “quite a few years to accomplish. That the process of development has become very complicated.” Depends on size, what they want to do.

McCallion estimates “one to two years for very small project”. And for full approval of a convention centre “two to three years. At least two years.” –to get a building permit.

McCallion repeats what she testified at the Judicial Inquiry about Staff: “We are very diligent. Our Staff is diligent –making sure every ‘i ‘ is dotted”…

McIntyre asks in 2005 –what did you consider your obligations to be regarding interactions with Staff.

McCallion responds, “You should not in any way influence Staff.”

McCallion testifies “I had no involvement” (with site plan staff process). That Staff was aware that she had a conflict and therefore did not want to be involved in any discussion.

McIntyre asks how she was aware. McIntyre asks McCallion “but did you advise Staff prior?”

McCallion responds with “I did but can’t recall when.”

McIntyre asks whether it was usual for Staff to brief councillors on development. McCallion replies it was not unusual.

McCallion testifies that she didn’t attend the WCD briefing in April 2007. That since she was declaring conflict it would not be proper for her to attend the meeting (with Baker, Ball, Sajecki, Cook…)

McCallion then adds, “I’m not interested in the site plans because I believe it’s a responsibility of the Staff”.

McIntyre focuses on the 2005-2007 timeline asking McCallion  is she was ever approached by Marilyn Ball (Director of Development & Design and wife of former City Manager, David O’Brien/OMERS) to be briefed on the WCD project.

McCallion responds that Ball offered and that she had refused. McCallion said from “Day One” Staff knew that I did not want to be involved.

McCallion testifies her concern was that she would be seen to influence the Staff on the WCD application.

McIntyre asks to what extent the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCOI) did not apply to any OMERS meetings!

McIntyre then explores McCallion’s understanding of Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. McCallion responds that “Often when Acts come into being you rely on the Staff to brief you on it.”

McIntyre then asks whether the Staff provided briefing? McCallion responds that she can’t recall. McCallion states that somebody advised Council at the time (the Act came into effect) that when an item comes before a committee/Council, —you have to declare a conflict. McCallion then says she was told that even if you think you have a conflict you should declare.

McCallion said that as Director of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, issues relating to the MCOI Act came up for discussion from time to time. McCallion reports that George Rust’Dye gave presentations. That Rust D’Eye explained some of the cases. McCallion states that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was “A very great concern of the municipalities.”

McCallion states that the Large Urban Mayors now have concerns as well. That the MCOI Act now causing all kinds of complications.

McIntyre mentions that McCallion was charged under the MCOI Act back in 1982. McIntyre asks McCallion if since whether she reviewed the MCOI Act with her lawyer. And whether McCallion had reviewed the decisions of the court?

McIntyre asks McCallion to what extent she took the provision of that Act seriously? McCallion says when Peel Council deals with police budget she declares a conflict of interest regarding her son Paul who is employed by Peel Police.

McIntyre asks “as a councillor how seriously do you take that question?” (direct/indirect pecuniary interest at meetings)

McIntyre then goes back to 2007 and asks McCallion what her understanding of conflict of interest were back then? McCallion responds “If a matter involves, no matter what status, I have a conflict.” That her son Peter represented Leo Couprie. And that if matters relating to WCD came to Council, she  would declare a conflict.

McCallion states that Council was well aware that she had a conflict.

McIntyre now refers to a letter February 2, 2009 and asks who prepared the letter? McCallion says she did.

McIntyre asks McCallion why she prepared the letter, explaining that this February 2, 2009 letter is prior to any issues raised re motion/call for Inquiry.

[Ed. Essentially the letter asks for clarification of MCOI Act and asks what happens if an elected official doesn’t know what business or business contacts your kids have. This letter definitely pre-dates Judicial Inquiry.]

McCallion responds that she had read a government update that encouraged her to write a letter. And also the many discussions at AMO regarding MCOI Act and how it was “creating problems”. Including problems like hobbling a Council to a point where they can’t vote on an issue (ie: development in an area where most councillors live).

McCallion states that “AMO very aware of accumulation of issues surrounding MCOI Act.”

McCallion also said she had “many discussions” re MCOI Act with other municipalities.

[Ed. I’m certain that AMO has had many presentations/discussions relating to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act but McIntyre fuzzies up the timing of all this knowledge/debate McCallion was receiving. For example, interest/issues surrounding municipal conflict of interest intensified in Mississauga from September 2009 through the Rob Ford trials to current.]


McIntyre now wants to explore Hazel McCallion’s involvement in WCD and its affairs.

Referring to document labelled “Couprie” in log book and the articles of incorporation re World Class Development Ltd. Dates from 2006 and refers to 2005.

McCallion says that she did not see them at the time.

McIntyre refers to page 351. McIntyre asks McCallion to what extent the document reflected her understanding. McCallion says she wasn’t really aware of Leo Couprie’s involvement.

McIntyre asks McCallion if she understood at any time that Leo Couprie was a principal and owned all of the shares in the World Class Developments.

McIntyre then refers to “Lusk” document. An Agreement of Purchase of Sale made on behalf of WCD and OMERS March 21, 2005. McCallion states that she did not see that document at the time.

McCallion testifies that she must have been advised at some time that World Class Developments had put in an offer. But she was aware they were trying to purchase the land.

McIntyre than suggests that at some point McCallion became involved in the negotiations. McCallion said no, not the negotiations but the “exchange”. That Murray Cook had said there was a lot of “exchange” between WCD and OMERS.

McIntyre defines “exchange” as “back and forth proposals”.

McIntyre then asks McCallion to what extent she saw the details of the changes?

McIntyre asks McCallion’s involvement in real estate transactions in general? McCallion says very little. That she may get a call… sharing what difficulties they might have. But that she doesn’t get involved in reviewing documents. That she had no involvement in real estate transaction aside from buying two houses.

McIntyre asks her involvement in WCD’s. McCallion says OMERS never made any effort to build a hotel “they own a lot of land in the city core”.

McIntyre redirects and repeats her involvement. McCallion states that she encouraged OMERS to sell the land to WCD to get the hotel to happen. But that she did not get involved in the details.

McIntyre leads McCallion to explain that she was representing the City, the Council of the City to get a hotel built.

McCallion then testifies that she knew that Ken Lusk represents OMERS and that OMERS owned 50% of Square One. AIMCO (Alberta Investment Management Corporation) the other 50%.

McIntyre gets McCallion to turn her attention to mail from Lusk to Michael Del Bello (OMERS/Oxford). Dated March 9, 2006. McIntyre asks McCallion if she saw that at the time? McCallion says no.

McIntyre reads portions to her. “Unidentified purchaser” Purchaser represented by Mayor’s son who is the purchaser… Pressure on Oxford. .. etc

McIntyre asks meeting with Paul Haggis (Oxford) re “express desire to sell the land”. McCallion  agrees with that statement.

McIntyre introduces a series of other emails referencing her involvement. Phone calls, etc.

McIntyre refers to Tab 8 –an email from Ken Lusk to Ron Pedicord (Oxford) October 20, 2006. “Mayor very upset that transaction taking so long to complete”. [Ed. The content of the email suggests that Hazel McCallion would get a considerable amount of detail about progress of project. Meaning, she wouldn’t need Staff informing her!]

McCallion testifies there was a “rumour” of another hotel coming at Highway 10 and Burnhamthorpe. [Ed. hmm…]

McCallion then goes into great detail, really selling convention/hotel to the court.

[Ed. WOW. No consideration that once meetings done, there’s nothing for convention delegates to do in Mississauga except go to Downtown Toronto!]

McIntyre asks McCallion what due diligence was done on World Class Developments around January 2007 –about the time the agreement was signed.

McCallion reports that Arthur(?) did most of the due diligence on WCD. And that Murray Cook said he was an owner. Spoke to McCallion about whether Murray could pull this off.

McCallion  states that she didn’t recall having the conversation but that she must have.

McIntyre states that Lusk reported that Cook had told him that he owned WCD. [Ed. at least partly]

McIntyre gets McCallion to turn back to the Leo Couprie book. Tab 5. It’s the Agreement of Purchase of Sale of The Property, January 31, 2007.

McIntyre asks McCallion whether she saw this document at the time. McCallion No.

McCallion says she was not aware of the details, but was informed by somebody from OMERS of the condition that the hotel had to be built first.

McCallion can’t recall around what date she knew the agreement had been signed. McCallion can’t recall who told her either. McCallion can recall that the Hotel Built First condition was included.

McIntyre now deals with events from January 2007 to the Regional Council meetings in September and October 2007. McIntyre asks if she recalls any other involvement with the vendors of the Property.

McCallion says yes, that she heard nothing for a long time, then at later point, they had certain deadlines to agree to in order finalize things to meet the conditions. As for the dates McCallion says that she can’t confirm whether it was before or after Sept/Oct 2007.

[Ed. My own dealings with City of Mississauga Staff have taught me that “Can’t recall” can have double meaning. It can mean the inability to remember but also “can’t recall because it’s not in my/City’s interest to share the information with you.”]

McIntyre now goes on to other documents in the Couprie material. Tab 3. McCallion confirms that she saw it at time for her to witness/sign and then also the Declaration of Trust (Tab 4). And McCallion confirms, yes, she witnessed the signatures.

McIntyre then asks McCallion what it means to witness a signature?

McCallion said she’s witnessed signatures for many thousands of documents/passports. That her role is merely to witness the signing/signature in their presence. Means nothing more than that.

As for the documents at Pier 4, McCallion says that Peter and Couprie were leaving for China hoping to get someone to invest in a hotel. They wanted to know what connections she had in China.

McCallion testified that she understood the purpose of the meeting at Pier 4 was to inform them as to what contacts she  had in China as to investment in Mississauga. McCallion also says that Peter and Couprie were the only ones at the Pier 4 dinner meeting.

McCallion said it was a relatively dark restaurant. And that she was asked just to witness their signatures to “cover their absence when they were away”.

McCallion testifies that Leo Couprie told her the purpose of the documents [Ed. then McCallion  appeared to back-pedal so I’m not too sure…]

McCallion states that the documents were to deal with the business with World Class Developments in case something happened during travel.

Referring to Tab 3, McCallion testifies, “I reviewed none of the content of the document. None.” Then she said that for certain lighting conditions and size of type she would have to use reading glasses to see much of anything.

Then McCallion adds that she doesn’t need glasses to sign documents but might to read them.

McCallion states that she can’t recall whether she used glasses to sign that day.

Document at Tab 4. McCallion says “I did not read them” (the words on that document).

McCallion states that she doesn’t recall any discussion of the documents. That she wasn’t given a copy either.

McIntyre asks McCallion to turn to Tab 6 in same book. Shareholder’s Agreement February 28, 2007 World Class Developments, Murray Cook and Leo Couprie.

McCallion states that from Day 1 she was advised that Leo Couprie owned all the shares of the company.

McCallion then testifies that she believed that Peter’s role with WCD was to ensure (try/hoping) that an agreement between WCD and OMERS would happen to purchase of land. Other than that Peter’s additional involvement was “none at all”.

McCallion announces that “I learned more during the Inquiry” re internal affairs of WCD.

McIntyre now turns McCallion attention to the Promissory note signed by Peter McCallion on behalf of World Class Developments for $50,000 from the TACC group.

McCallion testifies that she knows that TACC is a developer and a provider of services.

McIntyre asks McCallion if she saw the Promissory note at the time? McCallion: No. McIntyre asks McCallion if she were aware that TACC was lending money to WCD? McCallion: No.

In addition McCallion was not aware Peter was in position to sign a promissory note on behalf of WCD. McCallion then says, “I was not aware of his finances that would enable him to sign a promissory note.” [Ed. quote 100% accurate.]

McIntyre asks McCallion  that without seeing a document, to what extent she was aware of the financial details of WCD? Ie: Deposits (the ledger).

McCallion responds that she was not aware Peter was contributing or receiving money from World Class Developments. McCallion: “I was not aware.”

McIntyre takes McCallion  to Tab 9, an agreement between Landplex and Leo Couprie. Dated August 31, 2007. McCallion says she didn’t see agreement. But that she did know who Tony DiCicco was though.

McCallion testifies that at some point Peter mentioned that Tony DiCicco got involved because, she assumed, of his experience in development.

McCallion adds that she also knew DeCicco from developments in Mississauga including “joint ventures”. McCallion  testifies that she had discussions with him on occasion ie: access re his development at Derry Road –asked to help by Olympic Flame. McCallion says that she also had a social meeting with DeCicco because his Dad wanted to meet her –had to do with some celebration. McCallion also said that he won the auction for Dinner at Mayor’s house.

McCallion says that she has many conversations with developers.

McCallion testifies that Peter told her the reason DeCicco came in was because they needed somebody assisting WCD getting through the process.

[Ed. Yet at the Judicial Inquiry September 15, 2010 hearing, Murray Cook testified that Peter brought DcCicco in because Cook couldn’t give Peter real estate agent role going forward. Meaning Peter was out of all his money.]

From Murray Cook, initial principal of WCD September 15, 2010

Q = Naomi Loewith, Commission Counsel

A= Murray Cook


15                 Q:   Did you understand that he expected

16  to be the agent for the eventual condo sales?

17                 A:   No, that didn’t come up until much

18  later.

19                 Q:   Did you have concerns about it when

20  you did learn of it?

21                 A:   Yes, very much.

22                 Q:   Why is that?

23                 A:   You — later, when it appeared that

24  Mr. McCallion’s original investors were unable to — to

25  pony the — the dollars, I advised Mr. McCallion, when he


suggested the — the sale of the individual condos that

it’s very hard to get an investor to invest if you

predetermined who was the selling agent. 

               In most cases, investors/developers have a

team that they’ve worked with over the years and are

comfortable with.  And that’s — that’s not a

conventional real estate cer — sales person.  It’s — I

won’t mention any particular firms, but there’s several

major firms out there that specialize in doing condo

10  sales.  They have low risk.  All they do is:  The

11  developer puts up the sale centre, puts up all the

12  advertising, does all the marketing, and in some cases

13  when you’re dealing with these firms they’ll even tell

14  you how many clipboards their staff need, and pencils.

15                 And that — that is a very different

16  entity.  And to make the project work with predetermining

17  that — an individual real estate sales person, that was

18  a non-starter.


McIntyre then asks, in this period of time, January 2007 Agreement of Purchase of Sale to the October 2007 Peel Region vote, “To what extent would you discuss WCD with Peter?”

McCallion said that Peter discussed bringing DeCicco along. As for any discussion with the City, nothing. McCallion states, “he didn’t keep me well-advised at all.”

McCallion insists that the only time she got involved was when they ran into difficulties with the hotel.

McCallion then goes into a series of “can’t recall”s.  Can’t recall —might have discussed the purchase of the land with Murray Cook. Can’t recall anything with Leo Couprie.

McIntyre now wants to break until 2:15 pm.

Got back and set up at 2:19 pm (arrived a bit late)

McIntyre still up. Topic: building permits.

McCallion said that she certainly advised staff that she did not want to be advised/involved in any discussion/matters relating to World Class Developments. [Ed: That announcement/caution also means all Staff knew WCD had “Special” written all over it!]

McIntyre now moving to the development fees process.

McCallion said she was involved with levies even before legislative authority. That she changed levies in Mississauga and Region a number of times.

McIntyre asks if there’s been another development charge review since 2007? McCallion responds yes, 2012. McIntyre asks McCallion to explain understanding of the role of development charges.

McCallion says it applies to all growth. It’s for the major services, sewage/water lines, roads.

McIntyre then asks what is the role of Regional Council re the setting of Development Charges by-law. McCallion says Peel Staff research for a report and present findings to Council.  McCallion says elected officials depend on Staff to decide what the charges should be based on consultants’ reports and comparisons to the projection created in the first place.

McCallion testifies that the role of Peel Council has to hold public “stakeholders” meetings. McCallion points out the these meetings are between Staff and usually (almost 100% of the time) —developers.

McIntyre asks McCallion the role of Peel Council. McCallion says to field input from all [Ed. can’t follow it… lots of detail and not sure relevance except to… finally got to point]

McCallion states that Peel has always had a transitional period.

McIntyre asks what factors does Peel Council consider. McCallion says what the backlog is, the economic times (in regards to industrial/commercial since increased development fees could make Peel less competitive –a major concern.)

McIntyre now asks McCallion about the economy in 2007. McCallion says the was “starting to tank”. Also price of land. Competition increasing in Halton and Kitchener-Waterloo.

McIntyre then asks McCallion to what extent individual projects are reviewed during the consideration of the transitional period.

McCallion introduces the concern for jobs/unemployment.

McIntyre then asks McCallion to relate the relationship between Development charges and jobs? McCallion says that increased development charges can potentially have an effect in economic downtimes.

McCallion states decisions are based on the impact to the entire community.

McIntyre now goes through details of 2007 Developmental Charges by-law process.

McIntyre mow turns attention to the March 2006 Peel report by Dan Lebreque, Commissioner of Public Works Department for Region of Peel.

McIntyre then asks to what extent McCallion had clear recollection of these events.

McCallion says that they/Peel were behind in their collection of funds. And that Peel needed a certain increase, “not catch up but try to catch up.”

McIntyre returns to the LeBrecque’s March 2006 Peel report.

McIntyre asks McCallion to explain the relationship between development charges and the capital budget. McCallion said it’s projected —an estimate.

McIntyre asks whether McCallion anticipated an increase in development levies. McCallion replies that development fees have always gone up.

Relating to March 2006 McIntyre asks whether McCallion knew that World Class Developments would be affected by those charges. McCallion says it all depended on WHEN –but that she assumed they’d be faced with those charges.

McIntyre asks if McCallion declared a conflict of interest in 2006 when this Developmental Charges review came up at Peel. McCallion testified that since she didn’t know the status of WCD in the process she believed the fee applied to any fee/property tax or any user fee. It applies to everybody, McCallion says. Of general application.

[Ed. McCallion then makes an intriguing statement…] That in McCallion’s experience councillors have never declared a conflict in planning or development!

McCallion  then compares the Peel Development Charges by-law to a dog license fee –declaring that she has not declared a conflict when dog license fees come up even though she owns a dog.

Tab 14 McIntyre refers to a number of presentations made to Peel Council. McCallion explaints that some of these reports elected officials get on the day of the meeting —or the night before. McCallion adds that elected officials have complained to Staff about these last minute deliveries.

McIntyre asks with respect to non-residential development, in May 2007, what was Peel asking to be the cut off? McCallion couldn’t answer.

McIntyre then asks to what extent would Council would rely on Staff regarding the recommendations? McCallion says the desire of Staff would be to have no transition period at all.

McCallion points out that Peel Council doesn’t always accept the recommendations of Staff.

McIntyre refers to Tab 32 in McCallion’s book. Report from LeBrecque in 2007.

Re Letter of the arterial road mentioned yesterday. McCallion testifies that City of Mississauga Staff prepared the letter and Staff felt strongly this road shouldn’t be included. McCallion then states that after Staff prepared the letter it was then ready for her signature.

McCallion insists that the letter/issue was strictly raised by Staff. And that her signature was to show it came from Head of the municipality.

Tab 19 (in HM’s book) Minutes of Peel General Committee for September 6, 2007. Page 657 is an amendment requested by McCallion. Purpose of amendment was to allow for 90-day transition with respect to non-residential and apartments. (November to May 2008).

So the transition period was extended from 60 days to 90 days.

[Ed. The end of April 2008 happens to be when Mississauga Planning Staff were, according to Ed Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building for the City of Misissauga, “burning the midnight oil to help WCD remove the ‘H’ symbol and to avoid paying the higher development fees” —a saving of $11M..]

McIntyre asks McCallion, did you consider what effect this impact would have on WCD?

McIntyre then asks McCallion if anyone at WCD made submissions to Peel regarding fees impact?

McIntyre now moves to Tab 22 in McC’s doc. Peel Council September 13, 2007. Reports that meeting lasted 1 hr 6 min.

The court is told that there is no record of the September 13, 2007 Peel debate. McCallion said, “Yes, unfortunately”…

McIntyre asks McCallion if she can remember what is said at the meeting. McCallion: No. Then adds, “Development levies are general.”

McIntyre then introduces page 685 of McCallion’s document. September 6, 2013 General Committee includes that recommendations relating to residential and non-residential levies be adopted.

Re Staff reports before Council, McCallion says “I hope they do the research on the thing.”

McCallion  says that Brampton Mayor Fennell requested the minutes be “reconsidered”.

This was moved by Fennell, seconded McCallion, and it extended the transition period for medium-high density residential and office even further —to November 1, 2009.

McIntyre asks McCallion if she has recollection of this resolution. McCallion said that Fennell moved it because she had concerns in Brampton about medium-high density residential in her city.

McCallion testifies that she can’t recall the discussion with Fennell. McCallion is very vague about it. McCallion says that at that point the amendment didn’t affect Mississauga –only Brampton.  McCallion  also adds that she can’t remember how much this amendment was actually debated at Council.

McIntyre asks McCallion who drafted the actual wording? McCallion responds that “If anyone drafted it it would be Mayor Fennell.”

McCallion said she didn’t understand that the amendment was directed towards Mississauga.

[Ed. …wording uses “three area municipalities”.]

McCallion  states the she did not consider conflict of interest, “Why would I?” she says. “I had no knowledge of the progress of their application.”

McCallion admits that she knew the way the motion read that the Fennell amendment would affect WCD.


McIntyre still up.

McIntyre now deals with a letter dated September 19, 2007 to Dan LeBreque from Ed Sajecki. This letter identifies areas of intensification. Maps attached.

It shows development projects inside the UGC (Urban Growth Centre). McIntyre asks McCallion whether she got the letter. McCallion says according to the record log, yes, the letter came to her. McCallion states though that she didn’t recall what she did with the letter.

McCallion states that she can’t say whether she reviewed the letter.

McIntyre asks whether McCallion had knowledge of whether World Class Developments was on the list/map. McCallion states that Ed Sajecki never reviewed the content of the letter with her/Council. So no.

McCallion says that it was strictly Staff to Staff letter.

The Development Charges By-Law that was ultimately passed and the exemption ultimately passed applied to Brampton only.

McIntyre refers to McCallion’s affadavit that the developmental charges were of general application.  McIntyre asks whether McCallion was aware of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act exemptions.

McCallion replies, “Oh, yes, because I have reviewed the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.”

McCallion says general application applies all over the municipality. McCallion says that George Rust-D’Eye explained it at the Association of Municipalties of Ontario. McCallion states that “Everybody pays for development levy.”

McCallion states that she knows Rust-D’Eye to be a “specialist in regard to the Conflict of Interest Act”.

McIntyre asks McCallion whether Peter or anyone at WCD discussed fees with her. McCallion: No.

McIntyre informs the court that in Fall 2007 there was an effort by WCD to scramble to get under the wire to avoid a fee increase. McCallion says that for her to be briefed or talk to Staff about it would have created the appearance of influence.

McIntyre asks McCallion if she got a legal opinion. No. McCallion says she was confident in her interpretation of Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

McIntyre asks McCallion what her understanding of Peter’s compensation was. McCallion repeats she believe her son to be the real estate agent and there’d be some compensation with Couprie. When and what basis, McCallion said, she had no idea.

McIntyre asks McCallion whether there were any point before the Inquiry that she knew that Peter was more than a real estate agent. McCallion says she didn’t know until Mary Ellen Bench told her that he was a principal. McCallion then says she phoned her son saying “You have clearly led me to believe that you’re a real estate agent for Leo.”

McCallion testifies that upon knowing that she advised Peter to see a lawyer and get it (the ownership) corrected.

McIntyre asks McCallion why she acted as she did. McCallion states that when she challenged Peter on it he still maintained he was not a principal. McCallion states,“I had been misled and nobody had told me any different.”

McIntyre now goes to the documents in The Buff Folder. As McIntyre is searching about McCallion comments that she’ll be going to a talk show tonight at 9 pm!

McIntyre reports that on May 18, 2005 there’s a records of Peter and Murray Cook meeting with Mayor re WCD. McCallion testifies that she doesn’t recall what was discussed.

McIntyre mentions another dinner. Again McCallion states that she doesn’t recall whether WCD was discussed. McCallion: “I have no idea.”

McIntyre introduces a May 29, 2006 meeting this time, Peter and Murray with Mayor. McCallion states that some of the meetings were at her house and repeats that she can’t recall what was discussed.

McIntyre mentions a December 19, 2006: Tony DiCicco and John DiPoce lunch meeting with McCallion. Again McCallion doesn’t recall what was discussed.

Then McIntyre repeats the Pier 4 dinner-meeting.

Then an April 10, 2007 meeting.

Then McIntyre points out there there’s no record of meetings between January 25, 2007 and November 5, 2007.

McIntyre then points out that the telephone messages start up. Mostly by DeCicco. McIntyre asks McCallion if there were any change in the frequency of her interactions with WCD after Tony DeCicco involved.

McCallion says there was a personality clash between Cook and DeCicco. And that DeCicco hoped she’d intervene. [Ed. See contrary testimony by Murray Cook above]

McIntyre references a put-and-call agreement.  October 26, 2007 from Emilio Bisceglia, lawyer for World Class Developments. It was an unsigned agreement –sent as a FAX. McCallion testifies that she doesn’t remember receiving it. McIntyre asks McCallion if she tried to get Murray Cook to sign it.

[Ed. It’s clear that DeCicco’s phone messages would give considerable details regarding WCD]

McIntyre asks McCallion how many calls she gets in a day? McCallion says that she didn’t get more calls from DeCicco than most developers.

McCallion then insists that she didn’t return all the calls from DeCicco.

When DeCicco’s phone message refers to a budget for WCD, McCallion insists at no time did she know the financial situation of WCD.

McIntyre refers to an entry March 19, Marriott Residence Inn, Toronto. McCallion to be with Sajecki, Gupta, etc to look at a hotel in downtown Toronto. McCallion states that she’d been told that the hotel was somewhat near the quality wanted in Mississauga downtown core. McCallion then says that it wasn’t near what was expected.

McCallion says that a group of Staff and Murray Cook went to the States to look at a hotel there as well.

McCallion then summarizes that the Marriot didn’t anywhere near meet the status of the hotel she/we wanted.

McIntyre then asks McCallion, If her position was not to be involved with Staff why did she go with Sajecki and Gupta? McCallion responds that it was her interest that the type of hotel would meet “our expectations”.

Then McCallion states,“No other meetings, this was the only time.”


Hazel McCallion leaves Brampton courthouse after conflict of interest testimony (April 12, 2013) –the PANORAMA

April 12th, 2013  

Today’s video, complete with transcript.

Hazel McCallion leaves courtroom after conflict of interest testimony (April 12, 2013)


MISSISSAUGAWATCH outside Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

It is Friday, April the 12th, 2013 and Mayor McCallion has just finished with testifying.

That’s the car, ready to whisk her away.

Let’s see. Who is driving her?

Oh. And I should say that when I ran to get the camera, Harold Shipp had just arrived. So it’s like the “Friends of Hazel” all over again.

That’s Louie Rosella coming out. Mississauga News.

And it looks like the media here are poised to, perhaps ask some questions —I don’t know.

Oh, and I should also say that if you remember, in 2010 [municipal election], one of the things the Mayor asked was to give her councillors that she could work with. And the councillors that she could work with showed up in court today.

Katie Mahoney, Pat Saito —I think that was all though. Am I missing somebody? [Forgot about Pat Mullin]

Going to give this guy privacy [aims camera down just as Mayor McCallion leaves the courthouse…]

Mayor Hazel McCallion leaves Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013

[Video of the media and then the Mayor leaving in a Buick Enclave, that drives right past the camera]

And there’s the Mayor going.

Safe trip to Portugal. And I mean that.

And she’s gone.

And here we —oh, that’s right. Mullin, Pat Mullin is also here.

Councillor Pat Saito leaving Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

Hi Ursula. How are ya?

MISSISSAUGAWATCH outside Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

Fine. How are you?

Councillor Pat Saito leaving Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

I’m good thanks.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH outside Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

And here we have Katie Mahoney [followed by CTV cameraman and towards yet another.]

Katie "It's not hard to support our Mayor. Trust me." Mahoney leaves Hazel McCallion's conflict of interest trial (April 12, 2013)

Councillor Pat Mahoney leaving Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

Okay Pat! Help me out here!

MISSISSAUGAWATCH outside Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

Actually, what’s interesting is that is [sic] three of the four women who were the councillors at the “Friends of Hazel” Rally. The only one missing is Maja Prentice who has since retired.

And I love what Katie Mahoney said on December 2, 2009. “It’s not hard to support our Mayor. Trust me.”

And there’s Harold Shipp.

Okay. Any bets “witch hunt” appears twice in his interview?

And just to be clear, he’s making comments though he wasn’t in the courtroom —as far as I know.

And there’s Parrish…

And… this person’s running over.

Music: Don’t Crash the Ambulance/Mark Knopfler

 And for those who wish to do their homework?…

Bonnie Crombie and her “same two hundred” Friends of Hazel –THE COMEDY

And here’s what I was doing in September 2007.


Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing, Hazineh v. McCallion. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 10, 2013

April 11th, 2013  

Video of a Thanksgiving dinner that the Mayor, Peter McCallion and Leo Couprie all failed to mention….

Hazel McCallion, son Peter and Leo Couprie enjoy a “World Class” Thanksgiving Dinner (Oct 2006)


What follows is a summary of notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house on April 10, 2013. If anyone finds any errors I’d appreciate being advised.

NOTES from the Mayor Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest hearing, Brampton courthouse, April 10, 2013.

9:58 am Astounded that only Mississauga News Louie Rosella is the only media here!

10:04 Court in session

Judge Sproat advises us that he’ll give his ruling re admissibility of evidence post October 4, 2007.

Monique Atherton (lawyer for Elias Hazineh) up.

Hazle McCallion acknowledges that she knew son Peter was involved in World Class Developments (WCD)  as a real estate agent “since Day 1”.

Topsoil study case cited as example of the public’s perception relating to  “any matter involving land”. Judge Sproat attempted to clarify –that Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interests were also the Mayor’s under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

History of WCD is outlined in their packet.

Chronology: February 22, 2005 Peter McCallion incorporated World Class Developments. Two people named as President and Vice President of WCD.

In 2005 the only other person involved in WCD was Murray Cook. So, by inference, Peter telling his mother that WCD was interested in developing City Centre land really meant that he was interested.

Atherton refers to email from Ken Lusk to Michael Dal Bello (March 9, 2006). Email refers to an “unidentified purchaser” and that an offer was presented by Mayor’s son to purchase the City Centre land. Email requested that Murray Cook be asked who the purchaser is.

On May 18, 2005, Hazel McCallion meets with Peter and Cook.

Peter approaches Leo Couprie in 2006 to invest in World Class Developments. By August 2006 a filing changes over to Leo Couprie —$750,000 so WCD is in his name only.

November 20, 2006 document from WCD solicitors to Leo Couprie. Confirms Couprie now the principal.

Couprie says at time he became involved he understood that Murray Cook was also a WCD partner and they would cooperate to put the hotel/land deal together.

In cross-examination Mayor McCallion says she can’t recall when [Ed. …missed it. Acoustics/Microphone so bad that I can hardly hear!]

Atherton points out that a flurry of emails show that Mayor applied pressure to get the deal together. Atherton highlights Ken Lusk Oct 20, 2006 communication. Frets that McCallion called asking why land sale was taking so long.

In her cross-examination, McCallion says that she saw her role as Mayor was to make sure that the Mayor was available for hotel/convention centre.

On 2nd day of her cross-examination, McCallion mentioned that the condition of sale was a 4-Star hotel or better and that hotel must be built first.

By Jan 23, 2007, terms of the agreement had been finalized. At this point, McCallion was aware that Peter, Leo and long-time family friend Cook were involved in World Class Developments and also aware of progress.

In the McCallion cross-examination page 74 she states that she was not aware as to when WCD entered the agreement of purchase of sale.

In her affidavit she said she knew early in the process that she’d have to declare Conflict of Interest.

In January 29, 2007 after purchase of sale had been finalized she had dinner at Pier 4 with son Peter and Leo Couprie. There were two documents to sign —the Loan Agreement between Leo Couprie and World Class Developments Ltd $750,000 for deposit of purchase of sale.

Peter McCallion signed on behalf of WCD including guarantor. This was witnessed and signed by Hazel (actually signed twice).

The second agreement was signed at same time, the Declaration of Trust. This document declares  that Leo Couprie holds 80% of WCD shares in trust for Peter. This document is signed Peter McCallion “Beneficiary”. Also witnessed and signed by Hazel McCallion.

Under cross-examination Leo Couprie said the document was necessary because of travelling. Just before signing the Mayor asked Peter, is it okay to sign?

Under cross-examination, Leo Couprie explained the purpose of the document. In effect he would put out $750,000 and get $1.5M back. Couprie admitted that he did not seek a legal opinion. He arrived at Pier 45 restaurant separate –and the Mayor and Peter together.

Was it reasonable for Hazel McCallion to see what was written under Leo’s signatures? Couprie said no, since the Mayor was sitting opposite him. Atherton says Leo Couprie suggesting this flies against common sense, “illogical”.

McCallion said son Peter told her the documents were in place because he and Couprie were going to Asia.

Atherton submits that the Mayor’s affidavit saying she didn’t read the two documents she witnessed and signed is  not in line with McCallion’s self-proclaimed image as a business mayor, let alone her huge interest in the hotel/land.

In February  2007 following signing of agreement in Pier 4 another agreement entered into, the Shareholders Agreement. This agreement was between World Class Developments giving Murray Cook 20%  and Leo Couprie 80% of the shares. Atherton points out that despite the Shareholders Agreement, WCD would still govern as if Cook/Couprie were 50/50 partners.

At some point early in 2007 Barry Lyons became involved in WCD. Scott Walker took responsibility of day-to-day operations and Walker said that he understood from beginning that Peter was a partner.

Atherton refers Exhibit 1 which was handed to the Judge only yesterday. In examination of Mr. Walker, he indicated a business card “World Class Group”.

Walker said he kept Peter McCallion apprised of relevant happenings.

Atherton now refers to a bank ledger showing financial transactions of World Class Developments and walks us through. Shows on March 7, 2007 Peter McCallion deposited $30,000 into the account. Don’t know source of funds.

Leo Couprie says it was Peter McCallion’s money he didn’t care what Peter did with it.

Atherton now turns her attention to the November 1, 2007 promissory note. Peter McCallion’s signature appears as Signing Officer.  [Ed. Atherton introduced all kinds of details I’m not sure why]

Atherton now brings Tony DeCicco into the timeline. Peter McCallion brought DeCicco into WCD in August 2007. DeCicco would take over Murray Cook’s share.

Once again, Leo Couprie did not get legal advice.

Couprie in cross-examination said it was Peter McCallion who decided who would stay and who would go. Atherton said that Peter trusted Tony and Leo trusted Peter.

Regarding the Landplex agreement Leo understood that it now replaced the Declaration of Trust.

Atherton states that it will be their submission that the Landplex Agreement was the agreement that stood at the time of the October 4, 2007 vote at Peel Regional Council.

Under cross-examination, Leo Couprie said that Peter McCallion’s ultimate goal was to be the real estate agent for the City Centre condos and the “crowning glory of his career”.

During the cross-examination, the Mayor said that she found out her son was Owner of World Class Developments only when the information came out through Judicial Inquiry.

Atherton asked “Did you ever ask Peter if he had an ownership interest in WCD?” Mayor replies No.

Atherton, “But did you ask?” Again the Mayor replies No.

At the time of the Peel October 4, 2007 vote, Peter McCallion was owner of 16 WCD shares. Leo Couprie would transfer those 16 shares to Peter.

Hazel McCallion claims her son’s World Class Developments share-interest was not part of her knowledge on October 4, 2007.

Atherton submits that the WCD “cast of characters” were well-known to the Mayor. Included were son Peter, his friend, Leo, long-time McCallion family friend, Murray Cook and Tony DeCicco.

Atherton points out that the Mayor knew Murray Cook would lead the hotel project and that Leo Couprie would be the investor.

Atherton states that In November 2007 Cook and DeCicco met at Mayor’s house to resolve differences.

Under cross-examination, Leo Couprie said that he was strictly a silent partner in WCD.

Couprie mentioned that he had just one meeting with the Mayor and that was around the time of the Cook/DeCicco disagreement.

Their disagreement centred around various bills that had become due.

Peter McCallion wanted Couprie to give Hazel McCallion his opinion/advice regarding the deteriorating relationship between Cook and DeCicco.

Couprie said that he told the Mayor that he didn’t know either Murray Cook or Tony DeCicco so he had no opinion, that he trusted Peter to whatever he thinks is best.

It was Peter McCallion who arranged the meeting with Cook, DeCicco and the Mayor.

Couprie said it was a two-minute meeting with Hazel at her house. In cross-examination Couprie was asked if the Mayor is a hands-on mayor? Couprie responded, No opinion. Didn’t know her.

Atherton then introduces the Issue of “remote interest”….

The remote test also applies to Peter McCallion’s interest in World Class Developments. Requires that his interest is also remote. If Peter’s interest is so remote and insignificant, Atherton argues, then how was the Mayor so certain that she would have to declare conflict of interest back in 2005?

The remote test asks “Would a reasonable electorate apprised of all circumstances likely conclude that Peter’s interest might influence the Mayor’s voting/actions?”WI

Judge Sproat asks intriguing question. He says assume the Mayor believes he’s an agent and will get a commission, (hypothetical) if the Mayor thinks her son has a financial interest (true or not), if she votes then she’s doing something wrong. Assuming she THOUGHT, does it really matter if it’s incorrect.

Does it really matter? In the real world, Sproat points out that people can have an imperfect understanding of their children’s interests. Could turn out later that interest is different than what it was thought to be.



Richardson up.

Focusing on Section 10 of the Act, Subsection 1. Where subsection 5 contravened, you shall declare the seat vacant.

Richardson reminds the court that there are two savings provisions in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. And that these provisions only kick in IF there’s been a finding of conflict of interest.

Inadvertence or Error in Judgement .

Richardson says inadvertence is failure to direct one’s mind to an issue. Error in Judgement is paying attention but you make a mistake in your decision.

Richardson says that if the Mayor had a belief that her son had an interest, case law says there’s an obligation of a member not to be willfully blind.

So Sproat’s earlier hypothetical question, re if Mayor thought the son had a conflict, it was her obligation to determine his interest. Not just declare but also declare the nature of that conflict.

Richardson says that a councillor cannot shut his/her eyes. That at the very least he’s obligated to make the kind of  inquiries that a reasonable person in a similar situation would do.

Case law court concluded that “willful blindness or reckless disregard” can’t be characterized as inadvertence. Example, when the Mayor concluded that Peel’s Development Charges bylaw had  “general application” McCallion admitted that she didn’t turn her mind to the Act.

While arriving at “general application” in her interpretation of the Muncipal Conflict of Interest Act, McCallion did not consult/investigate —essentially do her homework.

Re Ford and inadvertence: Court said that while Mayor Ford may have honestly believed his interpretation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was correct, such belief would undermine the Act. Willful blindness to legal obligations, it was argued, can’t be regarded as inadvertence.

Richardson then turns his attention to Error in judgement defense. The Mayor says her actions were premised on the honest belief that Development Charges bylaw was general application.

Richardson says that to reach that conclusion, Hazel McCallion would first have to gauge her son’s pecuniary interest to see if it had general application to the public’s interests.

Richardson says that “honest, frank conduct, done in good faith” should not result in vacating a seat. Perfection not expected of members but good faith is.

Richardson says, “One may not shut his eyes and make reasonable inquiries which a prudent man would do to avoid consequences”

Sproat clarifies that  “reasonable inquiries” would be status of project and interests in WCD.

Richardson continues that the Mayor had the obligation to take active steps to determine her Municipal Conflict of Interest Act duties as a member.

Richardson says that reliance on a legal opinion can be evidence of error in judgement.

In cross-examination, Hazel McCallion said she arrived at general application because “I think from a common sense point of view…. it affects… etc etc.”

Richardson asks, what did the Mayor do to inform herself? She relied on common sense.

In cross-examination he asks McCallion about the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. McCallion replied No and it “never entered her mind”.

Richardson now addresses motive and intent.Re motive, there’s a logical inference that Mayor’s conduct at Peel was motivated by the desire to help her son.  For example, her stand on the 2007 development transition provision in not consistent to her stand before 2007 or her 2012 vote.

In her cross-examination Hazel McCallion made it clear that the supplemental amendment to the 2007 Peel Development Bylaw was Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell’s idea.

McCallion’s attitude in June 2007 seemed to be that “Developments in Mississauga and Caledon should not be forced to pay for roads in Brampton”.

At the very least Hazel McCallion was “reckless” in voting on [Ed. …missed it.]

Richardson points out that the nature and degree of experience of a member should also be taken into account when assessing breaches in conflict of interest.

In 1982 a court concluded that Mayor McCallion committed an error in judgement –so she was not subject to penalties. Atherton points out that Hazel McCallion’s latest conflict of interest case would be the second time in her career and second time she’s relied on community of interest as well as the second time she’d invoke error in judgement to avoid consequences.

In cross-examination Hazel McCallion says that she didn’t review the results of 1982 re common interests.

Richardson presents the following conclusions

  1. Peter McCallion had pecuniary interest in World Class Developments
  2. The pecuniary interest was known to his mother
  3. She voted on three occasions at Peel on issues affecting WCD.
  4. The Mayor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act
  5. Her actions are not the result of error in judgement or inadvertent according to Act.

Judge Sproat

JUDGE WILL NOW RULE on whether evidence of the Mayor’s activities from October 5, 2007 through May 31, 2008 are admissible.

Sproat says sometimes evidence can shed light onto credibility. If a child keeps business confidential and if at a later date, the parent acted differently, that’s potentially relevant.

Sproat concludes that evidence after the September Peel vote is relevant. It shows that World Class Developments engaged pro planners and switched architects all to position itself to take advantage of Peel’s transitional provisions.

Post Peel vote evidence, Sproat says, may shed light as to proper understanding of the contract.

Finds Singaro (sp?) opinion relevant regarding the steps taken by World Class Developments to avail itself to Peel’s transitional provisions. At a minimum, Sproat says, this evidence has some relevance to shed light into understanding how World Class Developments viewed its rights.

Sproat now asks if there are any additional considerations. Richardson says no.

Hazel McCallion’s lawyer, Freya Kristjanson now asks… [Ed. can’t hear her.]

Judge Sproat asks that 100 pages from Inquiry be removed.


ENERSOURCE Ontario Energy Board Ruling –email alert to Mississauga ratepayers from “Joe Citizen”

February 7th, 2013  

On January 16, 2013, I received an anonymous email from “Joe Citizen”.  Subject of email, “Enersource OEB Ruling”. He requested that I consider printing his comments and having him as a guest blogger.

So today inside Mississauga Council Chambers I made time to videotape his Enersource OEB Ruling letter and YouTube it. For the record.

As always, the video, complete with video transcript.

ENERSOURCE Ontario Energy Board Ruling –email alert to Mississauga ratepayers from “Joe Citizen” (12:08 min)


MISSISSAUGAWATCH reading email sent by “Joe Citizen”, Mississauga Council Chambers, February 6, 2013

It is Wednesday, February 6, 2013. I’m here at Mississauga Council. Council has gone in-camera, and in-camera is opposite of what you really think it is. They are going out of camera range and in closed session.

And what I want to do now is take the time to read an email that was sent by “Joe Citizen”. And he asked me if I would publish his letter on my blog.

And I found that kind of strange because my blog is really obscure and there’s, to my knowledge, few readers.

However, I said I would do that. And what I want to do is read the two emails that he wrote me. And this is just for the record.

And he writes —the topic from “Joe Citizen” is “Enersource OEB Ruling” and I’m not even sure —I think OEB stands for Energy, Ontario Energy Board, but let me read it:

Hi there,

I am disenchanted with Enersource, the City of Mississauga, and city council. I love your website and find it very comforting to know there are others out there who question what the city does and tells us.

I am looking for a way to vent about the OEB ruling on Enersource’s rate application and their response to it (as found in the Mississauga News). I would like to remain anonymous though. I was wondering if you might consider printing my comments below. Maybe I could be a guest blogger!?

Anyways, I hope you’ll consider it.

And I’ll show it right there. Okay, so there’s the email.

And in all honesty, while I did videotape all of the Enersource meetings, most of the debates the City had on Enersource between 2006 to current —and have them on hard drive, and everything else, Enersource was not one of my areas of research.

I was more interested in ethical issues.

So I can’t really —I can’t know, the degree to which this letter is actually accurate. And as a result I’m going to read it and produce it verbatim as a guest blog.

Anyway, “Joe Citizen” writes:

I’d like to comment on the recent articles about the OEB’s decision on Enersource Hydro Mississauga’s rate increase application, and the response from Enersource, as reported in the Mississauga News. But before beginning, I’d like to set up the two sides so that the public can get a better perspective.

On one side, we have Enersource Hydro Mississauga. This is a corporation that is owned 90% by the City of Mississauga. The Board of Directors at Enersource includes the mayor, Hazel McCallion, and ward 6 councilor Ron Starr. Hazel McCallion of course was the subject  of a judicial inquiry into an aborted land deal that cost Mississauga taxpayers millions, money which went to a company headed by the mayor’s son. Had the deal gone through, it would have netted McCallion junior much more money. The mayor also played dumb on how a 10% owner of the utility, Borealis, got veto power on all decisions related to Enersource. Ron Starr, endorsed by the mayor in the last city election, is no stranger to controversy either. Starr was charged in 2000 with fraud for allegedly mismanaging funds at a children’s camp. The charges were dropped the following year. So right from the top, we have some shady characters.

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) is an independent, self-financing Crown corporation. The OEB regulates the province’s electricity and natural gas sectors, in the public interest. With regards to the electricity sector, their job is to approve and set delivery rates for electricity distribution and transmission. They also set the price of electricity for certain consumers under the Regulated Price Plan and Time-of-Use plan.They are the industry watch dog, with the public’s interest at heart. It should be noted that the OEB isn’t just a handful of government drones making rulings. They appear to use a variety of outside groups to assist with comparisons and discussions. In the Enersource ruling, it appears the following groups/entities were involved: Energy Probe Research Foundation, Vulnerable Energy Consumers Coalition, Consumers Council of Canada, School Energy Coalition, and the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario.

Once I saw the article in the media and Enersource’s response, I headed for the Ontario Energy Board website and downloaded a copy of the actual decision. I would recommend one to do so to get a better understanding of the OEB’s decision. There were essentially three findings that they came down with. The first has been well documented by the media regarding the purchase of the new building and the resulting excessive space that Enersource now finds itself with. Enersource counters by saying that this building was the lowest cost option available. One has to assume that this case was presented to the OEB, and they rejected the argument. In fact, the OEB ruling seemed to indicate Enersource did not provide enough evidence to support a lot of their rate application, much less their building argument. In many cases, it seemed the OEB was doing Enersource a favor and making some comparisons on their behalf.

At face value, the response by Enersource to the public seems valid, but only with regards to the building. The rest of their response seems to be “we have the lowest rates, we know what we are doing, … trust us”. Getting back to the building, one has to believe that either this fact about the new building being the cheapest option was not presented to the OEB, or if it was, it was not sufficient. Perhaps the OEB is saying that even if the new building was the lowest option available, Enersource should have considered options for recouping some money for all of the excessive space they now find themselves with. If it was the lowest option, is it still fair to force that cost on ratepayers? Shouldn’t the utility look into options to mitigate that burden on ratepayers?

On a side note, perhaps Enersource should have considered moving into a better location after the train derailment in 1979. Having the head office for an essential service located right next to a railroad line was probably not a good idea. To remain there after a train actually derailed is an even worse idea.The second point made by the OEB was that Enersource was unable to provide examples of cost/benefit analyses that it had used when deciding whether to proceed with particular projects. They give two examples in the report, but there are sure to be others that weren’t in the report. Only minor items are usually put forth to watch dog entities. With conflict of interest allegations dogging members of the board, are we really to believe that there are no conflict of interest situations going on within Enersource? Why do projects with no apparent benefit go forward? Either for image, or, … somebody is making money in the project.

The third and most troubling finding to me from the OEB report was Enersource’s repeated resistance to the suggestion that it should look to other utilities to assess its own level of efficiency and to examine whether more efficient approaches are available. From the report: “the Board as an economic regulator acts as a proxy for competition, and therefore it is not surprising that comparative analysis would play a part in the Board’s analysis. Enersource maintained that it could demonstrate its level of efficiency by comparing its own performance over time, and the Board agrees that this is one approach to examining efficiency; however, it says nothing about whether the company is as efficient as it could be. For that type of analysis, some form of external comparison or external analysis is required. The company repeatedly stated that it did not compare itself to other distributors when assessing its operations for efficiency.”. The OEB found that Enersource is clearly lagging its peers on OM&A (operating and maintenance costs) measures. The OEB essentially said that Enersource should consider comparing itself with its peers in the industry using common metrics in order to find efficiencies internally before looking to burden ratepayers with cost increases. Enersource seems to refuse this thinking.

[MISSISSAUGAWATCH interrupted by City of Mississauga Corporate Security] Okay. Oh. You mean I gotta go.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reading email sent by “Joe Citizen” at the “Rogues Gallery”(aka Citizens of the Year), February 6, 2013

No surprise. Security kicked me out. So I’m here in the Rogues Gallery. There are the people who made MYTHissauga, MYTHissauga. So I’m just going to continue reading this last paragraph. Hopefully I’ll be successful.

Okay. Here we go:

This is the key finding for me. One needs only look at the executive parking lot at Enersource to see where they might want to start looking for deficiencies. Is it really necessary for any executive of a public utility to drive a luxury vehicle? Wouldn’t an electric vehicle be a great signal to Mississauga residents? Was it really necessary for Enersource to re-brand itself with a new logo and colors? It’s not like residents have options with regards to electricity. We have to take it from Enersource, at the rates determined by the OEB. A shiny new logo (at whatever cost that might have been) won’t decrease our rates, but only increase them. And along those lines (that we really have no choice), do we really need to follow Enersource on Twitter and Facebook? Other than appearing hip, again, what cost savings do those initiatives provide?

I would strongly urge the ratepayers of Mississauga to do themselves a favor and read the OEB ruling, and like Enersource’s motto says, demand “more”.

And that’s the last of the thing here.



"OMERS CEO Michael Nobrega and Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion in congratulatory hug after Enersource public meeting January 22" 2009

“OMERS CEO Michael Nobrega and Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion in congratulatory hug after the televised Enersource public meeting January 22, 2009

Mississauga Councillor Katie Mahoney's 2010 Financial Statements reveal both Michael Nobrega and David O'Brien donated $750.00 (maximum allowed) to her 2010 re-election campaign.

Mississauga Councillor Katie Mahoney’s 2010 Financial Statements reveal both Michael Nobrega and David O’Brien donated $750.00 (maximum allowed) to her 2010 re-election campaign.

Mayor Rob “Above the Law” Ford and Ontario’s Purposely-Deceptive Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

November 29th, 2012  

Here’s my report on Mayor Rob Ford’s removal from Office as well as my take on the contemptuously-deceptive Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

This video also includes comments about the Act’s “Removal of Office” penalty by Justice Douglas Cunningham (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry findings, October 3, 2010).

Mayor Rob “Above the Law” Ford and Ontario’s Purposely-Deceptive Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (2:42 min)

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)


MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Council Chambers, November 29, 2012

His chronic contempt for the City of Toronto’s Integrity Commissioner! The trampling of all of these rules!

It’s clear in Rob Ford’s behaviour —and his bully-boy-brother, Doug Ford— that rules are for other people. Not for them. It doesn’t apply to them.

He’s Above the Rules.

To me, Rob Ford did violate the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. And he did it on purpose.

But as God is anyone’s witness, I never thought that the Judge would therefore drop down the hammer and vacate the Mayor’s seat.

Never in a million years.

And a lot of people are in shock.

You know, that’s kind of the stupidity of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act—that there was only one penalty, which is removal of office.

Commissioner Douglas J. Cunningham, statement regarding findings of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Mississauga Council Chambers, October 3, 2011

There is still a role for the MCIA, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Having said that, where a member has acted in contravention of the conflict of interest provisions in the Act, currently removal from office is the only sanction. I believe that lesser sanctions should be made available, for example, suspension of the member, a form of probation or a public reprimand.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Council Chambers, November 29, 2012

And the other thing about the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. It was first passed in 1972. And 1972 is an interesting time.

You had John Robarts being the Premier of Ontario in 1971 and then 1972 you had Bill Davis take over the Premiership.

But it was clearly kind of something—a piece of legislation that’s passed in 1972. Guaranteed it will have been talked about and kneaded and molded as early as 1970-71.  But—

I don’t know what those people were thinking back then—the only penalty is going to be removal of Office?

Removal of Office is—is something I don’t think any judiciary really wants to go with.

Was it willful?

In Rob Ford’s case, it’s willful. because pretty much every day he does this—


—to the rules and the standards of behaviour at the City of Toronto. Including the Council Code of Conduct.

This guy does not do Rules.


Last, I just want to add, for the record, this video of Peter Akman, ‏CBC News Reporter & Video Journalist, asking Hazel McCallion, Councillors Pat Mullin and Nando Iannicca about the Mayor’s upcoming Conflict of Interest hearing.

And gets almost some answers.

CBC NEWS interviews Hazel McCallion, Pat Mullin and Nando Iannicca about Conflict of Interest (3:00 min)

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)








City of Mississauga’s new Integrity Commissioner, Robert J. Swayze did not perform due diligence –neither did Governance Committee

September 17th, 2012  

Back in June the City of Mississauga announced that it had hired Robert J. Swayze as its new Integrity Commissioner.

I’m reminded of what Mayor Hazel McCallion said at the March 17, 2008 Audit Committee meeting.

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

On September 17, 2012 the Mississauga Governance Committee provided Robert J. Swayze with his first opportunity to demonstrate that McCallion had hired an Integrity Commissioner who is sensitive to the fact that he is dealing with the public and will give them every understanding possible.

The June 20, 2012 press release City of Mississauga Appoints Integrity Commissioner at the City’s website announcing states:

“Mr. Swayze possesses significant experience in the practice of municipal law, both in private practice and as previous City Solicitor in two municipalities,” said City Solicitor Mary Ellen Bench. “He currently serves as Integrity Commissioner to a number of municipalities including Oakville, Guelph, Brantford, Port Hope and Carleton Place. He is certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a specialist in municipal law. Staff will work with Mr. Swayze over the summer and report back to Council in the fall concerning recommendations to amend the Code of Conduct for Mayor and Members of Council.”

Nothing there about Robert J. Swayze being appointed an Integrity Commissioner because in addition to his expertise in municipal law, he is also sensitive to the fact that he is dealing with the public and will give them every understanding possible.

But most certainly Mr. Swayze’s September 7, 2012  “First Report of the Integrity Commissioner” will provide the necessary evidence that Mayor Hazel McCallion ensured that Mississauga residents will be served by an integrity commissioner who is sensitive to the fact that he is dealing with the public and will, over his five year term, give us every understanding possible. Right?

The reality is that the very moment that the reader gets past these headers of Swayze’s report:

DATE: September 7,2012
TO:  Chair and members of the Governance Committee Meeting Date: September 17, 2012
FROM: Robert J. Swayze Integrity Commissioner
SUBJECT: First Report of the Integrity Commissioner

to RECOMMENDATIONS, it is Robert J. Swayze sensitive-FAIL/understanding-FAIL and by extension Hazel McCallion-FAIL.

For part of the reason we just need to go back to the City’s news release and the quote from City Solicitor Mary Ellen Bench.

She stated:

“Staff will work with Mr. Swayze over the summer and report back to Council in the fall concerning recommendations to amend the Code of Conduct for Mayor and Members of Council.”

And what is Robert J. Swayze’s first recommendation?


1. That the mandate of the Integrity Commissioner not be
expanded to include investigations of members of City staff;

That’s right. City of Mississauga staff worked with the new Integrity Commissioner over the summer concerning recommendations to amend the Mississauga Council Code of Conduct and apparently recommended that Mr. Swayze not investigate them!

How is City of Mississauga senior staff  working with Integrity Commissioner Swayze on whether to expand his mandate to include investigations of City senior staff not conflict of interest?

And a more troubling question: Why didn’t Robert J. Swayze, (who is also the Integrity Commissioner for Oakville, Guelph, Brantford, Port Hope and Carleton Place) recognize that working with City of Mississauga staff on whether he should investigate them as a conflict of interest?

It’s easy to demonstrate that Robert J. Swayze did not perform due diligence prior to writing his September 7, 2012  “First Report of the Integrity Commissioner” to the Governance Committee.

Neither did Councillor Frank Dale, Ward 4, Councillor Katie Mahoney, Ward 8, and Mayor Hazel McCallion, who all participated in the March 17, 2008 Audit Committee meeting where McCallion said:

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

Last, also for the record —from the Mississauga News June 20, 2012 article, “City appoints integrity commissioner”:

He is being paid a $24,000 annual retainer, which will cover the costs of all inquiries that do not require extensive research (less than one hour), a $1,500 block fee for providing educational sessions of half a day and $280 per hour for services outside the above.

The City has budgeted $100,000 for the role of the integrity commission for each year.

All those bucks and City of Mississauga staff still “investigate” themselves. And to be clear, that’s not allegation but Fact.



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

January 8th, 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.

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 7 begins)

Rule No. 2

Gifts and Benefits:

1. No Member shall accept a fee, advance, cash, gift, gift certificate or personal benefit that is
connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his/her duties of office unless
permitted by the exceptions listed below. No Member shall accept the use of property or
facilities, such as a vehicle, office or vacation property at less than reasonable market value
or at no cost.

For these purposes, a fee or advance paid to or a gift or benefit provided with the
Member’s knowledge to a Family Member or to a Member’s staff that is connected
directly or indirectly to the performance of the Member’s duties, is deemed to be a gift to
that Member.

The following are recognized as exceptions:

a. compensation authorized by law;

b. such gifts or benefits that normally accompany the responsibilities of office and are
received as an incident of protocol or social obligation;

c. a political contribution otherwise reported by law, in the case of Members running for

[CITIZEN ALERT! Item c, “a political contribution otherwise reported by law, in the case of Members running for office” is also a political contribution to the Power of Incumbency.  And contributions can take can take varied and subtle forms.

Having researched the “Friends of Hazel” it’s surprising how many political “contributors” to McCallion-approved-councillors‘ campaigns are public relations spinmeisters. And graphics designers and printers! Not surprising is that the most fanatic of these “Team Hazel” graphic designers/printers-supporters also design and print City-event glossy brochures and reports!

And let’s not forget the most prevalent political contributions  to Team Hazel that few even notice: the soldier-ant highly-orchestrated support that the Mayor and Her Councillors enjoy from the Mississauga Board of Trade and the Mississauga Chinese Business Association.

Another significant source of McCallion’s support that goes unnoticed are the number of high profile “Friends of Hazel” who are real estate agents!  Team Re/Max and Team  LePage very much double as Team Hazel. Back to Page 7 of the Code.]

d. services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time;

[CITIZEN ALERT! Item d, “services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time” is the biggest loophole in the Mississauga Council Code of Conduct. How often has Mayor Hazel McCallion lavished praise on “community volunteers”? How often has she thanked them for their thousands of “volunteer hours” dedicating themselves to “Mississauga”?

But it’s only when these same “community volunteers” morph into (let’s call them) political volunteers, and provide “services without compensation” to Hazel McCallion and Her Councillors that their true value becomes apparent. The Mayor’s Power of Incumbency begins and rests on “d. services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time”. Back to Page 7 of the Code.]

e. a suitable memento of a function honouring the Member;

f. food, lodging, transportation and entertainment provided by Provincial, Regional and
local governments or political subdivisions of them, by the Federal government or by a
foreign government within a foreign country or by a conference, seminar or event
organizer where the Member is either speaking or attending in an official capacity at an
official event;

g. food and beverages consumed at banquets, receptions or similar events, if:

i. attendance serves a legitimate business purpose;

ii. the person extending the invitation or a representative of the organization is in
attendance; and

iii. the value is reasonable and the invitations infrequent;

h. communication to the offices of a Member, including subscriptions to newspapers, and
periodicals; and

i. sponsorships and donations for community events organized or run by a Member or by
a third party on behalf of a Member and subject to the limitations set out in the Code of
Conduct respecting Council Member-organized community events, where all costs are
incurred and where all such events occur on or before Nomination Day.

[CITIZEN ALERT! Item i’s “sponsorships and donations for community events organized or run by a Member or by a third party on behalf of a Member ” is another loophole.

In yesterday’s blog, I wrote, “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”.

When you see “community events” in this Code, the City really means “campaign events” in non-election years.

Next. Re-read the Citizen Alerts for Items c and d. Item c’s “a political contribution otherwise reported by law, in the case of Members running for office” and the biggest loophole, Item d’s “services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time” all figure prominently in the Power of Incumbency.

For example, the Mayor’s Gala describes itself as “Mississauga’s premier social event of the year.” The Mayor’s Gala relies on “sponsorships and donations”, and is “organized or run by a third party on behalf of the Mayor”.   The annual Mayor’s Gala falls under the Code’s definition of “community event” yet you’d be hard-pressed to find more political scuttling, lobbying and campaigning under any one roof in Ontario than November Gala night.

As for the Code’s silly “subject to the limitations set out in the Code of Conduct respecting Council Member-organized community events, where all costs are incurred and where all such events occur on or before Nomination Day”,  “services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time” are incalculable —easily fudged. And don’t take my word for it.

Here’s what the Community Foundation of Mississauga has to say about the difficulty of attaching monetary value to volunteer services.

2 i  Donated Services

The Board of Directors and other volunteers contribute services to the Foundation
in carrying out its operating activities. Because of the difficulty in determining the
fair value of these contributed services, they are not recognized in the financial

The Community Foundation of Mississauga‘s admission that it has “difficulty in determining the fair value of these contributed services” means there’s plenty of room to low-ball volunteer services (ie: “Friends of Hazel” Rally, Mayor’s Gala, Golf Tournaments, Safe City Mississauga events…).

Bottomline, the “Friends of Hazel” volunteer services lavished on the Mayor and Her Councillors are incalculable.

What monetary value, for example, would you put on “volunteer”, Ted Woloshyn, McCallion’s personal columnist at the Toronto Sun? Or “volunteer”, Jake Dheer, McCallion’s very own TV station manager? Back to Page 7 of the Code.]





Members should be transparent in their dealings with the public, and neither a Member of
Council or the City should handle funds on behalf of any organizations. Members should
remain at arm’s length from the financial aspects of these events and initiatives.

[NOTE. Do you know what “at arm’s length” means? Because I don’t!

And a reminder. I’ve frequently said that Freedom of Information confirms the degree to which City Staff fail to comply with Corporate policies, procedures, by-laws, guidelines and even provincial legislation. I’m also on record as saying that some of the City’s elected officials have “infinite capacity to pervert”. Surely there’s nothing easier to pervert than “at arm’s length”!

Can there be a more deceptive non-unit of measure than the length of an “arm”?! Especially in the Ontario municipal realm of unaccountable spitzbuben?  Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

a) Members may use their office expense budget to run or support local charities and
community events subject to the terms of the Elected Officials’ Expenses policy;

b) Members may urge constituents, businesses and other groups to support community events
put on by others in the Member’s ward or elsewhere in the City;

[CITIZEN ALERT! Re-read b) only this time, replace “community events” with “campaign events in non-election years”. Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

c) Members may work with community groups to assist them in finding sponsors and
participants to support community events put on by the community group in the Member’s
ward or elsewhere in the City.

[CITIZEN ALERT! Need I say this? Re-read b) only this time, replace “community events” with “campaign events in non-election years”. Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

d) Members may play an advisory or membership role in any organization that holds
community events in the Member’s ward; and

[CITIZEN ALERT! By now when you see “community events” you should automatically be converting to “campaign events in non-election years”. Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

e) Members may collaborate with the City and its agencies to hold community events and
may participate in the City’s Festival Funding Review Committee and other events
approved by City Council.

[CITIZEN ALERT! “Community events” = “campaign events in non-election years”. Note: The City’s Festival Funding Review Committee determines what groups are worthy of funding (and by how much) based on their political clout and/or campaign contributions. Best example, compare what the City’s Festival Funding Review Committee granted the Malton Community Festival versus any festival squawking for grant money south of the QEW. Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

2. In the case of exceptions claimed under categories 1. b, e, f, g, h and i,

a) where the value of the gift or benefit exceeds $500, or if the total value received from
any one source during the course of a calendar year exceeds $500, the Members shall
within 30 days of receipt of the gift or reaching the annual limit, list the gift or benefit
on a Councillor Information Statement in a form prescribed by the Integrity
Commissioner, and file it with the Integrity Commissioner.

[NOTE. 2 a’s, “where the value of the gift or benefit exceeds $500” translates to Members accept gifts or benefits not exceeding $499.99 so they won’t have to file with the Integrity Commissioner. Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

b) Subsection a) does not apply to the receipt of up to two tickets to a dinner or
fundraising, as long as the Member is attending only one such event with the same
individual or corporation within any calendar year.

c) For clarification, Members are authorized to receive gifts, mementos and benefits
which are common to receive in the normal course of fulfilling their duties. Members
are not obliged to list on a Councillor Information Statement or anywhere else, a record
of their receipt, unless the total value of such gifts or benefits received from any one
source in a calendar year exceeds $500.

[NOTE. 2 c’s, Regarding, “Members are not obliged to list on a Councillor Information Statement or anywhere else, a record of their receipt, unless the total value of such gifts or benefits received from any one source in a calendar year exceeds $500.”   Told ya! Back to Page 8 of the Code.]

3. On receiving a Councillor Information Statement, the Integrity Commissioner shall
examine it to determine whether the receipt of the gift or benefit might, in the opinion of
the Integrity Commissioner, create a conflict between a private interest and the public duty
of the Member. In the event that the Integrity Commissioner makes that preliminary
determination, he/she shall call upon the Member to justify receipt of the gift or benefit.




4. Should the Integrity Commissioner determine the receipt was inappropriate, the Integrity
Commissioner may direct the Member to return the gift, reimburse the donor for the value
of any gift or benefit already consumed, or the Integrity Commissioner may order the
Member to forfeit the gift or remit the value of any gift or benefit already consumed to the
City, or a City agency, board or commission. Any such direction ordered by the Integrity
Commissioner shall be a matter of public record.

5. Beginning April 30, 2011 and quarterly thereafter, each Member shall file a Councillor
Information Statement with Integrity Commissioner and all such statements shall be a
matter of public record.

[NOTE. With Page 9’s Item’s 4 and 5, I’m sure you can feel there’s integrity happening, right?  Back to Page 9 of the Code.]


Gifts and benefits are often received by elected officials in the course of their duties and
attendance at public functions is expected and is considered part of their role. Business-related
entertainment and gift-giving can be a token of respect and admiration for the elected official,
but can also be seen as an instrument of influence and manipulation. The object of this rule is
to provide transparency around the receipt of incidental gifts and benefits and to establish a
threshold where the total value could be perceived as potentially influencing a decision.

[NOTE.  Regarding, “gift-giving can be a token of respect and admiration for the elected official, but can also be seen as an instrument of influence and manipulation.” Was there ever a Mississauga “gift-giver” who’d admit his gift was specifically contrived to be an instrument of influence and manipulation?  Back to Page 9 of the Code.]

The practical problems that nominal gifts and benefits create require a Code of Conduct that
provides clarity and transparency. Personal integrity and sound business practices require that
relationships with developers, vendors, contractors or others doing business with the City be
such that no Member of Council is perceived as showing favouritism or bias toward the giver.
There will never be a perfect solution.

[CITIZEN ALERT.  Reminder that I’d warned readers that no word makes it into any of the City’s Corporate documents/communication without the carefullest of deliberation. Reminder too that it’s not what the City tells you that citizens need to know, it’s what they don’t!

The Code’s statement, “Personal integrity and sound business practices require that relationships with developers, vendors, contractors or others doing business with the City be such that no Member of Council is perceived as showing favouritism or bias toward the giver” is true. Personal integrity and sound business practices does require “that no Member of Council is perceived as showing favouritism or bias toward the giver.”

The problem is what the City and this Code don’t tell you: This City was built on unfettered nepotism, cronyism and favouritism! I’m not even sure they could operate aboveboard and truthfully.

Back to Page 9 of the Code.]

Each Member of Council is individually accountable to the public and is encouraged to keep a
list of all gifts and benefits received from individuals, firms or associations, with estimated
values, in their offices for review by the Integrity Commissioner in the event of a complaint.

Those gifts or benefits that exceed $500 or the annual limit of $500 for one source, need to be
kept on a form prescribed by the Integrity Commissioner and filed with the Integrity
Commissioner on a quarterly basis to ensure transparency.

Examples of gifts that are required to be listed on the Councillor Information Statement may

i) property (i.e. a book, flowers, gift basket, painting or sculpture, furniture, wine);

ii) membership in a club or other organization (i.e. a golf club) at a reduced rate or at no

iii) an invitation to and/or tickets to attend an event (i.e. a sports event, concert, play) at a
reduced rate or no cost;

iv) or an invitation to attend a gala or fundraising event at a reduced rate or at no cost.

Use of real estate or significant assets or facilities (i.e. a vehicle, office, vacation property) at a
reduced rate or at no cost is not an acceptable gift or benefit. Having said that, it has to be




recognized that Members of Council will have friends and will develop friendships with
individuals who may from time to time have business relationships that will involve the City in
some way. The purpose of the Code is not to prohibit Members from accepting all invitations
to socialize at a vacation property of personal friends.


Proper caution and diligence must however be exercised when a social function occurs within
close proximity to the individual having an issue before City Council or staff for approval. It
is always prudent to consult with the Integrity Commissioner before accepting or attending at
any such engagements.


Any doubts about the propriety of a gift should be resolved in favour of not accepting it or not
keeping it. It may be helpful to consult with the Integrity Commissioner when a Member
chooses to decline a gift as well as when a recipient may opt to keep a gift.


An invitation to attend a function where the invitation is directly or indirectly with the
Member’s duties of office is not considered to be a gift but is the fulfillment of an official
function or duty. An invitation to attend a function with a developer or supplier, however,
could be seen as allowing the giver an opportunity to influence the elected official. Such
invitations should only be accepted if the invitation is within the scope of permissible gifts and
benefits, meaning that Members should not consistently accept invitations from the same
individual or corporation and should avoid any appearance of favouritism.

[Hmmm. The Mississauga Chinese Business Association comes to mind here…. Back to Page 9 of the Code.]

For clarification, an invitation to an event celebrating the successful completion of a
development or project or the opening of a new business within the Member’s ward on the
other hand could serve a legitimate business purpose and be seen as part of the responsibilities
of office provided the person extending the invitation or that person’s representative is in


An invitation to attend a charity golf tournament or fund-raising gala, provided the Member of
Council is not consistently attending such events as a guest of the same individual or
corporation, is also part of the responsibilities of holding public office. Likewise, accepting
invitations to professional sports events, concerts or dinners may serve a legitimate business
purpose. Where a Member is uncertain in regards to whether an invitation is or is not
appropriate, it may be prudent to consult with the Integrity Commissioner before attending any
such event.

[CITIZEN HEADS-UP! Regarding, “provided the Member of Council is not consistently attending such events as a guest of the same individual or corporation”:  http://amazing-women.ca   Back to Page 9 of the Code.]

Regular invitations to lunch or dinner with persons who are considered friends of Members of
Council is acceptable in situations where the Member pays their portion of the meal expense
and treats it as a personal expense, meaning a claim is not made under the Elected Officials’
Expenses policy. Proper caution and diligence not to discuss matters before the City for a
decision must be exercised at all times. Again, when in doubt it is prudent to consult with the
Integrity Commissioner.

[CITIZEN ALERT. Regarding, “Proper caution and diligence not to discuss matters before the City for a decision must be exercised at all times.” Like that’s enforceable.]





TOM URBANIAK MISSISSAUGA "media-barren environment" HAZEL MCCALLION, RON LENYK (former publisher Mississauga News) JAKE DHEER (station manager ROGERS CABLE 10 Mississauga) and "Friend of Hazel" TED WOLOSHYN (TORONTO SUN columnist
“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


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)

Larry Taylor, Mayor Hazel McCallion’s “problem child”-councillor dies: a dedication

June 23rd, 2011  

Mississauga News, “Councillor fought for ideals”

Larry Taylor. Former Ward 4 Councillor Larry Taylor died this morning after a lengthy battle with cancer. Mississauga News File photo

By: John Stewart

Former Ward 4 Councillor Larry Taylor, a political idealist who fought for the environment, social housing and inclusive municipal planning policies in an era when those ideas were considered radical, died this morning.

Taylor, 62, was a long-time member of the NDP party who pulled off a stunning upset of incumbent Councillor Caye Killaby in 1976. He died of lung cancer in a hospice in Barrie, where he had lived for many years. Taylor had fought three different types of cancer since 1998.

In a telephone interview from his hospital room last month, Taylor said he had few regrets about a life that revolved predominantly around politics. He was involved in at least 38 different campaigns as candidate, campaign manager or organizer and ran provincially and federally for the NDP several times, most recently in Barrie in 2007…


I met Larry Taylor —only once, and let’s just say that we compared notes…

Mr. Taylor is a Mississauga finestkind.

I prepared this video reading from two passages about Larry Taylor from Tom Urbaniak’s book, Her Worship: Hazel McCallion and the Development of Mississauga.

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

Larry Taylor, Mayor Hazel McCallion’s “problem child”-councillor dies: a dedication. (7:11 min)

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


MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting inside Mississauga Council Chambers, June 22, 2011)

It is June 22nd 2011 and Council has just adjourned and I want to pay my respects to former councillor Larry Taylor. I only had the privilege of meeting him once but I can tell you —he’s finestkind.

And I want to read from Tom Urbaniak’s book, “Her Worship: Hazel McCallion and the Development of Mississauga”.

He talks about Larry Taylor on page 115 and I want to read it now.

Hazel McCallion emerged from that 1982 election with an extremely strong hand. The old establishment had opposed her. Her old enemies had resurfaced to oppose her. One candidate for the Ward 2 council seat expressed alarm at the “Drapeau-like council,” a reference to the domineering Montreal mayor, but that candidate’s vote had been marginal. The only regularly publishing local newspaper had opposed her. A judge had admonished her. And still she cruised to victory. If everyone were against her, it was, to paraphrase John Diefenbaker, everyone except the people.

On city council there was now but one problem child: Larry Taylor. While the conflict-of-interest proceedings had been going on, he had been allowed to snipe from the sidelines. He had even been calling up citizens in all parts of the city to try to set up a Mississauga-wide feder­ation of ratepayers’ organizations. Now, with McCallion presuming herself to be vindicated, he could be taught a lesson. Returning in Feb­ruary 1983 from a stint out of the country, he headed for what he thought would be a regular city council meeting. To his astonishment, the mayor and the other councillors had prepared a most unexpected greeting.

Taylor had helped to start a non-profit newspaper in his ward, a laudable objective in a media-barren environment. He and the volunteers arranged to print it on a city press in exchange for free advertising­ for the municipality.

This now was portrayed as a major scandal. It was ‘theft’ of city resources. Other groups wanting city support had to apply to council for funding. Senior city staff did not use the word ‘theft,’ but they gravely confirmed that Taylor had been following a rather irregular procedure. The newspaper stopped printing. The city-wide ratepayers’ association concept was also fatally attacked. By trying to set one up, Taylor had supposedly been interfering inappropriately in the business of other wards. The embattled councillor would henceforth be contained.

The Mississauga News for its part was not much of a threat to the mayor now. If sometimes it would report some controversial com­ments, these were always offset by the numerous feel-good photo­graphs of the mayor at one function or another. When McCallion released only a partial list of her campaign donors from the 1982 campaign despite promising full disclosure, it merited only a blip. When an inquest into a fatal fire revealed the city to be short of bylaw staff none of the discussion redounded onto the mayor’s penny-pinching. When social service agencies complained that not enough was being done to build healthy and cohesive neighbourhoods, they were but voices in the wilderness.

And it goes on and on.

So Larry Taylor had been a “problem child” councillor to Hazel McCallion.

And then there’s one more that I want to read now. And it’s on page 134-135. Right there.

In 1984, when the mayor’s own property was rezoned to allow for single-family homes (the same property that had been at the centre the conflict-of-interest case), no one appeared at the statutory (public) meeting in order to complain. That property was still surrounded by open fields. (This time, McCallion declared her conflict of interest.)

I mean we’re talking about something that happened in the 80’s here.

As a sign that visible opposition seemed to be draining away, McCallion finally even calculated that she could move on Larry Taylor. Waiting until just a few days before the 1988 election, she sent a letter at city expense and on mayoral letterhead to Taylor’s constituents, accusing the councillor of telling ‘a lie’—

And if you see ‘a lie’ is there in quotes. So clearly it was McCallion using that term.

—’a lie’ when he blamed council for being politically motivated in rejecting his request for a stop sign. The furious and now imperiled councillor charged that this last-minute missive was ‘calculated’ to prevent him from responding, that it was an inappropriate use of public money, and that McCallion had prevailed upon Mississauga News publisher Ron Lenyk to endorse challenger Frank Dale. (Lenyk denied being pressured by the mayor.)

Now, there’s one thing that is very clear and that is the degree to which Ron Lenyk, former publisher of the Mississauga News, is an extremely close friend and supporter of McCallion.

It would be for example, if I were Mayor or any kind of politician and I would want someone to be a publisher of the only newspaper in my city, I’d pick someone like Lenyk.

And the story of Ron Lenyk can be seen in the photographs of the Mayor’s galas going all the way back to 1987, the first Mayor’s gala all the way downward.

And when you see Ron Lenyk in there or if you see video of the “Starr’s on the Credit” 2008 video highlights, Ron Lenyk’s performances on documentaries—

Ron Lenyk, speaking on Mayor’s promotional documentary (shown at Hazel McCallion’s $350.00 a ticket birthday bash, February 12, 2011)

Hazel, she’d always was [sic] around the action. She was the action. She was the centre of the action. So Media found her, as you said, a media darling.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting inside Mississauga Council Chambers, June 22, 2011)

How could you not be mayor for three decades when you’ve got Ron Lenyk in your pocket as the only local newspaper —and on the other side, you’ve got Jake Dheer (laughs) as the only “television station”.

Jake Dheer, speaking on Mayor’s promotional documentary (shown at Hazel McCallion’s $350.00 a ticket birthday bash, February 12, 2011)

“The Mayor’s Hour” is the longest running show on Rogers TV and I think, probably the longest-running that any mayor has ever had.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting inside Mississauga Council Chambers, June 22, 2011)

It is so pathetic! So pathetic, this place.

Mississauga is just a huge company town!

[Mark Knopfler, “Don’t Crash the Ambulance”]


Toronto Sun columnist Ted Woloshyn at 2003 Mayor's Gala. For "context" when reading Ted Woloshyn's columns on Hazel McCallion, this lapdog pic will put things in perspective!

UPDATE  June 24, 2011  12:06 am.

The Mississauga News created a wonderful editorial “Taylor was an original” honouring former Mississauga Councillor Larry Taylor. It begins:

Former Ward 6 Councillor Carolyn Parrish is a colourful and controversial character who could cause a mighty ruckus at City Hall — but she couldn’t hold a candle to Larry Taylor.
Taylor was an original.

Back in the day (1976-88), the former Ward 4 Councillor sparked (and revelled in) one furious debate after another in Council Chambers — much to Mayor Hazel McCallion’s chagrin. At the time, his revolutionary and often unwelcome ideas about preserving the environment, municipal planning and social policies were considered radical.

Taylor’s flair for dramatic oratory and his frequent criticism of City policies at council meetings and in the press often landed him in trouble with his colleagues.

Notice reference to Taylor’s, “frequent criticism of City policies”… And that was back in the 80’s!

HAZEL MCCALLION QUOTE ON STAFF NON-COMPLIANCE TO POLICIES (AUDIT COMMITTEE 090511) "There seems to be a complete disregard for policy."

At the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, citizens were more likely to hear the two words, “Fuck Off” than “Ontario Ombudsman”.

March 6th, 2011  

This Blog is meant to be a companion piece to the Mississauga News’ March 1, 2011 editorial, “Probe a costly mistake”.

Regarding the City of Mississauga’s new $625.00 an hour integrity commissioner, the editorial states:

“The situation is ludicrous. The previous council rushed Rust-D’Eye’s interim appointment through at the last minute and now we’re paying the price. Literally.
Where’s the integrity in that?

By acting rashly, they eliminated the necessary competition for this key position. Surely there must be a qualified candidate out there who is willing to sort out sticky ethical questions at City Hall for half the fee we’re paying Rust-D’Eye.”

“rushed”, “acting rashly” —true and then some. But you have to ask why. Why did City Staff recommend $625.00 an hour George Rust-D’Eye? And above all, why did the previous Council bulldoze-rush installing an integrity commissioner?

It turns out an obscure item in the City’s Budget Agenda last week provides the answer. Damage Control!

Watch and learn, junior. Watch and learn.

The video, followed by the transcript.

At the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry we were more likely to hear “Fuck Off” than “Ontario Ombudsman” (3:46 min)

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


MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reading from the Budget Agenda while Mississauga Council is in-camera, March 2, 2011)

Office of the Integrity Commissioner. But let’s read it because this is a lot of fun!

“The integrity commissioner is not a mandatory position and the Municipal Act 2001 even allows this role to be performed by a staff person.”

That’s right. Mike Harris’ 2001 Municipal Act even allows the integrity commissioner of a municipality to be the municipality’s own employee. Think about it!

“There are too many pitfalls and potential to putting staff in this position, assuming you could find someone who would do it.”

I can think of four people already who would do it. The Security Bosses around here.

Next. (laughs) You know, you gotta laugh because this place is like so absurd!


“The expert panel that testified at the Judicial Inquiry praised the work we had done in putting a Council Code of Conduct and Integrity Commissioner in place.”

That’s right. The panel of experts at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry —and the entire time they were in a panel discussion, not once did you hear the two words that were really important —”Ontario Ombudsman”. In fact we were more likely to hear at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry the two words, “Fuck Off” than “Ontario Ombudsman”.

And then it says:

“If the City was to now to delete it—”

Meaning The Office,

“—the Commissioner would likely be very critical when he reports his findings, as would the media, and the public. In addition, if there was enough criticism, there is potential for the Province to come in and make the position mandatory, as it is in Toronto.”

—meaning if the City doesn’t have a pretend integrity commissioner in, there’s a real danger that the Province will butt in.

What you’re dealing with here is a Stage 2 Moral Development.

“They could quickly enact an amendment to the Municipal Act to apply specifically to Mississauga if they wanted to, and they could justify it based on the findings of the Judicial Inquiry and the Commissioner’s report. This is a worse case scenario.”

Actually, notice it’s “worse case”? A “worse case” scenario?

Cuz the worst case scenario for the City of Mississauga is for the Province to say “Enough’s enough. We are going to extend the Ontario Ombudsman’s investigative authority into Municipalities.”

But I’d have to say that the greatest horror that the City of Mississauga would have is if Andre Marin were to come in here, kick down the doors with his subpoena powers and say, “I’m investigating you people.”

Boy would I love to see that! God would I love to see that! But it isn’t going to happen.

In the meantime we’re going to have a lot of Pretend. OH! And something else! Just for the record.

Where it says:

“If the City was to now to delete it, the Commissioner would likely be very critical when he reports his findings, as would the media, and the public.”

I wouldn’t be critical at all. I don’t support that use of an integrity commissioner at the City of Mississauga. I think that that’s $100,000 flushed when you could have the Ontario Ombudsman dealing with all 440 municipalities.

So I’m opposed to allowing municipalities to hire their own integrity commissioner.

Or that said, yes, hire one, but also have the Ontario Ombudsman come in because you can’t trust Ontario municipalities to even hire their own integrity commissioners. And worse is now to have some kind of a structure being developed by AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) again to create the illusion of accountability. It’s Local Authority Services all over again.




Worse than Bad.

[Music:“Don’t Crash the Ambulance” by Mark Knopfler]

Another MYTHissauga Motivation question.

Click here for larger (986 X 627) version

Mississauga Council presentation on Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest: the McLean & Kerr Report –Setting the Record Straight

February 22nd, 2011  

Today’s Blog is just for the historical record and will be included in the February 23, 2011 Mississauga Council meeting minutes.


Yesterday, I gave a deputation before City of Mississauga Council and presented a shortened version of the following video.

Because of time constraints, I was not able to include the last 35 second clip of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry involving Elizabeth McIntyre (counsel for Mayor Hazel McCallion) and Ed Sajecki, Mississauga’s Commissioner of Building and Planning to Council yesterday.

The exchange had Ms McIntryre ask Sajecki whether his staff gave any preferential treatment to Peter McCallion’s World Class Developments or whether they, in any way, felt interfered with or influenced around his hotel project.

As always, here is the original-length video —followed the transcript.

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest: the McLean & Kerr Report –Setting the Record Straight (11:07 min)

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

[Note: Inquiry transcripts or McLean & Kerr sometimes used for accuracy purposes]

Freya Kristjanson, counsel for the Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

Okay. If you could turn to the next page then. And again, this is the McLean Kerr summary of what happened on April 30th. At the commencement of the meeting, Acting Mayor Saito stated — called it to order, saying, “My understanding is that Mayor McCallion had declared last week a conflict of interest on this item. So as Acting Mayor, I’ll call the meeting to order and deal with this.”

She then asked for disclosure. She said,”Seeing none, we will accept the Mayor’s previously disclosed conflict of interest if she comes before the meeting is over.”

Do you recall that interchange, the Acting Mayor reaffirming the — Mayor McCallion’s conflict?

Janice Baker, City Manager (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

Again, I have no specific recollection of it, but if the — the record would be accurate, I’m sure.

Freya Kristjanson, counsel for the Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

And if McLean & Kerr, your legal firm, summarized the DVD as such, you’re prepared to accept that’s what happened?

Janice Baker, City Manager (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)


MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting February 21, 2011)

And it isn’t an accurate reflection of what happened on April the 30th and that’s what I want to report on today.

What I have here in front of me is the McLean & Kerr report. If you take a look and you start going now to page 33, you see that McLean & Kerr, write here:

“We have reviewed the Minutes of the meetings and the DVD Recordings of those meetings and in particular those portions of those meetings relation to WCD’S involvement in the Property.”

So again, there’s the statement that they have reviewed the minutes and also the DVD.

So you get right away into the April 23rd meeting of Council and they say the following about the minutes of that meeting.

Mayor McCallion disclosed here conflict of interest. Barry Lyons Consultants addressed Council. Councillor Dale made comments relating to the development application. And a resolution to defer to a Special Council Meeting on April the 30th was voted on.

And I have here the April 23, 2008 minutes. There it is. “World Class Developments” and it does show here that there’s a declaration.

The item there, Item I, and it talks about Barry Lyons and it does mention that Councillor Dale had welcomed the development of the application. And then on top of it, a resolution to defer.

So for the April 23rd, 2008 Council, McLean & Kerr’s summary of the Minutes are accurate.

And you check the DVD recording —then they start putting down a transcript of the Mayor had actually said. And then three and a half hours into the meeting, the Mayor had stated the following —the Mayor then left the meeting.

And the DVD shows that Barry Lyons was there and then indeed Councillor Dale had made comments about the “destination” and so on. And then also that the results [sic] is that the motions were carried and so on.

So I went and checked this and McLean & Kerr really did do an accurate reflection of both the minutes and reporting on the DVD. The problem starts with April 30th.

April 30th as you can see here is a Special Meeting of Council. McLean & Kerr had only this to say about the minutes of the meeting.

“The Minutes of the Meeting reflect that there was no disclosure of direct or indirect pecuniary interest.”

However when you go to the minutes of the meeting, the April 30th minutes mention Barry Lyons and also that Councillor Dale had made comments. And that’s a significant amount of information right here.

The minutes say, and McLean & Kerr completely leave this out, that:

Councillor Dale moved the request for deferral and asked if the applicant has been granted an extension from the land owners as it was an important point in getting these documents together. He expressed concern that a lot of staff time by various departments has been spent on the subject application to date so that they could meet a development charges deadline. The Ward Councillor stated that he welcomes the hotel into the City Core, however, now that this deadline was no longer an issue, he hoped that they will proceed with their application in a normal manner and suggested that the Commissioner so advise the applicant, with the expectation that the documents will be available for the May 21st. council meeting.

Again, here’s what McLean & Kerr says the minutes said:

“The Minutes of the Meeting reflect that there was no disclosure of direct or indirect pecuniary interest.”

No mention of any kind of comments by Councillor Dale.

So. Perhaps the DVD recording might make mention of it. And McLean & Kerr says the DVD recording reflects that at the commencement, Pat Saito —Councillor Saito said the following. And that is just a summary of what we’d heard at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, I’m going to call to order the meeting of council. We have a special (council) meeting this morning. My understanding is that—

Freya Kristjanson, counsel for the Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

“My understanding is that Mayor McCallion had declared last week a conflict of interest on this item. So as Acting Mayor, I’ll call the meeting to order and deal with this.”

She then asked for disclosure. She said:

“Seeing none, we will accept the Mayor’s previously disclosed conflict of interest if she comes before the meeting is over.”

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting February 21, 2011)

And then the only other thing that McLean & Kerr mention about the DVD is:

“(2) a motion to refer the matter to the May 21, 2008 council meeting was carried.”

That’s it. But that’s not all that happened at that meeting.

What’s interesting is that when you go on to the next meeting —May 7th, they again go to accurately reporting what the minutes said.

And you go to May 21st and again, there’s the minutes of the meeting —are quite accurate, very thorough, what was said. And down here that the Commissioner of Planning advised the applicant. So again you’re back to accurate reflection of the minutes —and the DVD.


MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting February 21, 2011)

What I want to do now for the record is to show what my video camera recorded, April 30th 2008 that did not make it into the McLean/Kerr report.


Councillor Pat Saito (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

Disclosures of direct or indirect pecuniary interest on the item on today’s Council meeting? Seeing none, we have, yes, will accept the Mayor’s previously disclosed conflict of interest if she comes before the meeting is over.

We have one item on the agenda. This was from last week’s Council meeting —the, Barry Lyons Consultants asked that we put this off until the issue of removal of the holding symbol for World Class Developments Limited —that it be put to a Special Council meeting today to give them time to, I guess, get their ducks in a row, Councillor Dale?

Um, it is an information item that I have on the agenda this morning and —they are basically saying that they are unable to fulfill the approval requirements in time for today’s meeting. So they’re asking us to once again defer the item until the May 21st Council meeting.

Councillor Dale, do you wish to speak to this?

Councillor Frank Dale (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

I do and I will –I’ll move it, the deferral.

I just have first a question to Staff. Do you know if they’ve granted an extension with OMERS with respect to the Purchase of Sale?

Ed Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

I don’t know the details of their arrangements with OMERS—

Councillor Frank Dale (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

Because I think that’s–

Ed Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

I think that they have indicated that [inaudible] as a possibility but whether it’s happening, I don’t know the specifics.

Councillor Frank Dale (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

Because I think it’s important to know because, whether or not there will be another Council meeting, or whether they will  be here on May 21st or not.

And I just –and the only thing I just want to say is I know our Staff, particularly the Planning Department Staff as well as our Legal Department Staff worked extremely hard to try to accomplish what needed to be done in order to remove that “H” symbol and get all the documents in order.

And I think a message should go to them though, cuz they worked a lot of hours –on weekends and the evenings. That if they ‘re gonna come back, you know, basically, I think the reason they were doing it and it makes sense is cuz they wanted to come in under the wire with the development charges.

Well now that they’ve come into effect, I think business as usual. We got a lot of other business in the City Centre –a lot of other business throughout the whole city itself.

And, like, you know, we don’t mind helping people but I think you went over beyond –all of the Staff did to try to get this come before us in time for them to, I guess pay less development charges than would be come May 1st.

So I just think a message should go out to them that we have no problem if they come back because we certainly would welcome the opportunity to have hotel, hopefully a 5-Class Star in the City Centre.

But I think a message should go to them. But I—

Ed Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

[inaudible] I’ll pass that message on. I do want to also add that [inaudible] and Community Services have also been involved in it. Legal for sure. Burning the midnight oil over the weekend. But several departments in addition too. Thanks.

Councillor Pat Saito (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

Okay. Thank you. Councillor Dale, are you then moving receipt and I guess Madam Clerk, we need to refer it to —oh, you’re writing a motion for it. Thank you, so that will be referred then. The Motion will be referring it to the 21st?

And that’s basically what’s in the Motion? Okay.

Uh, Councillor Dale has moved that Motion then of receipt and referral to the May 21st Council meeting. Receipt of the correspondence that’s in our Agenda. Any questions?

All in favour? Opposed? That carries. Thank you.

“Don’t Crash the Ambulance” by Mark Knopfler]

Elizabeth McIntyre, counsel for the Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

Now you have indicated that the WCD did not get any preferential treatment from city staff around this project. Is that right?

Ed Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008)

That’s right.

Elizabeth McIntyre, counsel for the Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

And I understand that you asked your staff directly whether or not they felt that there was any — any interference or influence that they felt, correct?

Ed Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008)

I did ask that question, yes.

Elizabeth McIntyre, counsel for the Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

And what response did you get, sir?

Ed Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008)

They said they did not feel in any way, you know, influenced.


Additional Resources

The McLean-Kerr Legal Opinion, September 24, 2009 (PDF)

HAZEL MCCALLION'S LIE AT THE MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY. City Staff are "very professional and they follow the policies very, very, very diligently. "

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Commissioner Cunningham asks, “Without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you really think that these large entities would have paid any attention to WCD?”

February 9th, 2011  

Well, yesterday someone finally raised the salient point at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. The good news is that that “someone” was Commissioner J. Douglas Cunningham.

He simply asked “without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor” whether such large pension funds as OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) and AIMCo (Alberta Investment Management Corporation) would have paid any attention to a no-assets no-history “shell” company like World Class Developments.

So here’s the video followed by the transcript. Note, video also features OMERS CEO, Michael Nobrega receiving a congratulatory thank you hug from Mayor Hazel McCallion after his performance at the January 22, 2009 Enersource public meeting.

Mississauga Inquiry 7-Million dollar question “Without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the mayor” (2:30 min)

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


Commissioner J. Douglas Cunningham to Elizabeth McIntyre, Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, Tuesday, February 8, 2011)

Do you think that Mr. Nobrega, OMERS, Oxford would have paid any attention at all to WCD, this shell company, coming out nowhere with no apparent assets and unknown principals, that’s ALS, coming forward with a proposal to develop a hotel convention centre, condominium project, no history of having ever done any of this kind of work previously?

And this isn’t something that OMERS, Oxford, AIMCo had put out for tender. This was something that came out of the blue from this company. Now, Mr. Lax would characterize it as the Mayor having created this one (1) horse race. But putting that aside, without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you really think that these large entities would have paid any attention to WCD?

Elizabeth McIntyre, Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, Tuesday, February 8, 2011)

Well, I –um.

[Music: Mark Knopfler “Don’t Crash the Ambulance”]

Commissioner J. Douglas Cunningham to Elizabeth McIntyre, Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, Tuesday, February 8, 2011)

Do you think that Mr. Nobrega, OMERS, Oxford would have paid any attention at all to WCD, this shell company, coming out nowhere with no apparent assets and unknown principals, that’s ALS, coming forward with a proposal to develop a hotel convention centre, condominium project, no history of having ever done any of this kind of work previously?

And this isn’t something that OMERS, Oxford, AIMCo had put out for tender. This was something that came out of the blue from this company. Now, Mr. Lax would characterize it as the Mayor having created this one (1) horse race. But putting that aside, without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you really think that these large entities would have paid any attention to WCD?



"OMERS CEO Michael Nobrega and Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion in congratulatory hug after Enersource public meeting January 22" 2009

What follows is a cut-and-paste from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website —and the Closing Submissions by Hazel McCallion’s lawyer, Ms. Elizabeth McIntyre. It’s instructive to examine how Ms. McIntyre successfully avoided answering Commissioner Cunningham’s direct Yes/No question, “Without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you really think that these large entities would have paid any attention to WCD?”

The Mayor’s lawyer counters with a Bullshit-Baffles-Brains approach and in avoiding the Commissioner’s simple Yes/No question even serves up two “the question is” that turn out not to be Cunningham’s question at all!

Unbelievably after four minutes avoiding Cunningham’s question, McIntyre then offers, “So that’s the best I can answer the question”. She then follows that up with “we’ve prepared a chart, which we can — which I plan to — to hand out that — that –” and we never did get her answer to “Without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you really think that these large entities would have paid any attention to WCD?”

Did the Commissioner notice McIntyre’s avoidance strategy?

We submit there’s Hope. Why? Anyone bright enough to ask the salient question, “Without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you really think that these large entities would have paid any attention to WCD?” with also recognize McIntyre’s four minutes of acrobatics for exactly what it was. Her way of avoiding, “No.”

So here it is. The exchange between the Commissioner and Hazel’s lawyer.

  2                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Do you
  3  think that Mr. Nobrega, OMERS, Oxford would have paid any
  4  attention at all to WCD, this shell company, coming out
  5  nowhere with no apparent assets and unknown principals,
  6  that's ALS, coming forward with a proposal to develop a
  7  hotel convention centre, condominium project, no history
  8  of having ever done any of this kind of work previously?
  9                 And this isn't something that OMERS,
 10  Oxford, AIMCo had put out for tender.  This was something
 11  that came out of the blue from this company.  Now, Mr.
 12  Lax would characterize it as the Mayor having created
 13  this one (1) horse race.  But putting that aside, without
 14  the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you
 15  really think that these large entities would have paid
 16  any attention to WCD?
 17                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   Well, I -- I
 18  would suggest that on the evidence, the -- the hotel
 19  convention centre was something that the owners
 20  recognized was in their best interest.  It was -- it was
 21  a good use of -- of that land.  The hotel convention
 22  centre was -- was something that would be of value to
 23  them, particularly their interest in Square One.
 24                 In terms of it being a corporation that
 25  was set up for that project, I didn't see anything in the


  1  evidence that suggested that -- that that was unusual; it
  2  -- that there be a corporation put together for a single
  3  purpose.  I assume that -- that the owners would put in
  4  place a -- and they did put in place a contractual
  5  arrangement which they saw as protecting their interest.
  6  And, you know, they saw it as something that was of value
  7  both to -- both to themselves and the City.
  8                 I mean, if the question is, what was the
  9  Mayor's role in jump-starting the project, there's -- and
 10  she has acknowledged this, that she encouraged them to
 11  look at it.  She would have encouraged them to look at
 12  any project that came forward that was proposing to -- to
 13  -- to build a hotel, but then once it's -- once they look
 14  at it it's up to, and I think this is the evidence fairly
 15  of the co-owners, it's up to them to do their -- their
 16  due diligence.
 17                 They did, of course, know Mr. Cook.  They
 18  knew that he had some history, and in fact, I think on
 19  the totality of the evidence that -- that -- that the
 20  project, as originally conceived, would have moved
 21  forward and we might have that hotel/convention centre
 22  there today had not the market crashed and the economy
 23  interceded.
 24                 So, you know, the question is, did they
 25  make a wise business deal based on all of the usual


  1  business considerations, and I think the answer to that
  2  is yes.  You know, we don't have any evidence of other
  3  projects that came forward.  There was nothing else on
  4  offer for -- for that property at the time, we know that.
  5                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   M-hm.
  6                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   So that's the
  7  best that I can answer the question.  In terms of
  8  speculating as to whether -- if the Mayor had not made
  9  the phone call she did, that one (1) phone call, is that
 10  what's responsible for everything that then proceeded.  I
 11  think that it's highly speculative to suggest that that
 12  was the only trigger.
 13                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Oh, no,
 14  she did much more, but I'm -- I'm sure you'll touch on
 15  that.
 16                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   Yes.  And in
 17  fact, we've prepared -- we've prepared a chart, which we
 18  can -- which I plan to -- to hand out that -- that --

E MALAMA KAKOU. To Care For All.


"The TRIUMPH of MYTHissauga" "Justanopinion Aug 12, 2010 6:12 PM Face reality Our mayor could be caught, in the library, with the candlestick in her hand, over the dead body, and she would still win by a landslide! MISSISSAUGA NEWS READERS COMME


“Justanopinion Aug 12, 2010 6:12 PM

Face reality Our mayor could be caught, in the library, with the candlestick in her hand, over the dead body, and she would still win by a landslide!

Hazel McCallion knew precisely what Conflict of Interest is (newly-discovered video confirms)

November 4th, 2010  

Simply by accident I discovered footage of Councillor Maja Prentice and Mayor Hazel McCallion discussing conflict of interest in a May 2008 General Committee meeting. Since General Committees aren’t televised, this video is the only full record in existence of this exchange between the two. It’s crystal clear from what both McCallion and Prentice say that they “get” the concept of conflict of interest.

This video and transcript will be shared with the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry folks, especially Commission Counsel, William McDowell. Oddly, during testimony under oath, the Mayor appeared uncertain as to what conflict of interest was. Clearly she had forgotten that she knew all along!

As per what’s become routine, first the video, then the transcript. And for the record, what the City of Mississauga General Committee minutes record about this Prentice-McCallion “it’s almost like conflict of interest” exchange.

Video: Conflict of Interest: video confirms that Hazel McCallion and Maja Prentice “got” it. (6:39 min)

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


Councillor Pat Saito —Chair (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

On Item 7, then Councillor Prentice? And Councillor Adams if you want to press your button and go back on.

Councillor Maja Prentice (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Thank you, very much and I’ll make my comment first. And I did speak with our City Manager about this when we had our one-on-one.

But, I have a lot of difficulty with how the committee is made up —that does the assessment. We have, according to the report, there are two individuals —one the executive director of the art gallery and the other one, the general manager of a dance creation company sitting on the committee.

I am very uncomfortable with that. And I know it’s made up —the City Manager explained to me that there are  many other municipalities that have the committee made up based on this format.

But when you have groups that are applying and two individuals in this case, of the groups who applied actually sat on the assessment committee, I think that is inappropriate. It’s almost like talking about conflict of interest.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

[whispers into camera] You should see the Violence and Vandalism Group.

Councillor Maja Prentice (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

And I find it interesting that the [inaudible] report talks about the dance company, actually their office is closed until January of 2009? Like I find —I don’t know—

someone (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Well that—

Councillor Pat Saito —Chair (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Sorry, Councillor Prentice, can you refer to a page that you’re—

Councillor Maja Prentice (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Yes,  yes. With regards to the make up of the committee, that’s on 7-M. With regard to the fact that the office is closed, that’s on 7-O. After the bullet points, it talks about that “all applicants except one have been informed verbally, the outcomes of the assessment process and have been provided with feedback from the assessment committee to facilitate their organization.”

Now, “The organization that has not been contacted is the dance company because the office is closed until January 20th.” I just found that— what kind of a grant do people who have their place shut down for half a year.

City Manager Janice Baker (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

This report was dated January 11th —

Councillor Maja Prentice (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Oh, I see.

City Manager Janice Baker (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

So that was just a two week period.

Councillor Maja Prentice (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Oh, that’s right if it is a repeat. [sic]

But I do want to make the point that I am concerned about the make-up of the committee. There certainly are many many arts individuals that are very knowledgeable about the different groups in the municipality that don’t necessarily [air quotes begin] work for [air quotes end] a committee, [air quotes begin] work for [air quotes end] an arts group or sit on a board of directors of an arts group.

I would feel much more comfortable if you were drawing people to sit on this committee that are knowledgeable of the arts in general in the city and are not representative of any specific group.

Now I know they don’t vote on it. I understand all that. They excuse themselves when their grant comes forward to be discussed or voted upon. And I understand that. But the presence of the individual on the committee, I think, gives an incorrect and inappropriate message.

So I don’t know why you can’t get people that are basically arts-oriented people that aren’t necessarily associated or work for a specific arts group.

Councillor Pat Saito —Chair (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Sonja, would you like to respond?

Mississauga Arts Council deputant (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Well, first of all, we invited two people from the members of the community—


Mississauga Arts Council deputant (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

[long response] the application [then inaudible]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

[whispers into camera] Did she answer her question?

Mississauga Arts Council deputant (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

—of criteria that are important, et cetera.

Councillor Maja Prentice (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

And through you, Madam Chair, I understand. The City Manager was very detailed in her explanation to me and I understand why you’re doing what you’re doing. I just do not think it is appropriate. And I’ll leave it at that. I mean we’re not going to agree on everything.

I would feel much more comfortable if you had individuals who were not employees, individuals that were in the arts groups but not on the board of directors. And they’re —I can think off the top of my head of at least half a dozen just like that, that would be qualified to do this.

So I’ll leave it with you. You have to make your decisions. It’s an issue I disagree with quite strongly.

The other question—

Councillor Pat Saito —Chair (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Sorry. Councillor Prentice, if I could interrupt you for a minute, Mayor McCallion would like to respond to that particular issue. So if we could let her jump in [inaudible]

Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

I think that Councillor Prentice has raised an excellent question. When I set up the Arts Task Force, I made a point of not having anybody on the task force that was involved directly in any organization in the arts in Mississauga. To get a truly independent opinion.

And we just had a situation with the Arts Council, you’re aware of it [inaudible]

Mississauga Arts Council deputant (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):


Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Yuh, very well aware of it, where somebody sat on the Arts Council that ran a business in the Arts and then unfortunately turned into an unfortunate situation with complaints to the Mayor et cetera. So, I think Councillor Prentice has raised an excellent question.

I think there are people out there that should not be involved in any group that is applying for a grant. And I don’t know what you can do about it, but I feel just as strongly about it as Councillor Prentice does. I have to tell you.

I think it’s —even if, I mean once the person sits on the group they get to know all the people that are on the group. And even if they declare a conflict of interest, it doesn’t bode well.

We’ve had this situation, [inaudible] you’re well aware of it.

Mississauga Arts Council deputant (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

We can certainly review it. Of course the other option is we follow the model of the community—


WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 – 9:00 A.M.

7. Overview of Cultural Granting Programs

Corporate Report dated May 2, 2008 from the City Manager and Chief Administrative
Officer with respect to an overview of Cultural Granting Programs.


That the report dated May 2, 2008 from the City Manager and Chief Administrative
Officer on the Overview of Cultural Granting Programs be reviewed for information.

Councillor Maja Prentice expressed concern about how the grant program was
administered. She noted that there were individuals on the grants committee who
represented groups that were applying for grants. Councillor Prentice advised that there
are many arts-minded individuals within the community who could have been considered
to participate in the discussions.

Ms. Zainub Verjee, Director Office of the Arts, noted that the grants committee was
structured similarly to the Canada Council for the Arts, and that the structure encourages
a peer review of grant applications. She noted that when the applications of specific
grants for individuals on the Committee were brought forward, the individuals noted a
conflict of interest and left the room.

Mayor McCallion commented on the situation and expressed support for Councillor
Prentice’s observations. She suggested that those who are applying for grants should not
be involved in assessing grant applications and that next year the composition of the
committee should be further reviewed.

Councillor Katie Mahoney moved receipt of the Corporate Report. The motion was voted
on and carried.

Received (Councillor K. Mahoney)
Recommendation GC-0443-2008


Louie Rosella
Sep 23, 2010 – 1:15 PM

Mayor was ‘free’ to promote son’s project

… “I believe I was free to encourage the sale of property in order of the direction of Council (for the past 15 years)…to get a (hotel and) convention centre in the city core,” she said. “I was free to be able to promote the project…I was doing my job as mayor.”

McCallion declared a conflict when the matter came before Council and also said she had no involvement when it came to City staff processing site-plan applications for the project.

Lax hammered away at the mayor, accusing her of “ignoring” her apparent conflict of interest when the matter wasn’t formally before City Council.

There’s nothing in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act that says you “can’t get involved in an issue before it comes to council,” McCallion responded.

Please click here to read the rest of the article.

FACT. Just seven days later, at the May 21, 2008 Mississauga Council meeting, Mayor McCallion would fail to declare conflict of interest regarding an item on the agenda pertaining for her son’s company, World Class Developments. 


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


The Mississauga Muse

Peter McCallion: My mother being Mayor of Mississauga, is “more so a detriment than a benefit”. Oh, REEEEEEEALLY?

October 3rd, 2010  

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

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT (cut-and-paste from Judicial Inquiry website)

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 15                 Q:   Now, we -- we've heard a rumour that
 16  your mother is the mayor of Mississauga, Mr. McCallion.

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 17                                     A:      I've heard the same rumour. 

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 18                 Q:   I understand that your mother has
 19  been involved in municipal politics since you were a
 20  teenager.

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 21                                     A:      Yeah, since high school, that I
 22     recall. 

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 23                 Q:   And that her involvement in municipal
 24  politics predates the creation of Mississauga itself; is
 25  that right, sir?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  1                                     A:         Yes. 

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  2                 Q:   Now, you've told us that you've been
  3  involved in real estate for some twenty-five (25) years
  4  or so; do you have a perception as to whether your
  5  mother's role as mayor for some thirty (30) years or
  6  more, thirty-two (23) I suppose, by my arithmetic, has
  7  been a benefit or a detriment to you in your work?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  8                                     A:        More so a detriment than a benefit. 

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  9                 Q:   What do you mean by that, Mr.
 10  McCallion?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 11                                     A:          Some people don't want to deal with 
 12     me because of the perception of conflict. 

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 13                 Q:   Do you perceive -- now, you say,
 14  "more so a detriment than a benefit."

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 15                                     A:             Definitely. 


Councillor Pat Saito (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

— So they’re asking us to once again defer the item until the May 21st Council meeting.

Councillor Dale, do you wish to speak to this?

Councillor Frank Dale (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

I do and I will –I’ll move it, the deferral.

I just have first a question to Staff. Do you know if they’ve granted an extension with OMERS with respect to the Purchase of Sale?

Commissioner of Planning and Building, Ed Sajecki (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

I don’t know the details of their arrangements with OMERS—

Councillor Frank Dale (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

Because I think that’s–

Commissioner of Planning and Building, Ed Sajecki (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

I think that they have indicated that [inaudible] as a possibility but whether it’s happening, I don’t know the specifics.

Councillor Frank Dale (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

Because I think it’s important to know because, whether or not there will be another Council meeting, or whether they will  be here on May 21st or not.

And I just –and the only thing I just want to say is I know our Staff, particularly the Planning Department Staff as well as our Legal Department Staff worked extremely hard to try to accomplish what needed to be done in order to remove that “H” symbol and get all the documents in order.

And I think a message should go to them though, cuz they worked a lot of hours –on weekends and the evenings. That if they ‘re gonna come back, you know, basically, I think the reason they were doing it and it makes sense cuz they wanted to come in under the wire with the development charges.

Well now that they’ve come into effect, I think business as usual. We got a lot of other business in the City Centre –a lot of other business throughout the whole city itself.

And, like, you know, we don’t mind helping people but I think you went over beyond –all of the Staff did to try to get this come before us in time for them to, I guess pay less development charges than would be come May 1st.

So I think a message should go out to them that we have no problem if they come back because we certainly would welcome the opportunity to have hotel, hopefully a 5-Class Star in the City Centre.

But I think a message should go to them. But I—

Commissioner of Planning and Building, Ed Sajecki (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

[inaudible] I’ll pass that message on. I do want to also add that CNW and Community Services have also been involved in it. Legal for sure. Burning the midnight oil over the weekend. But several departments in addition too. Thanks.


William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  2                 At a unit cost of two hundred thousand
  3  (200,000), which is low, at 1 1/2 percent, that would
  4  generate 3 million?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  5                                     A:    Yes.

William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  6                 Q:   And then we can -- we can play with
  7  the numbers.  You know, if the unit costs are higher,
  8  it's 1 1/2 percent of that.
  9                 But -- but your upside is actually in the
 10  millions of dollars?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 11                                     A:      Yes.

William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 12                 Q:   And you may need employees, you may
 13  have to split this and so on?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 14                                     A:    Correct

William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 15                 Q:   But if you are the Peter McCallion
 16  Real Estate Inc., in gross terms, as you say, you may
 17  generate $10 or $12 million?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 18                                     A:    Gross.

William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 19                 Q:   Gross.

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 20                                      A:      Yes.

William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 21                 Q:   Right.  But that's what was in it for
 22  you, in --

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 23                                      A:      That's what was in it for me. 

William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 24                 Q:   Right.


Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  4  ...do you have a perception as to whether your
  5  mother's role as mayor for some thirty (30) years or
  6  more, thirty-two (23) I suppose, by my arithmetic, has
  7  been a benefit or a detriment to you in your work?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  8                                     A:        More so a detriment than a benefit. 

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  9                 Q:   What do you mean by that, Mr.
 10  McCallion?


Yeah, no frikkin’ kidding!


The (I ain’t got ‘STUPID’ stamped on my forehead!) Mississauga Muse

FACT: Betty Merkley, campaign organizer for the December 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally lauded the City’s outside legal opinion by McLean & Kerr as all that was necessary to put issues to rest. So did the Mayor’s long-time supporter, Harold Shipp. The McLean & Kerr report left out any reference to the exchange between Councillor Frank Dale and Commissioner Ed Sajecki in their “interpretation” of the April 30, 2008 Special Council meeting exclusively called just to discuss Peter McCallion’s World Class Developments.


Message to Voters! Ontario: the “dead last” Province. Citizens NEED the Ontario Ombudsman!

September 29th, 2010  

To voters across Ontario. What do you know about your municipal government? I mean really know —not just what you read in your local rag.

Video: Ontario the “dead last” Province. Citizens need the Ontario Ombudsman (4:05 min)

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


MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting on the clock tower, Mississauga City Hall, September 28, 2010):

I’ve researched Mississauga municipal governance through Freedom of Information since January 2007 and I despair for those who need government most. To be fair, it isn’t just Mississauga. I’m convinced that most municipalities in Ontario are morally beyond redemption. What is, is.

To illustrate the essence of “my” platform, here are selected quotes from our Ontario Ombudsman, Andre Marin, in an address he gave in October 31, 2007:


“Sadly, we all have stories to tell about how governments are prone to promising much more to the public than they deliver. And I’m not talking about campaign promises… What I’m talking about is something that goes much deeper, and it affects every aspect of day-to-day government. It’s about the trust between the people and their government.


“Personally, I am very concerned about the trend in government organizations today to put forward a slick public image, touting themselves as the ‘best in the world,’ when in reality, they aren’t even coming close to living up to that image…


“Ontario generally likes to think of itself as a leader in Canada.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting inside Tower elevator, Mississauga City Hall, September 28, 2010):


“But like a lot of things in government today…the reality doesn’t measure up to the ideal. There are still huge areas of government– representing more than 80% of provincial spending–that are completely immune to my scrutiny

—Ontario Ombudsman, Andre Marin 2007

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting at the Great Hall, Mississauga City Hall, September 28, 2010):


“I am shut out of the MUSH sector–referring to Municipalities, Universities, Schools and Hospitals, along with long-term care facilities, police and children’s aid societies. This leaves thousands of Ontarians with nowhere to turn with their complaints…

—Ontario Ombudsman, Andre Marin 2007


“Every other province allows its ombudsman to oversee most if not all of the MUSH sector. But Ontario lags behind–dead last.

—Ontario Ombudsman, Andre Marin 2007

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting in the underground parking, Mississauga City Hall, September 28, 2010):


“And obviously the government knows there is a need to open these organizations up to public scrutiny…

—Ontario Ombudsman, Andre Marin 2007


“What I do know is that wherever we have been able to investigate, we have found plenty of ‘puffery.’ That’s what I call the overblown, puffed-up promises of ‘world-class service’ that some organizations use a shield, when they are actually quite secretive and dismissive toward the public.”

—Ontario Ombudsman, Andre Marin 2007

Wherever I have been able to investigate the City of Mississauga, I’ve found plenty of “puffery”–and they are definitely quite secretive and dismissive toward the public.

Need proof? Three words: Mississauga. Judicial. Inquiry.

A Master of Deception and Duplicity–that’s the City of Mississauga! So huge is the vast gap between claims and truth that I’ve come to call this city MYTHissauga!

I know I’m nobody to the City of Mississauga–not to be believed. So be it. What disgusts me most is knowing that every day, MYTHissauga metes out the same contemptuous message to other “nobodies” like me.

There is no simple fix—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting in the underground parking, Mississauga City Hall, September 28, 2010):

—but a good first step is to introduce authentic, independent accountability into municipal government. I therefore propose a simple test to use to decide who gets your vote.

Ask your candidate:

Do you support extending the investigative authority of the Ontario Ombudsman to include municipalities?

Unless you get an unqualified “Yes!” look for someone else to support.




Mississauga Judicial Inquiry: Corporate “ethical” Policies apply when Testifying (Plus MISSISSAUGAWATCH now in High Definition)

August 16th, 2010  

MISSISSAUGAWATCH is now in High Definition!

What follows is video of a report I filed outside the Mississauga Burnhamthorpe Court House yesterday introducing two City of Mississauga Corporate policies that will have relevance at this week’s Judicial Inquiry hearings.

We combine our High Definition video narrative with archival footage from the May 23, 2007 Mississauga Council meeting as well as the May 11, 2009 Audit Committee meeting.

We begin. The video and the transcript.

Video: Mississauga Judicial Inquiry: Corporate “ethical” Policies apply when Testifying (4:50 min HD)

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


MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (Reporting outside Burhamthorpe Court House, August 15, 2010):

It is Sunday, August the 14th, 2010 —at least I think it’s the 14th, I do know that it’s a Sunday, and I’m parked here outside the Burnhamthorpe Court House where tomorrow we’re going to start a week of very interesting testimony.

City Manager, Janice Baker is due to testify at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry hearings this week. And it’s going to be really interesting —fascinating! It’s of all of the testimony, it’s Ms. Baker’s that I’m the most interested in this week.

And that’s because I’m reminded of a -an exchange between her and Mayor Hazel McCallion in May 2007 and that was when the City introduced its Respectful Workplace Policy. And Hazel McCallion said—

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Could you put the Mission Statement on again?

I’m wondering why you haven’t included “Based on its values of Honesty Trust, Quality and Excellence”—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (Reporting outside Burhamthorpe Court House, August 15, 2010):

And then she said—

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Why you haven’t included the word “honesty”?

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (Reporting outside Burhamthorpe Court House, August 15, 2010):

You have Trust, Quality and Excellence, why didn’t you use Honesty? Honesty with the citizens.

MISSISSAUGA CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Um, Madam Mayor, I think from our perspective, these are the values that come out of a series of discussions and workshops certainly at the staff level. I think we all believe that honesty is the basis of trust. So I—

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

I hope so.

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Oh well—

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

I hope so.

MISSISSAUGA CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Well, clearly. I mean you can’t, you cannot ha—

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

On the part of Council. And on the part of Staff.

MISSISSAUGA CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Well our values—

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Honesty with the citizens.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (Reporting outside Burhamthorpe Court House, August 15, 2010):

And —it was fascinating, especially considering what Freedom of Information has shown me about the Dishonesty. That is the lack of an ethical infrastructure at the City of Mississauga. And what’s interesting is Janice Baker responded with—

MISSISSAUGA CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Our Values are universal.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (Reporting outside Burhamthorpe Court House, August 15, 2010):

“Our Values are universal.”

Given the chronic lack of compliance to Corporate policies, that either have been confirmed —definitely Freedom of Information. That the Audit Committee has confirmed time and again! Chronic lack of compliance to Corporate polices including Hazel McCallion herself bemoaning the complete disregard for Policy by City Staff.

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Audit Committee meeting, May 11, 2009):

So now we’re gonna set one up. Fine.



MISSISSAUGA MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

If we set one up, it better be followed. That is the key. No use setting it up if it’s not going to be followed. You know, I don’t know why there’s such a disregard for policy.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (Reporting outside Burhamthorpe Court House, August 15, 2010):

There are two Corporate policies that apply when Staff are giving testimony at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Not just that they’re going to raise their hands and say, “I do solemnly swear” and stuff like that.

There’s also two Corporate policies. The first is, as I’ve already mentioned, the Corporate Respectful Workplace Policy that governs the honesty with the citizens and just Trust, Quality and Excellence. Their Universal Values.

So it’s going to be really interesting how both City Manager, Janice Baker as well as the Director of Planning and Building [sic] are going to testify.

The other Corporate policy that is going to apply is the City of Mississauga Corporate Employee Code of Conduct which applies to all employees and not just while they’re at work. They say that even out-outside they represent the City of Mississauga and they’re not to do anything that in any way jeopardize the reputation of the City. Which is an interesting way of putting it.

So. We’ve got two policies —the Employee Code of Conduct which applies only to employees and the Corporate Respectful Workplace Policy that applies both to City employees but also to the politicians themselves.

So, what’s interesting though is that the- there’s two Corporate —





Mississauga Council okays $250,000 more for Hazel McCallion’s lawyers fees. (Video of debate highlights)

August 5th, 2010  

Thanks to the Toronto Star and Mississauga News for the following.

Torstar Network
Aug 04, 2010 – 5:46 PM

Council okays $250,000 more for mayor

More for the Mayor. Mississauga councillors voted today to give another $250,000 to Mayor Hazel McCallion to cover her legal bills during the judicial inquiry. File photo

After a 40-minute debate, Mississauga city councillors voted today to give another $250,000 of taxpayers’ money to Mayor Hazel McCallion to cover her legal bills during the ongoing judicial inquiry.

The motion was tabled by Councillor Sue McFadden and passed unanimously by Council. The mayor excused herself from the vote just ahead of the motion.

Ward 6 Councillor Carolyn Parrish, a vocal critic of the mayor, raised some vital questions about soaring costs at the inquiry, but acknowledged that “we have no choice but to accept it.”

She said councillors are caught between a rock and hard place, “but the mayor will have to explain it to the taxpayers.”… the rest, please see Council okays $250,000 more for mayor

Now for video of this discussion.

What follows is an excerpt of today’s Mississauga Council debate on covering the Mayor’s legal bills. We highlight the words of Councillor Nando Iannicca and his exchange with City Solicitor Mary Ellen Bench. And of course, the transcript.

Video: Mississauga Council debates lawyers’ fees for Mayor Hazel McCallion (Judicial Inquiry)  (3:55 min)

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



Councillor Iannicca.


Thank you. I have just a couple of quick thoughts. Councillor Parrish touched upon it. I am concerned the extent to which, you know, we might need $400,000 more. And then she said that immediately becomes a target waiting at the finish line. It’s not an [inaudible] limit. So you know you’re in. And that concerns me.

And the fact that it wasn’t articulated or demonstrated in a little bit more fulsome manner. But be that as it may.

The other part as it relates to the costs. Certainly on my behalf and on behalf of my constituents, you know it’s the classic “It Is What It Is”. I mean when I supported the Inquiry, I said to myself, I’m not asking for a fixed amount of justice. We’re asking for justice and a proper inquiry.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:



It’s very tough under that circumstance to say we rolled up and said give me twenty bucks worth of gas. You’ve got to say Fill it Up. Wherever that journey takes you.

And so I’m a little disappointed in the sense that we look at these reports and this is what it costs and it’s costing you 40 hours of work. What is somebody thinking? That if you come back and say that we’ve reached five million, we’re going to say Stop?

I mean, and especially in the circumstances that we’re describing, where it’s to seek justice where politicians are involved. And one of us has the courage to say here “stop now”? You know, I think our public deserves better than that.

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.

I think in that regard as well, I think the costs are what they are and I think this needs to be said —because we’ve bent over backwards as a Council to be fair to everybody involved. I would think. I don’t what else we could have done to all of the participants, recognizing and respecting their rights, and to be represented appropriately and I fully support that as well.

The only other point that I will raise and I do want to give the Commissioner and the Counsel the chance to work through the process, because it’s by far the most common question being asked of me is, if Mr. McCallion, whether he knew it or not had certain assets and he was given certain funds thinking he did not have assets for legal fees, what is the recourse, can that come back and the Commissioner —the Justice can revisit it. And perhaps you could speak to that or whether that’s something that the Justice has the right to revisit at a later date or at some appropriate time.


The purpose of the Inquiry will be to —for the Commissioner to make certain findings as to fact and he will make recommendations but you have to remember, it’s not a court of law. So he will not have the power sitting in this forum, to require repayment or anything of that nature.

I think at the end of this process, when we do have his recommendations, it’s appropriate to look at them and assess the evidence and determine what actions City needs to take moving forward.

And based on previous inquiries in Waterloo and in Toronto, legal action was taken where it was appropriate. In other cases, like the bulk of the changes were administrative process changes and the Commissioner in this case will do the same.

He will make recommendations that he thinks are appropriate based on the totality of the evidence he has. And right now we’re at that awkward spot where we’ve got part of the evidence but there’s still at least two more weeks to go.


Yeah, thank you. What I take from that —and not as eloquently as you but I hope I’m saying what you’re saying in different words. What I’ve told any constituent is, let’s let the process run its course. Let’s let the reasons that we’re here be answered. Let’s let the Justice do his work and we will revisit those or visit those afterwards.

That’s a fair way of putting it.


That’s correct.


And I don’t know where that takes us but I think people want some indication that there’s more to play out on that front. Certainly that’s what I’m telling them. Thank you Madam Chair.



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.

Judicial inquiry coverage

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

What price truth?

Mayor should step down

McCallions’ inquiry tab could top $500,000

Mayor not helped by son’s testimony

McCallion should pay: Parrish

‘I did nothing wrong’

Firm thought McCallion was a real estate agent, inquiry told

City wasn’t fleeced in land deal

Son misled mayor, lawyer suggests

McCallion sticks up for mom

McCallion’s memory tested

Mayor pushed her son’s project

Mayor’s son on the hot seat

Not a principal: McCallion

McCallion co-signed loan

Mayor an ’emissary’ for son’s company: lawyer

O’Brien was also involved in Sheridan deal

Lawyers prepare for battle at inquiry

Hazel vouched for son’s partner

Mayor’s son to testify

OMERS denies inflating land deal

Code needed at City

Company received $4M payout

City seeks public review of ethics code

Company received $4M pay-out over hotel deal

Voters will decide

Process can’t be muzzled

Mayor pushed deal, Inquiry told

Mayor linked to meeting

Mayor pushed for hotel in City Centre

Judge shoots down mayor’s request

Was it legal?

Mayor cries foul at inquiry

Inquiry hits another roadblock

Questions remain

Inquiry costs now expected to hit $5 million

Inquiry may hurt Enersource: lawyer

‘I am not stepping down’

Inquiry’s second phase begins in July

‘I forget‚’ doesn’t cut it

Council told of veto: Mahoney

Mahoney set to testify at inquiry

Mahoney called to testify

Councillor asks for fees

Mayor’s legal fees capped

Inquiry costs climb

Lawyers want more to represent mayor

McCallion calls out Parrish

Mayor denies knowing of veto

Deal negotiated improperly, inquiry hears

Mayor on stand tomorrow

Enersource deal ‘terrific’ for Mississauga

Enersource deal nixed by inquiry

We’ll all pay a share

Former City manager vague in details

Councillors should have known about veto, deal maker says

Files stay sealed

City set to approve full funding for mayor’s son

City key to OMERS, inquiry told

No common sense

High stakes drama

Enersource powers ‘changed’

Hydro deal took years to probe, inquiry hears

Judicial inquiry starts today

Inquiry starts tomorrow

Mayor to testify June 2

Councillors consider code of ethics

Council code of conduct on agenda

More money for Mayor’s son

Commissioner to rule on funding for mayor’s son

Inquiry costs at $1.5M and rising

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Transcript – July 28, 2010 (Peter McCallion Day 2 testimony)

July 31st, 2010  

Source: The Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website:

July 28, 2010 Hearing transcript (Peter McCallion Day 2 testimony) at: http://mail.tscript.com/trans/mississauga/jul_28_10/index.htm


  9  Before:        Associate Chief Mr. Justice J. Douglas
 10                 Cunningham
 19  HELD AT:
 20                    Provincial Offence Court
 21                       Mississauga, Ontario
 22                          July 28, 2010
 24                       Pages 2005 to 2261


  1                        APPEARANCES
  2  William McDowell                  )Commission Counsel
  3  Naomi Loewith                     )
  4  Yashada Ranganathan               )
  6  Freya Kristjanson  (np)           )For Mayor Hazel McCallion
  7  Elizabeth McIntrye                )
  8  Adrianne Telford   (np)           )
  9  Pavle Masic                      )
 11  Brian Gover                      ) For Peter McCallion
 12  Luisa Ritacca                    )
 14  Clifford Lax, Q.C.                )For City of Mississauga
 15  Tracy Wynne                       )
 16  James Renihan                    )
 17  David Schwartz    (np)           )
 19  Michael Barrack                  )For OMERS
 20  John Finnigan                    )
 21  Kim Ferreira     (np)            )
 22  James Roks        (np)            )
 23  Alana Shepherd    (np)            )
 24  Deborah Palter                    )
 25  Ronald Podolny    (np)            )


  1                   APPEARANCES (Cont'd)
  2  Alan Mark          (np)          )For Enersource
  3  Kelly Friedman    (np)           )
  5  Don Jack                          ) For 156 Square One
  6  Adam Goodman                      )
  8  Gerarda Mazza     (np)           ) For Mr. Leo Couprie
 10  Michael Cohen     (np)           ) For Mr. Murray Cook
 12  Jean-Claude Killey (np)           ) For Mr. Tony DeCicco
 13  Linda Rothstein                   )
 15  Patrick Eighenberg (np)           ) For Mr. Jonathan Toll
 17  Peter Cavanagh    (np)           ) For Mr. William Houston


  1                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  2                                                       Page No.
  3  Exhibit List                                             2009
  6   Continued Cross-examination by Mr. Clifford Lax         2015
  8  Submissions by Mr. Brian Gover                           2110
  9  Submissions by Ms. Elizabeth McIntyre                    2123
 10  Submissions by Mr. William McDowell                     2123
 11  Submissions by Mr. Clifford Lax                         2125
 12  Reply Submissions by Mr. Brian Gover                    2128
 13  Ruling                                                  2129
 16   Continued Cross-examination by Mr. Clifford Lax        2132
 17   Cross-examination by Ms. Elizabeth McIntyre            2144
 18   Re-cross-examination by Mr. William McDowell           2182


  1                 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't)
  2                                                       Page
  3  No.
  5   Examination-in-chief by Mr. William McDowell           2187
  6   Cross-examination by Ms. Elizabeth McIntyre            2222
  7   Cross-examination by Ms. Luisa Ritacca                 2236
  8   Cross-examination by Ms. Linda Rothstein               2242
  9   Cross-examination by Mr. Don Jack                      2248
 10   Re-direct Examination by Mr. William McDowell          2260
 12  Certificate of transcript                               2261


  1                     LIST OF EXHIBITS
  2  EXHIBIT NO.      DESCRIPTION                        PAGE NO.
  3  274            COM001002003 - Declaration of Trust
  4                 dated January 1, 2000
  5  199            COM001002039 - Statement of Defence
  6                 and Counterclaim Court file No.
  7                 08-CV-35121PD1A
  8  291            COM001002766 - letter - World Class
  9                 Developments Limited - corporate
 10                 matters dated November 20, 2006          2057
 11  210            COM001002821 - letter - Murray Cook
 12                 et al ats Leo Couprie dated September
 13                 26, 2008
 14  213            MIS001011340 - LRO No. 43 Charge/
 15                 Mortgage dated April 27, 2005
 16  216            MIS054001061 - calendar - Hotel/
 17                 Conference Centre dated October 4,
 18                 2007
 19  217            MIS055004020 - Calendar - ES/MB/
 20                 Peter McCallion re City Centre
 21                 Project dated February 15, 2007
 22  218            MIS055005021 - Note - (Hurry - 416-
 23                 399-5041...) dated February 15, 2007
 24  219            MIS055005026 - Calendar - WCD - hotel
 25                 and Conference Centre dated August 9, 2007


  1                   LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd)
  2  Exhibit No.      Description                        Page No.
  3  191            MIS064004001 - calendar - Peter
  4                 McCallion dated January 18, 2007
  5  223            MIS064004007 - Calendar - dated June
  6                 21, 2007
  7  224            MIS064004013 - Calendar - meet w
  8                 P. McCallion/AR etc, dated November
  9                 13, 2007
 10  227            MIS064004017 - Calendar - dated
 11                 March 6, 2008
 12  228            MIS068001001 - Note(s) - dated June
 13                 24, 2009
 14  276            MIS068004004 - report dated December
 15                 11, 2008
 16  235            MIS079001008 - telephone records -
 17                 dated November 5, 2007
 18  237            MIS079001010 -     telephone records -
 19                 dated November 5, 2007
 20  239            MIS079001027 - telephone records -
 21                 dated May 22, 2008
 22  204            MIS079001029 - telephone records
 23                 dated June 5, 2008
 24  240            MIS079001031 - telephone records -
 25                 dated June 6, 2008


  1                 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd)
  2  Exhibit No.      Description                        Page No.
  3  241            MIS079001033 - telephone records -
  4                 dated July 4, 2008
  5  242            MIS079001041 - telephone records -
  6                 dated October 9, 2008
  7  243            MIS079001060 - telephone records -
  8                 dated December 11, 2008
  9  245            OMR001002272 - letter - World Class
 10                 Purchase from OMERS dated October
 11                 17, 2008
 12  246            OMR001002288 - email - re: How did
 13                 it go? dated May 13, 2008
 14  249            OMR002002899 - email - FW: World
 15                 Class Developments - Block 29, Plan
 16                 43M-1010, Mississauga dated October
 17                 8, 2008
 18  250            SOL001001076 - email - WCD - Tony
 19                 Dicico call back dated December 2,
 20                 2008
 21  256            WCD001001974 - email - WCD November
 22                 21 meeting dated November 22, 2007
 23  193            COM001002019 - Shareholders Agreement
 24                 dated January 29, 2007


  1                   LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd)
  2  Exhibit No.      Description                        Page No.
  3  211            COM001002846 - real estate
  4                 transaction documents - Leo Couprie
  5                 purchase from Peter McCallion
  6                 5405 Durie Road, Mississauga File
  7                 No. 0800003, dated May 14, 2008
  8  181            COM006001036 - map - Mississauga
  9                 City Centre plan - 1998 Marketing
 10                 Group Partners dated January 1, 1998
 11  182            COM06001038 - marketing - Mississauga
 12                 Ontario Canada - Development
 13                 opportunity - New hotel/Conference
 14                 centre dated January 1, 2000
 15  288            COM006001202 - marketing - Mississauga
 16                 City Centre Vision
 17  284            OMR001002175 - report - Square One
 18                 land sale (blocks 9 and 29) to World
 19                 Class Development dated January 31,
 20                 2007
 21  283            OMR001002225 - report - Square
 22                 One - land sale (Parcels 6 and 7)
 23                 dated May 18, 2006


  1                   LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd)
  2  Exhibit No.      Description                        Page No.
  3  287            OMR001002295 - letter - World Class
  4                 Developments Limited Agreement of
  5                 Purchase and Sale with OMERS Realty
  6                 Management Corporation and 1331430
  7                 Ontario Inc - Blocks 9 and 29, Plan
  8                 43M-1010, Mississauga dated July
  9                 16, 2009
 10  285            OMR001002339 - email - re: WCD dated
 11                 July 9, 2008
 12  282            OMR001002395 - memorandum - Square
 13                 One - land sale (Parcels 6 and 7)
 14                 dated May 1, 2006
 15  289            Transcript of the cross-examination
 16                 of Peter McCallion                       2015
 25  --- Upon commencing at 10:30 a.m.


  1                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order in the courtroom.
  2  All rise, please.  This Inquiry is now in session.
  3  Please be seated.
  5  morning.
  7                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  9                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Commissioner, a
 10  couple of housekeeping things.  1)  We will file, and
 11  mark as an exhibit, the transcript which we placed before
 12  you yesterday.  We probably need one to be marked as the
 13  next exhibit.
 14                 THE COURT CLERK:   Two eighty-nine (289).
 16  --- EXHIBIT NO. 289:       Transcript of the cross-
 17                             examination of Peter
 18                             McCallion
 20                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Right.  Do we have
 21  another copy of the transcript?
 22                 That's the first thing.  The second thing
 23  is that, counsel having huddled, we think that it
 24  probably is more prudent to let the examination continue,
 25  and then to deal with the issue, if it arises, because it


  1  -- it may not.
  3  right, that's fine.  Mr. McCallion, you're still under
  4  oath.  Good morning.
  6                 PETER MCCALLION, Resumed
  8                 THE WITNESS:   Good morning.
 11                 Q:   Good morning, Mr. McCallion.
 12                 A:   Good morning.
 13                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Can we turn, Mr.
 14  Commissioner, to Exhibit 190, and this is the declaration
 15  of trust that you spoke about yesterday with both your
 16  counsel, and with Mr. McDowell, the one (1) that was
 17  witnessed by the mayor.
 20                 Q:   Just so that I'm clear, you -- you
 21  said that the reason for this declaration of trust being
 22  prepared and executed at the time that it was, was
 23  because you had an upcoming trip to Vietnam with Mr.
 24  Couprie, is that correct, and you wanted to protect your
 25  interest?


  1                 A:   Correct.
  2                 Q:   Just out of curiosity, was the trip
  3  to Vietnam the only trip that you took with Mr. Couprie,
  4  jointly?
  5                 A:   No, it is not.
  6                 Q:   Pardon me?
  7                 A:   No, it is not.
  8                 Q:   You went on other trips.
  9                 A:   Yes, I did.
 10                 Q:   After this Vietnam trip?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   And you told us that after you
 13  returned from the Vietnam trip you tore up this
 14  declaration of trust because you didn't need it any more.
 15                 A:   Well, I said I discarded it.  I
 16  didn't say I tore it up.
 17                 Q:   All right.  Because you didn't need
 18  it any more?
 19                 A:   I didn't feel we needed it anymore,
 20  yes.
 21                 Q:   And when you went on the other trips
 22  subsequent to the Vietnam trip, did you prepare a
 23  declaration of trust, or did you have one prepared to
 24  protect your interest, just in case anything happened on
 25  those trips?


  1                 A:   No, I did not.
  2                 Q:   Why not?
  3                 A:   I didn't feel it was necessary at the
  4  time.
  5                 Q:   Well, if it was necessary for the
  6  Vietnam trip, why was it not necessary for the trips that
  7  followed?
  8                 A:   Because there were other people
  9  involved at the time.
 10                 Q:   That would be who?
 11                 A:   Murray Cook.
 12                 Q:   By the time that this declaration of
 13  trust is signed, Mr. McCallion, Murray Cook was already
 14  involved.  That's why only -- only 80 percent of the
 15  shares of World Class were being held in trust for you.
 16  The other 20 percent were -- belonged to Murray Cook, or
 17  were promised to Murray Cook, weren't they?
 18                 A:   I believe.
 19                 Q:   All right.  So he was already
 20  involved at the time of this declaration of trust.
 21                 A:   I believe he was not a shareholder at
 22  this time.
 23                 Q:   All right.  But you're holding 20
 24  percent in reserve for him?
 25                 A:   I believe so.


  1                 Q:   All right.  And so if you need to
  2  protect your interest for the Vietnam trip, how come you
  3  didn't need to protect your interest on the later trips
  4  when Murray Cook -- when Murray Cook there was just a sha
  5  -- was a shareholder for 20 percent, as you contemplated
  6  at the time of this declaration of trust?
  7                 A:   It was contemplated at this time, but
  8  it was not formalized.
  9                 Q:   And what difference does it make to
 10  you as to wether your interest is protected if Murray
 11  Cook's 20 percent shareholding interest was only
 12  contemplated, or formalized?
 13                 A:   I believed he was a family friend and
 14  I trusted him at that point.
 15                 Q:   You didn't trust him when -- when you
 16  only promised him 20 percent of the shares?
 17                 A:   I didn't promise him the 20 percent.
 18  Leo Couprie promised him the 20 percent.
 19                 Q:   You didn't trust him at the time you
 20  signed this declaration of trust?
 21                 A:   I like formal documentation.
 22                 Q:   Pardon me?
 23                 A:   I like to see formal documentation.
 24                 Q:   How did the formal documentation give
 25  you any higher degree of confidence in Murray Cook?


  1                 A:   It did at the time.
  2                 Q:   How?
  3                 A:   Confidence in my mind.
  4                 Q:   What in the documentation would give
  5  you 1 ounce of additional confidence in Murray Cook?
  6                 A:   In my mind, it gave me full
  7  confidence.
  8                 Q:   Are you able to tell me why that was
  9  the case?
 10                 A:   He was a family friend.
 11                 Q:   He was a family friend before the
 12  declaration of trust --
 13                 A:   Correct.
 14                 Q:   -- and he was family frie -- family
 15  friend when he was your partner.
 16                 A:   Well, he wasn't my partner.
 17                 Q:   He was your fa -- he was a family
 18  friend when both of you then officially owned the shares
 19  of WCD, correct?
 20                 A:   Correct.
 21                 Q:   So what was it that the documentation
 22  was going to do that was going to give you any more
 23  confidence in Murray Cook?
 24                 A:   Because he had signed the
 25  documentation.


  1                 Q:   Are you unable to give me an answer
  2  why --
  3                 A:   I cannot --
  4                 Q:   -- you had any more confidence?
  5                 A:   I had that confidence at the time.
  6                 Q:   Now, at the time that you had this --
  7  signed this declaration of trust, you've told us that
  8  your belief was that your interest was that of a -- of a
  9  real estate agent, correct?
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   You wanted to protect the future flow
 12  of potential commission.
 13                 A:   Correct.
 14                 Q:   But the declaration of trust doesn't
 15  say anything about commissions.  It talks only about 80
 16  percent of the shares of World Class Developments.
 17                 A:   Correct.
 18                 Q:   Now, how can we equate what you were
 19  concerned about protecting -- namely commissions -- to be
 20  equal to 80 percent of the shares of World Class
 21  Developments?
 22                 A:   I can't answer that.
 23                 Q:   Do you agree with me that this
 24  declaration of trust did not in any way protect your
 25  anticipated future real estate commissions?


  1                 A:   It does not state that in there, no.
  2                 Q:   Thank you.  Will you just please turn
  3  to Exhibit 199, Mr. Commissioner?  This is the statement
  4  of defence and counterclaim that was filed by Murray Cook
  5  in the action commenced by Leo Couprie.
  6                 Now, I think it's important for the
  7  Commissioner to understand that Leo Couprie, the
  8  plaintiff in this action, sued for a declaration that the
  9  Shareholders' Agreement was null and void.
 10                 Do you -- do you understand that?
 11                 A:   Yep.
 12                 Q:   And Mr. Bisceglia was the lawyer who
 13  acted for Leo Couprie.
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   Would it be fair to say that at the
 16  time that Mr. Couprie was the -- issued this lawsuit, and
 17  Mr. Bisceglia was receiving his instructions not from Leo
 18  Couprie, but rather from Tony DeCicco and from you and
 19  from Mr. Bisceglia, because you were the interested
 20  shareholders in Wold Class Developments?
 21                 A:   I didn't give any instruction.
 22                 Q:   Would it be fair to say that Mr.
 23  Couprie really had no independent interest?  He held the
 24  shares in trust for either you or -- or Mr. DeCicco's
 25  holding company, what was it called, Lands -- Landplex.


  1                 A:   So what are you asking?
  2                 Q:   That he was just there as a
  3  figurehead.  He -- he was take -- Mr. Bisceglia's -- Mr.
  4  Bisceglia's real clients were you, DeCicco, and
  5  Bisceglia.
  6                 A:   Not in my mind at that time, no.
  7                 Q:   Because at that time, you thought
  8  that Leo Couprie really owned the shares --
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   -- because at that time, you hadn't
 11  read the trust agreement.
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   And at that time, you had brought in
 14  or introduced De -- DeCicco into the transaction with the
 15  -- with the knowledge that that would likely force out
 16  Murray Cook.
 17                 A:   That wasn't the purpose.
 18                 Q:   But you knew that that was a likely
 19  result.
 20                 A:   It was a possibility.
 21                 Q:   Now, let's see what Mr. Cook pleaded
 22  in his statement of defence.  And I take it you told us
 23  that you have never re -- read this document; is that
 24  correct?
 25                 A:   This one here?


  1                 Q:   Yes.
  2                 A:   No, I have not.
  3                 Q:   Okay.  Just turn please to the
  4  statement of defence, third page in, paragraph 3(b).  Mr.
  5  Cook sates --states in paragraph 3(b) -- and I have to
  6  just add a few words here to ma -- give it context --
  7  that:
  8                   "In or about the year 2005 [which
  9                   appears in paragraph (a)], that it was
 10                   agreed between Murray Cook [and these
 11                   are the curious words] and another
 12                   participant [that I suggest was you]
 13                   that the corporate vehicle to be used
 14                   to effect the purchase of the said
 15                   lands was a company known as World
 16                   Class Developments Limited, which had
 17                   been incorporated by a solicitor
 18                   retained by the aforementioned
 19                   participant."
 20                 Now, we'll just stop there.  You agree --
 21  we agree from the -- from the evidence that it was you
 22  who caused a solicitor, Caprara Brown, to incorporate
 23  World Class Developments?
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   So that when Mr. Cook is referring to


  1  "another participant" who incorporated World Class
  2  Developments, that would be you?
  3                 A:   Correct.
  4                 Q:   Go on to paragraph (c) for a moment.
  5                   "It was agreed that in consideration of
  6                   Murray Cook participating in the
  7                   transaction and to exercise access to
  8                   his reputation, expertise, know-how,
  9                   business contacts, office space, and
 10                   support, there would be conveyed to him
 11                   a 20 percent interest in the shares of
 12                   World Class Developments Limited."
 13                 And I take it that's -- that was true as
 14  well?
 15                 A:  Yes. 
 16                 Q:   That's why Couprie was only holding
 17  80 percent for you, because the other 20 percent was
 18  going to Cook?
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And then if we skip down to paragraph
 21  4:
 22                   "In or about 2006, Murray Cook became
 23                   aware that the original participant
 24                   [that would be you] sought to have his
 25                   interest in World Class Developments


  1                   Limited held by the plaintiff..."
  2                 And that would be Couprie.  And that would
  3  be the trust agreement, correct?
  4                 A:   That is correct.
  5                 Q:
  6                   "...and asked that Murray Cook proceed
  7                   to manage World Class Developments
  8                   Limited and close the transaction with
  9                   the plaintiff as the co-shareholder."
 10                 That would be accurate as well?
 11                 A:   That's number 5?
 12                 Q:   No, number 4.  You did not appear as
 13  a shareholder of record, Leo Couprie did; he held his
 14  shares in trust for you?
 15                 A:   At that time I didn't know that, but,
 16  correct.
 17                 Q:   So there were only two (2)
 18  shareholders, namely, Leo Couprie and Murray Cook?
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   Then we go down to paragraph 7.
 21                   "In or about 2007, the plaintiff
 22                   [that's Mr. Couprie] advised that he
 23                   had transferred all or part of his
 24                   interest in World Class Developments to
 25                   two (2) other individuals, Tony DeCicco


  1                   and Emilio Bisceglia, who were to
  2                   attend meetings and participate in
  3                   management decisions."
  4                 And that's correct as well?
  5                 A:   I now know that, yes.
  6                 Q:   Well, we knew it at the time, because
  7  you were responsible for the introduction of DeCicco to -
  8  - to World Class Developments, and you -- and you knew
  9  that DeCicco was acquiring part or all of the shares that
 10  were held by Couprie.
 11                 A:   Except for the fact that I was not
 12  aware of Emilio being a partner. 
 13                 Q:   All right.  Now, I'm not going to
 14  belabour the point.  I'll take you now to the resolution
 15  of this tra -- of this litigation.  It resolved pretty
 16  quickly.  This statement of defence and counterclaim was
 17  filed in July 2008, the action was settled, apparently,
 18  in September of 2008.
 19                 And for that, Mr. Commissioner, if we
 20  could turn to Exhibit 210.
 21                 I should say, Mr. McCallion, that if you
 22  look at the Murray Cook pleading, you are never mentioned
 23  by name.  It's only by the reference to the other
 24  participant, that we get any context as to the fact that
 25  he's referring to you.


  1                 Do you understand that?
  2                 A:   I believe that.
  3                 Q:   Yeah.  And now we'll turn to the
  4  release, which is at Exhibit 210.  If you'd turn to the
  5  release, please.  The next page.
  6                 And we look at the parties to this release
  7  and we see that Cook means Murray Cook, his heirs,
  8  executors, administrators, and specifically includes
  9  Gordon Cooper and Richard Cooper.
 10                 Do you know who Gordon Cooper and Richard
 11  Cooper are?
 12                 A:   Yes, I do.
 13                 Q:   And who -- and why were they
 14  specifically included in the reference to the release of
 15  whenever Murray Cook is referred to?
 16                 A:   I'm not aware of why.  However, they
 17  are Murray's partners in other businesses.
 18                 Q:   All right.  And then World Class
 19  parties are defined to mean World Class Developments
 20  Limited, it's directors, officers, shareholders, et
 21  cetera, and specifically Leo Couprie, Tony DeCicco, and
 22  Peter McCallion.  Were you aware -- we're -- we're going
 23  to go out to the next one.  We can go to it right now.
 24  Look on the next -- or the last page of this document.
 25  Go down, please.


  1                 Is that -- that your signature, the --
  2                 A:   Yes, it is.
  3                 Q:   -- fourth signature down?  Were you
  4  aware, when you signed this release, that the reason you
  5  were signing it was because you were one (1) of the World
  6  Class Development parties?
  7                 A:   No, I was not.
  8                 Q:   Did you read --
  9                 A:   Also -- 
 10                 Q:   -- this release before you signed it?
 11                 A:   In that last paragraph, we were
 12  looking at it, it also said "agents".
 13                 Q:   All right.  And did you read the
 14  release before you signed it?
 15                 A:   No, I did not.
 16                 Q:   So you didn't know that it said
 17  "agents"?
 18                 A:   Well, I read it five (5) minutes ago.
 19                 Q:   All right.  And when you signed this
 20  release, are you now testifying under oath that you
 21  signed in the capacity not as a principal of World Class
 22  Developments, but as the real estate agent for World
 23  Class Developments?
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   How often, in your extensive career


  1  as a real estate agent, have you had to sign a release on
  2  behalf of one (1) of your clients?
  3                 A:   Very seldom.
  4                 Q:   Ever?
  5                 A:   I don't recall ever signing one.
  6                 Q:   What possible justification or reason
  7  could there be in a fight amongst shareholders, to have
  8  the real estate agent sign the release?
  9                 A:   I cannot answer that.
 10                 Q:   Would you agree with me that that
 11  suggestion is nonsensical?
 12                 A:   No.
 13                 Q:   Then tell me one (1) good reason why
 14  we should believe it.
 15                 A:   It said "agents"in there.
 16                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Now, Mr. Commissioner,
 17  we're going to turn to a chronology.  This is -- has been
 18  handed out to all of the counsel, but it's not intended
 19  to be an exhibit.  It was simply to assist the Commission
 20  and Commission staff so that they could find the
 21  documents quickly, and to save you, frankly, from writing
 22  every one -- reference to all of them.  But, if you wish
 23  it to be an exhibit, that's -- I'll be guided by your --
 24                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   I don't
 25  think it needs to be an exhibit.  If there's any


  1  disagreement I'll consider it.  But otherwise, if it's
  2  going to be of assistance to me, Mr. Lax, I welcome it.
  3                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Thank you.
  5                      (BRIEF PAUSE)
  7                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Thank you, sir.
  9                      (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12                 Q:   If we can start, please, with Exhibit
 13  234, page 1.
 14                 And we've seen this document before, Mr.
 15  McCallion; it was brought to your attention yesterday.
 16  It's a meeting at your mother's home on Wednesday,
 17  February the 12th, 2003, at 6:00 p.m.  There's you and
 18  Mr. DeCicco.
 19                 You said yesterday that this meeting was
 20  arr -- I'm sorry, you -- you -- it indicates that this
 21  meeting was arranged at your request.  You were asked
 22  yesterday if this was about WCD, and you indicated that
 23  it was not.
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   Do I take it that the reason you say


  1  it was not was simply because it's too early in your view
  2  for it to refer to WCD?
  3                 A:   Completely.
  4                 Q:   But we know that you were engaged in
  5  attempts to develop a relationship, at least, with this
  6  land and with -- with the purchasers since as early as
  7  2002.
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   And so by February of 2003, is it
 10  completely unrealistic that this would relate to WCD?
 11                 A:   Completely unrealistic.
 12                 Q:   Only because of the timing?
 13                 A:   Exactly because of the timing.
 14                 Q:   And at that time, in February 12th,
 15  2003, were you the agent for Tony DeCicco with respect to
 16  any other then current transactions?
 17                 A:   None.
 18                 Q:   All right.  So then the question
 19  becomes, if you weren't acting for him as a real estate
 20  agent, what were you doing at a meeting with him and your
 21  mother on February 12th, 2003, that you engaged in?
 22                 A:   I cannot answer that.  I don't
 23  remember what the meeting was about.
 24                 Q:   Were you engaged in any other
 25  business dealings with Mr. DeCicco at that time?


  1                 A:   No, I was not.
  2                 Q:   Please turn then to Exhibit 234, page
  3  3, September the 9th, 2003.  You were taken to this
  4  document yesterday as well.  It's another meeting with
  5  Tony DeCicco, yourself, and your mother, and it's to
  6  discuss the new banquet hall in Mississauga.
  7                 Were you -- what was your role with
  8  respect to the proposed new banquet hall in Mississauga?
  9                 A:   None.
 10                 Q:   Why were you at a meeting then to
 11  discuss the banquet hall in which you had no role?
 12                 A:   It was for dinner.
 13                 Q:   But the dinner was to discuss
 14  potential business.  Why were --
 15                 A:   It was --
 16                 Q:   -- you there --
 17                 A:   -- I believe it was Tony wanting to
 18  introduce to my mother a potential tenant for a business
 19  banquet hall in Mississauga, and I went along.  I had no
 20  business dealings with that at all.
 21                 Q:   Turn now -- turn to Exhibit 234, page
 22  4, November the 12th, 2003, which is a meeting at your
 23  mother's home at 2:00 PM.  The meeting was requested by
 24  you.  Remember, we're still back in 2003.
 25                 A:   Correct.


  1                 Q:   Do you still take the position it has
  2  nothing to do with World Class Developments?
  3                 A:   Absolutely.
  4                 Q:   Were you still, by November 12th,
  5  2003, not engaged in any other business dealings with Mr.
  6  DeCicco?
  7                 A:   No, I was not.
  8                 Q:   Then the question becomes, why were
  9  you there at a meeting at all?
 10                 A:   I cannot answer what the meeting was
 11  about.  That's in 2003.
 12                 Q:   Turn to Exhibit 234, page 5, January
 13  29th, 2004.  This is a lunch meeting with your mother and
 14  Tony DeCicco.
 15                 Was this about World Class Developments?
 16                 A:   No, it was not.
 17                 Q:   Was there any other business venture
 18  that --
 19                 A:   Not that I can re --
 20                 Q:   -- was then active that would require
 21  your attendance at this lunch?
 22                 A:   Not that I can remember.
 23                 Q:   And can you recall now any
 24  justification as to why you were there?
 25                 A:   Other than Tony's a friend of mine


  1  and my mother, I cannot answer what the business was
  2  about.         Q:   We turn now to Exhibit 228, April
  3  24th, 2004.  This is a breakfast meeting with Tony
  4  DeCicco, yourself, and your mother on April 24th, 2004.
  5  It appears that it was at your urgent request.
  6                 What was the --
  7                 A:   I got --
  8                 Q:   -- urgent matter that required you to
  9  have a breakfast meeting with your mother and Mr.
 10  DeCicco?
 11                 A:   I -- you got the wrong document up
 12  there.
 13                 Q:   Sorry, page --
 14                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Are you
 15  talking about Exhibit 234 still, or are you moving to
 16  228?
 17                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Let me just get the
 18  numbering.  Is it 228 or 234 -- 228, Exhibit 228.
 20  begins May 18th, '05?
 21                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   April 24th, '04,
 22  but...
 23                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   April
 24  24th, '04 is Exhibit 228.


  2                 Q:   Yes.  Go to page 19, I'm told.  When
  3  I prepared this cross-examination, it was before I had
  4  the exhibit numbers.  I've added them in.  Page 19.  It's
  5  on the screen.
  6                 We all -- does everybody have the same
  7  thing on the screen, April 24th, 2004?
  8                 A:  Yes, we do.
  9                 Q:   What was the urgent request?
 10                 A:   I do not remember that.  It was in
 11  2004.
 12                 Q:   There's something that was urgently
 13  needed.  By -- by April of 2004, were you engaged in any
 14  other business relationship with Tony DeCicco that would
 15  --
 16                 A:   No, I was not.
 17                 Q:   All right.  The next document, again,
 18  is Exhibit 228, page 20.
 20                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 22                 Q:   This is a meeting of May the 1st with
 23  yourself, Mr. Dave O'Brien, and Silvio de Gasperis.
 24  Silvio de Gasperis, I take it we can agree, is the
 25  principal of TACC.


  1                 A:   Correct.
  2                 Q:   He's the man who ultimately loaned
  3  you the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) that's used as
  4  an injection of capital into WCD.
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And were you in -- on May of 2004
  7  engaged in any other business dealings with Silvio de
  8  Gasperis?
  9                 A:   Possibly.
 10                 Q:   What does that mean?
 11                 A:   He was having me look at some land in
 12  Pickering.
 13                 Q:   In Pickering.
 14                 A:   Pickering.
 15                 Q:   All right.  That wouldn't involve the
 16  Mayor.
 17                 A:   No.
 18                 Q:   All right.  So you're having lunch
 19  with the Mayor with Mr. de Gasperis and Mr. O'Brien.
 20  What was the reason for that lunch?
 21                 A:   I do not remember that specifically.
 22                 Q:   Do you remember why you were there?
 23                 A:   Other than I know everybody there,
 24  no.
 25                 Q:   July 13th, 2004, Exhibit 134, page 7.


  2                 This is a lunch meeting with your mother
  3  and yourself and Tony DeCicco.  By July -- or the -- it
  4  was -- is it possible that that was for the purpose of
  5  discussing WCD business?
  6                 A:   No.  
  7                 Q:   And at the July 13th, did you have
  8  any other business relationship with Mr. DeCicco?
  9                 A:   Not that I recall, no.
 10                 Q:   All right.  Then the question is why
 11  were you there at a lunch between DeCicco and your
 12  mother?
 13                 A:   Why would I not be?
 14                 Q:   Well, there's a constant pattern
 15  here, where you -- that you're attending these lunches,
 16  and Mr. DeCicco may or may not have had reason to speak
 17  to your mother, but, apparently, whatever his reasons
 18  were, they didn't involve you.
 19                 A:   May not be.
 20                 Q:   You can't remember one reason why you
 21  were there.
 22                 A:   Not specifically, no.  I don't know
 23  what was discussed at July 13th, 2004.
 24                 Q:   Would you agree with me that it
 25  appears -- and we'll develop this more -- that -- that


  1  you are there in order to provide an entree for Mr.
  2  DeCicco to have lunch with your mother?
  3                 A:   No, Tony knew my mother very well.
  4                 Q:   All right.  He didn't need you there.
  5                 A:   Didn't need me.
  6                 Q:   We'll kee -- we'll keep on going
  7  then.  September the 14th, 2004, Exhibit 234, page 8.
  8  There's a dinner meeting at a restaurant: yourself,
  9  DeCicco, and your mother.  Had anything changed by
 10  September?  Were there any business dealings between you
 11  and DeCicco which would explain why you were at this
 12  dinner meeting?
 13                 A:   No. 
 14                 Q:   And --
 15                 A:   Remembering he is a family friend
 16  too.
 17                 Q:   And can you offer any explanation as
 18  to why this meeting --
 19                 A:   Other than -- 
 20                 Q:   -- took place --
 21                 A:   Other than for --
 22                 Q:   -- and what --
 23                 A:   -- a dinner.  Other than for dinner.
 25                       (BRIEF PAUSE)


  1                 Q:   Now, just to -- just to ref -- refer
  2  the date; the next date is September the 24th, which is
  3  the barbeque that was the result of DeCicco being the
  4  highest bidder at the -- at the golf tournament.  You've
  5  talked to Mr. McDowell about that yesterday, and it's
  6  just to give it context.
  7                 And if we can then go to October 30th.
  9                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 11                 Q:   Sorry, at the gala not -- yeah.  The
 12  30th of October, which is Exhibit 234, there's a
 13  breakfast meeting between Mr. DeCicco and your mother;
 14  apparently, you're not there.
 15                 But was there any reason to -- to your
 16  knowledge, as to why you were not there?
 17                 A:   No.
 18                 Q:   Did you arrange this breakfast
 19  meeting?
 20                 A:   I don't believe I did.
 21                 Q:   Then turn to January 17th, 2005,
 22  Exhibit 234.  This is a dinner meeting at a steak house
 23  with yourself and Mr. DeCicco and your mother.
 24                 By January 17th, 2005, things are getting
 25  firmed up, because we know that World Class Developments


  1  was incorporated in February of 2005, as I recall it.
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   This lunch -- the dinner meeting
  4  rather of the -- January 17th, did it have anything to do
  5  with World Class Developments?
  6                 A:   No.
  7                 Q:   And why do you say that?
  8                 A:   Mr. DeCicco wasn't involved until
  9  2007.
 10                 Q:   That's -- we know that's when he
 11  becomes involved as an investor, but had you raised with
 12  him the possibility of his becoming an investor in World
 13  Class Developments any earlier?
 14                 A:   Well, not this early.
 15                 Q:   All right.  And in -- as of January
 16  17th, 2005, were you engaged in any other business with
 17  Mr. DeCicco?
 18                 A:   Not that I recall at that time, no.
 19                 Q:   And so other than to have dinner, was
 20  there any other reason why you were there at this -- at
 21  this --
 22                 A:   Other than to have dinner.
 23                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Now, Your Honour, I'm
 24  going to skip -- the next entrance in the chronology has
 25  to do with the mortgage.  I want to come back to the


  1  issue of the mortgage and sale of his house later on.
  3                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  6                 Q:   May 18th, 2005, Exhibit 228, page 13.
  7  This is a meeting with yourself and Murray Cook and your
  8  mother.
  9                 A:   What's the date?
 10                 Q:   May 18th, 2005.
 11                 A:   Okay.  
 12                 Q:   This is before Murray Cook formally
 13  becomes a part -- a shareholder in World Class
 14  Developments.  In fact, just so that you're clear, in
 15  your affidavit, the first one, you said that -- in
 16  paragraph 9 -- and I'll just tell you what you said,
 17  that:
 18                   "Murray Cook was recruited to become
 19                   part of World Class Developments in
 20                   early 2006."
 21                 A:   Okay.
 22                 Q:   But here we have it in early 2005
 23  that Murray Cook is meeting with you and your mother
 24  about World Class Developments.
 25                 I take it this was -- you're still in the


  1  discussion stage of you trying to recruit Murray Cook?
  2                 A:   I would believe that, yes.
  3                 Q:   All right.  And why is Murray Cook
  4  then meeting with you and your mother to discuss your
  5  attempts to recruit him to become part of World Class
  6  Developments?
  7                 A:   I cannot answer that  I don't know.
  8                 Q:   Well, you were there.
  9                 A:   I was there.  I don't remember the
 10  specific topic of the meeting.
 12                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 14                 Q:   Okay.  Do you recall anything about
 15  the meeting and anything about the discussion?
 16                 A:   Other than I discussed World Class
 17  with Murray Cook.
 18                 Q:   Well, what would --
 19                 A:   I -- I can't remember.
 20                 Q:   -- your mother have known about World
 21  -- what would you have told your mother about World Class
 22  Developments as of May 18th, 2005?  And it had only been
 23  incorporated a few months earlier.
 24                 A:   That Murray Cook was going to head it
 25  up.


  1                 Q:   You had had that discussion with her?
  2                 A:   I don't recall having it with her,
  3  no.
  4                 Q:   Well --
  5                 A:   I -- I'm speculating on what we
  6  discussed at that meeting.
  7                 Q:   Let's go to the next document.  It's
  8  August 29th, 2005, Exhibit 228, page 14 and 15.  This is
  9  a meeting with your mother, dinner meeting, and yourself,
 10  John Di Poce, and Tony DeCicco.
 11                 We now know that John Di Poce became an
 12  investor in World Class Developments.  You said yesterday
 13  you didn't know that before.
 14                 A:   No, I did not.
 15                 Q:   You only found out recently.
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   You found out in the course of
 18  preparing for this Inquiry.
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   I take it it came as a complete shock
 21  to you?
 22                 A:   Surprise.
 23                 Q:   Because you knew John Di Poce?
 24                 A:   I know a lot of people.
 25                 Q:   No, but you knew him, obviously,


  1  because you were at dinner with here?
  2                 A:   Correct.
  3                 Q:   And John Di Poce, you say never said
  4  anything to you about being an equity participant in
  5  World Class Developments.
  6                 A:   No, he did not.
  7                 Q:   You did not know that, even as a real
  8  estate agent, one of your ultimate clients was John Di
  9  Poce?
 10                 A:   I did not know that.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  This meeting has a topic.
 12  You were to arrange the dinner, that's what -- what's --
 13  what the note says.  And there's a topic:
 14                   "To meet with the Mayor re. in camera
 15                   issues regarding OMERS that came up at
 16                   the AMO conference."
 17                 That's in the calendar comment.
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21                 Q:   Next page, please.  Yeah.
 22                 Now, does that assist you in recalling why
 23  it was that you had set this meeting up?
 24                 A:   No, I do not recall why I set the
 25  meeting up.


  1                 Q:   And --
  2                 A:   Other than maybe at the request of
  3  Tony or John.
  4                 Q:   All right.  Now, let me understand.
  5  What issues -- what relations with Tony or John have with
  6  in-camera issues regarding OMERS?
  7                 A:   I cannot answer that at the time.
  8  What's the date again?
  9                 Q:   The date of this is August 29, 2005.
 10                 A:   Yeah, I would not know what that's
 11  about.
 12                 Q:   Pardon me?
 13                 A:   I would not know what that's about.
 14                 Q:   Would it be fair to say that -- that
 15  it's possible, at least, that the reference to OMERS is a
 16  reference to the land that WCD hoped to acquire from
 17  OMERS?
 18                 A:   I would say no.
 19                 Q:   Why is it impossible?
 20                 A:   We're not even close to negotiating
 21  anything.
 22                 Q:   Well, let's not be too hasty about
 23  that, right.  You've incorporated World Class
 24  Developments; it exists.  You're looking for a -- for a -
 25  - you've got somebody to run the company, Murray Cook.


  1  And you're looking for financial support, aren't you?
  2                 A:   Not at that point.
  3                 Q:   I see.  And the land that you're
  4  going to want to acquire is land that's owned by OMERS?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And we know that DeCicco and Di Poce
  7  both become equity participants of World Class
  8  Developments, and they both invest a lot of money in it.
  9                 A:   In the end, yes.
 10                 Q:   Right.  So other than the timing,
 11  it's not impossible that the reason that Di Poce and
 12  DeCicco are there, is to discuss the reason that World
 13  Class Developments was incorporated, which was to develop
 14  the hotel site on this land?
 15                 A:   At that time, I would still say no.
 16                 Q:   Will you please turn to February 7th,
 17  2006, Exhibit 228, page 6.
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21                 Q:   This is a meeting at your mother's
 22  house with yourself and Leo Couprie, February 7th, 2006.
 23  Do we agree that the purpose of this meeting is to
 24  discuss World Class Developments?
 25                 A:   It could be.


  1                 Q:   Well, now let's break that answer
  2  down.  This is the first time Mr. Couprie, at least in
  3  your mother's agendas, is meeting wit -- with her, in
  4  your company, correct?
  5                 A:   If that's what the records show.
  6                 Q:   All right.  I can assure you that, to
  7  the best of my knowledge, that's what the records show.
  8  And to the best of your knowledge, had Mr. Couprie had
  9  any other independent relationship with your mother?
 10                 A:   He was trying to work on a Seneca
 11  College, moving them to Mississauga.
 12                 Q:   At that time?
 13                 A:   I don't remember if it was -- that's
 14  exactly at that time.
 15                 Q:   And what was your role in his
 16  attempts to move Seneca College to Mississauga in
 17  February 7th, 2006?
 18                 A:   I had no role.
 19                 Q:   All right.  So there'd be no reason
 20  for you to be there for him to discuss Seneca College
 21  with your mother?
 22                 A:   Other than family friend, no.
 23                 Q:   But we do know that by -- by February
 24  of 2006 you were starting to pay attention to the
 25  organization of WCD.


  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  3                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Just -- just give me a
  4  moment, Mr. Commissioner.
  6                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  8                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Just a moment, I'll...
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 13                 Q:   We know that World Class Developments
 14  was -- when it had been incorporated, but it's not
 15  actively organized.  Do you know what that means?  It
 16  means the lawyers were still incorporating directors.  Do
 17  you -- do you want -- do -- do you realize --
 18                 A:   Well, I'm -- you're telling me.
 19                 Q:   All right.  Well, I'm going to show
 20  you -- okay, it's in their documents.  I'll come back to
 21  this in just a moment.
 22                 But do you recall that -- that Mr. Couprie
 23  gave instructions to the lawyers that since he was going
 24  to be putting up all the money, that he wanted to be the
 25  sole director?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And it's about this time that, in my
  3  recollection -- I'm going to try and find the documents -
  4  -
  5                 A:   Okay.
  6                 Q:   -- that he's meeting with you and
  7  your mother.
  8                 A:   Then that's probably what we're
  9  talking about.
 10                 Q:   All right.  That was in February of
 11  2006.  Would you please turn to May 29th, 2006, Exhibit
 12  228, page 7.
 13                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 15                 Q:   This is a lunch meeting with Murray
 16  Cook and yourself and your mother; can we agree that the
 17  likely discussion was about World Class Developments?
 18                 A:   That is possible.
 19                 Q:   Well, this is the second meeting with
 20  Murray Cook.  The first -- the first meeting was a year
 21  earlier, May 18th, 2005.  At least that's recorded in
 22  your mother's agendas.  There may -- there may have been
 23  other meetings, but we don't know about them.
 24                 And now on May 29th, 2006, there's a
 25  second lunch.


  1                 A:   It's a breakfast.
  2                 Q:   A breakfast.  And I'm suggesting to
  3  you that the likely topic of discussion was World Class
  4  Developments.
  5                 A:   It could be.
  6                 Q:   And by this time, even your affidavit
  7  indicates that you had successfully recruited Murray Cook
  8  to come in with you in World Class Developments.
  9                 A:   To head up the company.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  And we now turn to July 9th,
 11  2006, Exhibit 234, page 15.  This is a barbeque at Mr.
 12  Couprie's house.
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   And you were there with your mother.
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 Q:   And you told us that as far as you
 17  know, that Mr. Couprie's involvement with your mother
 18  could have been with respect to Seneca College, or
 19  alternatively it could have been with respect to World
 20  Class Developments.
 21                 A:   Could have been, but that was a
 22  social barbeque.
 23                 Q:   Yeah.  Turn to Exhibit 228, page 9,
 24  September 22nd, 2006.  This is a meeting at your mother's
 25  house with yourself and Murray Cook.


  1                 I suggest to you that by September 26th
  2  (sic), 2006, the likely top -- topic of discussion would
  3  have been World Class Developments.
  4                 A:   What's the date again?
  5                 Q:   September 22nd, 2006.
  6                 A:   It is likely.
  7                 Q:   Go on, Exhibit 191, the chronology,
  8  January 18th, 2007.  This is a meeting that -- lunch that
  9  you had with Ed Sajecki, and you talked about that lunch
 10  yesterday with Mr. McDowell.
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   January 25th, 2007, Exhibit 228, page
 13  3.  This is a dinner at Pier 4 with Leo Couprie, Leo's
 14  wife, Peter McCallion, and a guest of -- that -- your
 15  guest.
 16                 This is the dinner at which the
 17  declaration of trust was signed?
 18                 A:   I believe.
 19                 Q:   The one that was witnessed by your
 20  mother.
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   Now, I said to you before, and we'll
 23  take a break just after this, but I was going to refer
 24  you to the organization of World Class Developments.  Is
 25  there an exhibit number?


  1                 The -- would you please find document
  2  COM001002766?
  3                 THE COURT OPERATOR:   Can you repeat the
  4  number, please?
  5                 MR. JAMES RENIHAN:   It's 001002766.
  8                 Q:   This is a letter to Mr. Couprie from
  9  the lawyers confirming that the company had been
 10  incorporated on February 22nd, 2005, and that based on
 11  instructions received from Mr. Couprie, they had
 12  reorganized the corporation through filing of articles of
 13  amendment.
 14                 The original directors and officers were
 15  the lawyers, but that on instructions from you and from
 16  Mr. Couprie, the directors and officers and its
 17  shareholders were changed to reflect Mr. Couprie as the
 18  principal of the corporation.
 19                 Stopping there.  Very clearly states that
 20  the organization of this corporation was on instructions
 21  jointly from you and Mr. Couprie.
 22                 What instructions did you give to -- to
 23  the lawyers to organize this company?
 24                 A:   That it was Mr. Couprie's company at
 25  that point.


  1                 Q:   That's not what I said.  The lawyer
  2  indicates in his letter that the instructions on how to
  3  organize the company came from you and from Mr. Couprie.
  4                 What instructions did you, Peter
  5  McCallion, give the lawyers with respect to the
  6  organization of the company?
  7                 A:   That it was Leo's company.
  8                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Commissioner,
  9  there's -- there's a matter that we need to address, can
 10  we take the morning break now?
 12  right.  Fifteen (15) minutes.
 13                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 14  please.  This Inquiry stands recessed fifteen (15)
 15  minutes.
 17  --- Upon recessing at 11:22 a.m.
 18  --- Upon resuming at 11:41 a.m.
 20                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 21  please.  This Inquiry is back in session.  Please be
 22  seated.
 23                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Well, the document,
 24  Madam Registrar, that we had on the screen was 001002766.
 25  Could we just get that back, please.


  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  4                 Q:   All right.  This is the letter that -
  5  - this is the letter now organizing the company.  The
  6  company had been incorporated, just to refresh
  7  everybody's memory, in February of 2005.  And now, in
  8  November of 2006, the -- it's being organized.
  9                 The lawyer reflects that it's being
 10  organized on instructions in part from you; and you deny
 11  giving the lawyer any instructions.
 12                 A:   I didn't deny -- deny that.
 13                 Q:   Oh, I see.  Then what role did you
 14  play in instructing the lawyer as to how to organize the
 15  company?
 16                 A:   To make sure it was in Leo's name.
 17  He was the one with the money.
 18                 Q:   In fact, we know from...
 20                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 22                 Q:   Exhibit 187 --
 23                 A:   Is --
 24                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   If I could -- if
 25  I could rise for a moment.  Before we move on, could I


  1  see the end of this letter?  I can't seem to find it.  I
  2  want to know whether or not this Witness got a copy of
  3  the letter.  It doesn't seem to be -- I -- at least I
  4  can't find it.
  6                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  8                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Can you
  9  bring it up?
 10                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   There's -- the second
 11  page does not appear to be -- the signature page does not
 12  appear to be there; the attachments are all there.
 13                 And to save all the counsel the trouble of
 14  reading it, the attachments indicate the company is
 15  organized, and Leo Couprie is the sole officer and
 16  director.
 17                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   I would ask that
 18  we get the -- this full document --
 20  right.  Maybe over the lunch break, we'll get the -- the
 21  rest of the letter, if we can find it.
 22                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   Thank you.
 24  this letter been marked?
 25                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   No, but the way -- I


  1  thought you were assigning exhibit numbers to everything
  2  afterwards.  But it's up to you.
  3                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   So it
  4  will be assigned a number?
  5                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Yes.
  7  right.
  8                 THE COURT CLERK:   Apparently we can do it
  9  now, Your Honour, so we'll give it Exhibit 291.
 10                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   291.
 12  --- EXHIBIT NO. 291:       COM001002766 - letter - World
 13                             Class Developments Limited -
 14                             corporate matters dated
 15                             November 20, 2006
 18                 Q:   187.  We're going now to Exhibit 187.
 19  The next page, please, and to the bottom of this email
 20  chain if possible.  That's fine right there.
 21                 Now, Mr. McCallion, what we have is Mr.
 22  Couprie's instructions to the law firm; and these
 23  instructions are as of August the 3rd, 2006.  And you
 24  recall that the letter that we just referred to was
 25  November 2006.


  1                 So some months before Mr. Couprie writes
  2  to Mr. Brown, and looking at the email at the bottom --
  3  oh, it's right on the screen:
  4                   "Until such time when WCD firms up the
  5                   deal with OMERS, the corporation will
  6                   be in my name only, as I'm putting the
  7                   seven hundred and fifty thousand
  8                   (750,000) deposit up -- seven hundred
  9                   and fifty thousand dollar ($750,000)
 10                   deposit up."
 11                 Do you see that?
 12                 A:   Yeah, I see that.
 13                 Q:   Fine.  And then that's confirmed the
 14  next day by an email from Mr. Brown to Mr. Couprie, at
 15  the top of the page.  In the third line he says:
 16                   "All existing directors and
 17                   shareholders, Caprara, and myself will
 18                   be scrubbed and replaced with you."
 19                 And that's what happens, when the -- the
 20  letter that we saw in November, in fact, makes Mr.
 21  Couprie the sole officer and director, right?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   So now let's go back to the
 24  chronology,  because we know that at least by August, if
 25  not earlier -- but at least by August -- Mr. Couprie is


  1  confirming that he's going to be the sole officer and
  2  director.
  3                 And I had said to you that I may have been
  4  out by a few months, that in February 7th, 2006, Exhibit
  5  228, page 6, you and Couprie had met with the Mayor.  We
  6  already looked at this.  And I said this was likely about
  7  WCD, and you said, No, it could have been about Seneca
  8  College.
  9                 Do you recall that discussion?
 10                 A:   Yes, I do.
 11                 Q:   Now that we see that in August,
 12  Couprie already knows that he's putting up the money,
 13  he's going to be sole officer and director.
 14                 And assuming that this decision wasn't
 15  made overnight the night before, is it possible that
 16  those discussion had extended back to February?
 17                 A:   It is possible.
 18                 Q:   All right.  And on July the 9th,
 19  again, when -- and this is a document that you've looked
 20  at before, when you and your mother attended the barbeque
 21  at Couprie's house on July the 9th, by that time it was,
 22  I suggest to you, pretty clear that Couprie would be the
 23  sole officer and director of this company.
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   And then we turn to the Pier 1 (sic)


  1  meeting, which is Exhibit 228.  That's where the
  2  declaration of trust is -- is signed.  And by that time,
  3  Couprie already knows that he is the sole officer and
  4  director formally, because he's received the reporting
  5  letter from Ca -- Caprara Brown.  There's no doubt about
  6  that.
  7                 A:   No.
  8                 Q:   And when he signs the declaration of
  9  trust that he is holding 80 percent of the shares for
 10  you, he was already the legal shareholder -- the only
 11  shareholder of WCD at that time.
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   We now get to Exhibit 274.  I hope
 14  it's correct.  Yes, I want the loan agreement.  The next
 15  page, that one.
 16                 Now, you'll have to explain something to
 17  me.  At the time that you enter into the -- into the
 18  trust declaration, you also enter into the loan
 19  agreement, because it's also witnessed by your mother.
 20                 I'm assuming that was -- that both
 21  documents were executed at the same time.
 22                 A:   I would think so, yes.
 23                 Q:   All right.  Mr. Couprie is the sole
 24  shareholder of the company, at least legally.  He's the
 25  sole officer.


  1                 He agrees to lend seven hundred and fifty
  2  thousand dollars ($750,000) to the company on the
  3  condition that the company will repay him twice the
  4  amount that he invests, correct?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And then he gets you to guarantee
  7  that he will be paid back $1.5 million.
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   So I must be missing something.  He's
 10  lending money to the company, of which he is the sole
 11  shareholder and sole officer and sole director, correct?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   But he wants a guarantee from you,
 14  the real estate agent, that the company will repay him
 15  twice the amount of money that he invests.
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   Why does he need a guarantee from you
 18  with respect to a loan from a -- to a company in which
 19  he's the sole shareholder?
 20                 A:   It made him feel comfortable.
 21                 Q:   What was it about your asset base
 22  that gave him any comfort at all?
 23                 A:   Not very good.
 24                 Q:   Pardon me?
 25                 A:   Not very good.


  1                 Q:   Well, you just said it made him feel
  2  comfortable.  Why would your guarantee be of any comfort
  3  to him at all?
  4                 A:   Future income.
  5                 Q:   All right.  And why were you
  6  guaranteeing a loan that he was making to the company of
  7  which he was the sole officer and director and had the
  8  ability to pay himself out in any event?
  9                 A:   I cannot ans -- answer why he did
 10  that.
 11                 Q:   Were you troubled by the fact that he
 12  was asking you, a mere real estate agent, to guarantee
 13  twice the amount of money that he was putting into the
 14  company?
 15                 A:   No.
 16                 Q:   I suggest to you that the reason he
 17  wanted your guarantee was because you were going to be
 18  the beneficial owner of 80 percent of the shares of WCD,
 19  and therefore, you could control the decision of the
 20  company as to whether or not they would pay Mr. Couprie
 21  $1.5 million?
 22                 A:   You can suggest that.
 23                 Q:   And that's the reason why you wanted
 24  your guarantee, because then he could force you to effect
 25  the payment that you had agreed to give him?


  1                 A:   But he was in control of the company.
  2                 Q:   All right.  As the beneficial owner
  3  of 80 percent, you could take that back at any time.
  4                 A:   Take what back?
  5                 Q:   Take your shares back.
  6                 A:   I understand that now, not at the
  7  time.
  8                 Q:   Well, apparently Mr. Couprie must
  9  have understood, that mu -- that's -- now appears to be
 10  the reason why he wanted your guarantee.
 11                 A:   That could be, yes.
 12                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Back to the
 13  chronology, Mr. Commissioner, at the bottom of page 8.
 16                 Q:   This agreement was signed on January
 17  the 29th; so was the declaration of trust.  The Agreement
 18  of Purchase and Sale between WCD and Oxford is signed on
 19  January 31, 2007, two (2) days later.
 20                 Please turn to tab -- to Exhibits 217, and
 21  we'll follow it with 218.
 22                 217 is an electronic calender indication
 23  that there was a meeting invitation for February the
 24  15th, a meeting requested by Peter McCallion and agreed
 25  to by Ed Sajecki.  Do you see that?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And we know from the notes of the
  3  meeting, which are found at Exhibit 218 -- they're in Ms.
  4  Ball's notes -- that the purpose of this meeting was to
  5  discuss planning issues surrounding the purchase of the
  6  hotel lands.
  7                 A:   Okay.
  8                 Q:   Do you recall the meeting at all?
  9                 A:   Who was the meeting with again?
 10                 Q:   Yourself, Mr. Cook, Mr. Sajecki, and
 11  Ms. Ball.  And the meeting was arranged at your request.
 12                 A:   I don't really recall the meeting.
 13  If I'd had a meeting it would have been probably with Ed
 14  and Murray Cook.  But I don't recall a specific meeting,
 15  no.
 16                 Q:   Well, fortunately, Ms. Ball's there,
 17  because we have her notes.
 18                 A:   Good.
 19                 Q:   All right.  So, you see that the
 20  reference is, "Hotel/Murray + Peter McCallion"?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   "60 days due diligence."
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   And, "60 days due -- due diligence,"
 25  and to the title issues as part of the Agreement of


  1  Purchase and Sale?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   And you had to do soils analysis
  4  within two and a half (2 1/2) weeks?
  5                 A:   That's what it says.
  6                 Q:   Is that an accurate description of
  7  what your obligations were?
  8                 A:   I don't remember.
  9                 Q:   All right.  And then she records that
 10  there were four (4) months to submit a site plan?
 11                 A:   That's what it says.
 12                 Q:   Do you have any recollection that
 13  that was the obligation of WCD?
 14                 A:   I would have to reread the agreement
 15  at this point.
 16                 Q:   I see.  Are you telling us that --
 17  that you have no recollection of that obligation, as you
 18  sit here today?
 19                 A:   We had many obligations.  I would
 20  have to reread the agreement.
 21                 Q:   All right.  And the next point she
 22  records is there was six (6) months to lift the 'H'
 23  designation.
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   Do you recall that?


  1                 A:   I don't recall the time, but I know
  2  there was a time frame, and it was to lift the 'H'.
  3                 Q:   All right.  And then she records that
  4  after the 'H' designation -- which is a holding
  5  designation, correct?
  6                 A:   That is correct.
  7                 Q:   And after the 'H' designation is
  8  lifted, once the holding designation is lifted, that
  9  WCD's covenant, prior to being able to build any condos,
 10  was to have substantal -- substantial construction on the
 11  hotel?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   So the hotel had to go first, before
 14  you could get to the revenue stream of building the
 15  condominiums?
 16                 A:   Correct.  
 17                 Q:   And then she records that there was
 18  plans to build a temporary sales office -- a sale --
 19  sales centre, after 'H', after the holding clause was
 20  removed for the condominiums.
 21                 Do you recall that discussion?
 22                 A:   Yes, I do.
 23                 Q:   And that the hotel was going to be
 24  approximately two hundred and fifty (250) rooms.  Do you
 25  recall that?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And the first stage -- I'm not sure
  3  what this meant -- was eight (8) to ten (10) stories.  Do
  4  you -- can you assist me in that regard?
  5                 A:   That's probably related to the hotel.
  6                 Q:   All right.  Page & Steele were the
  7  architects on the project, which has the names of the
  8  individuals.
  9                 A:   Well, Page & Steele -- Mark Sterling
 10  (phonetic), I think, was with different company.
 11                 Q:   All right.  But these are individuals
 12  who had been retained by WCD to provide professional
 13  assistance?
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   So there can be no question then that
 16  this meeting is in furtherance of putting into place the
 17  steps necessary to conclude all of the obligations, WCD's
 18  obligations, under the agreement of purchase and sale.
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And that's why you were there?
 21                 A:   Quite possibly.
 22                 Q:   Well, you weren't there as a
 23  spectator.  This is not --
 24                 A:   No, I wasn't.
 25                 Q:   -- this is not a spectator sport.


  1                 A:   I didn't say I was there as a
  2  spectator.
  3                 Q:   All right.  So what other reason
  4  could you have been there?
  5                 A:   For that specific topic.
  6                 Q:   Okay.  Now, just going on with the
  7  chronology, I take it that, and we don't need to go to
  8  these documents, but you had submitted an application to
  9  become appointed to the Committee of Adjustment for the
 10  City of Mississauga.
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   And you withdrew that application at
 13  about this time?
 14                 A:   I don't recall the timing of it.
 15                 Q:   Well, I can save you the trouble.
 16  It's -- you -- your letter withdrawing your application
 17  due to a business opportunity, that's what your letter
 18  said, was in March 27th -- March 20th, 2007.
 19                 A:   Okay.
 20                 Q:   So the reason that you couldn't
 21  devote your attention to the Committee of Adjustment was
 22  really because of WCD?
 23                 A:   No, it was not.
 24                 Q:   What else was there?
 25                 A:   It was related to -- my mother could


  1  not make a decision on who would be on the committee if I
  2  was applying for it.
  3                 Q:   So it wasn't because of a business
  4  opportunity at all?
  5                 A:   No, it was not.
  6                 Q:   So you just used that as a convenient
  7  way of withdrawing your application.
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   Now turn to Exhibit 223.  This is a
 10  luncheon meeting you had with Mr. Sajecki at Canyon Creek
 11  on June 21st, 2007.
 12                 Was WCD discussed at that meeting?
 13                 A:   It may have been.
 14                 Q:   And --
 15                 A:   As well as other items.
 16                 Q:   Well, when you say "it might have
 17  been," surely there could be little doubt.  You were
 18  active --
 19                 A:   I could say --
 20                 Q:   --  or WCD was very active in this.
 21                 A:  -- a little doubt that did not come
 22  up.
 23                 Q:   Pardon me?
 24                 A:   I can say it's a little active --
 25  it's little chances that it did not come up.


  1                 Q:   And if it did come up, do you rec --
  2  well, or when it did come up, do you recall what it was
  3  that you discussed with Mr. Sajecki --
  4                 A:   No, I do not remember.
  5                 Q:   Exhibit 234, please.  This is an
  6  indication that you and Mr. DeCicco...
  8                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 10                 Q:   Page 19, I apologize.  July 18th,
 11  2007, you and the Mayor attend a barbeque at Mr.
 12  Couprie's house.
 13                 Now, as of that date, other than WCD, to
 14  the best of your knowledge, did Mr. Couprie have any
 15  other active business ventures on -- und -- underway in
 16  Mississauga?
 17                 A:   Not that I'm aware of at that time.
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21                 Q:   I'm told, in fairness, that the word
 22  "post" means that your mother was invited to attend this
 23  barbeque at Mr. Couprie's house.
 24                 Do you know whether or not she attended
 25  it?


  1                 A:   I don't recall.
  2                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   All right.  Mr.
  3  Commissioner, I wasn't aware that that was the meaning of
  4  the word, and so, in the chronology, if that makes a
  5  difference, then you can please enter...
  7                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 10                 Q:   We come to July 27th, 2007, and that
 11  is the date in which you signed the promissory note for
 12  TACC for the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).  That's
 13  Exhibit 196.
 14                 The curious thing about this promissory
 15  note, Mr. McCallion, is is that it had a very short time
 16  before it became due; it was due on November the 1st,
 17  2007.  What's that make it?  October, September -- about
 18  three (3) or four (4) months away.
 19                 How did you tell Mr. -- or indicate to Mr.
 20  de Gasperis that you were going to raise the money to pay
 21  this note off in three (3) or four (4) months?
 22                 A:   Well, I thought we'd have a financial
 23  partner.
 24                 Q:   Well, you knew you were going to have
 25  a financial partner because Mr. DeCicco is coming in as


  1  of August the 1st.
  2                 A:   It wasn't confirmed.
  3                 Q:   It wasn't confirmed on -- on January
  4  the 27th -- I'm sorry, July 27th -- that he was going to
  5  be in three (3) or four (4) days later?
  6                 A:   Nothing had been signed.
  7                 Q:   Well, all right.  Did you tell Mr.
  8  DeCicco -- did you tell Mr. De Gasperis that you're going
  9  to have Mr. DeCicco in or you hoped to have him in as a
 10  partner within three (3) or four (4) days?
 11                 A:   No, I did not.
 12                 Q:   Well, did Mr. de Gasperis ask you how
 13  did -- you proposed to be able to pay him back the fifty
 14  thousand dollars ($50,000) in three (3) of four (4)
 15  months?
 16                 A:   He did not.
 17                 Q:   In fact, I think you've indicated
 18  that you did not have the money available to you to pay
 19  him back at that time.
 20                 A:   That is correct.
 21                 Q:   And when the time came on November
 22  the 2nd when the note was due, you still didn't have the
 23  money?
 24                 A:   No, I did not.
 25                 Q:   And the note remains unpaid, as of


  1  the present time?
  2                 A:   As of the present.
  3                 Q:   And when Mr. DeCicco put the -- his
  4  money into the company and Di Poce and -- and Bisceglia,
  5  et cetera, did you try and get them to repay this fifty
  6  thousand dollars ($50,000) to TACC on the basis that it
  7  was money that had been advanced as a loan that was due
  8  and had been used for the company's purposes?
  9                 A:   I did ask, yes.
 10                 Q:   And what was their response?
 11                 A:   Not now.
 12                 Q:   Okay.  And do you know if they ever
 13  dealt directly with Mr. de Gasperis to indicate that they
 14  were not prepared to pay the debt then but perhaps at a
 15  later stage?
 16                 A:   I'm not aware of that.
 17                 Q:   You've indicated that the money had
 18  to come from you because the site plan application was
 19  going -- had to be submitted by July 31st; is that
 20  correct?
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   If it didn't come from you, it wasn't
 23  coming from any other source?
 24                 A:   That is correct.
 25                 Q:   Mr. DeCicco invested -- be -- became


  1  an investor in this company on August the 1st; did you
  2  tell him that the monies were needed to file the site
  3  plan application as of July 31st, the day before?
  4                 A:   I may have, but not prior to this.
  5                 Q:   And did you attempt to get him to put
  6  the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) up one (1) day
  7  earlier so that the site plan application could be filed
  8  without the necessity to borrow the money from TACC?
  9                 A:   No, I did not.
 10                 Q:   Why not?
 11                 A:   I had the money at that point.
 12                 Q:   You what?
 13                 A:   I had the money at that point.
 14                 Q:   Well, you had money that you had
 15  borrowed and you couldn't afford to repay, and you had a
 16  financial partner coming in within twenty-four (24) hours
 17  who had the ability to write the cheque for fifty
 18  thousand dollars ($50,000); and you say you didn't ask
 19  him?
 20                 A:   I did not ask him, no.
 21                 Q:   And I ask you:  Why not?
 22                 A:   Because we hadn't finalized his
 23  agreement.
 24                 Q:   Please turn to Exhibit 219.  This is
 25  a meeting between City staff and yourself and Murray


  1  Cook, Scott Walker, who's from your planning depar --
  2  from your planning consultant, Barry Lyons (sic), and
  3  others, to discuss the site plan approval and other
  4  matters.
  5                 Do you recall that meeting?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   And why were you there?  Why were you
  8  at a meeting in which the issue of approving the site
  9  plan and Section 41 of the Planning Act was being
 10  discussed.
 11                 A:   I was representing Leo Couprie.
 12                 Q:   You were representing Leo Couprie,
 13  who was holding his shares in trust for yourself?
 14                 A:   At that time, I was representing him
 15  as him owning the shares.
 16                 Q:   But if the Commission finds that you
 17  knew, or likely knew, that you were the beneficial owners
 18  of the shares, you'll agree with me that you were there
 19  not to represent Leo Couprie, but you were there to
 20  represent Peter McCallion.
 21                 A:   At the time, I believed I was
 22  representing Leo Couprie.
 23                 Q:   Was there any reason why Mr. Couprie
 24  couldn't attend?  He had seven hundred and fifty thousand
 25  dollars ($750,000) invested in this deal.


  1                 A:   He has other businesses to run.
  2                 Q:   As a matter of fact, we're going to
  3  go through these meetings, I don't think he attended any
  4  of them.
  5                 A:   No, he did not.
  6                 Q:   But you attended almost all of them?
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   Please go to Exhibit 216.  October
  9  the 4th there's a meeting of the development and design
 10  people at the City of Mississauga, and you attend that
 11  meeting along with Scott Walker, the planner, and Mr.
 12  Mansoor; is that correct?
 13                 A:   Correct.
 14                 Q:   Mr. Mansoor's also with the planning
 15  -- consulting firm?
 16                 A:   No, he's with Page & Steele.
 17                 Q:   All right.  And I take it you're
 18  going to tell me that you were there representing Mr.
 19  Couprie?
 20                 A:   Correct.
 21                 Q:   Now, if we could turn, please, to
 22  November the 5th, these are telephone messages, Exhibit
 23  235, 236, and 237.
 24                 On November the 5th, Mr. McCallion, Mr.
 25  DeCicco calls the mayor three (3) times.  The first time


  1  is at 8:52 a.m., and he says, or this is what the note
  2  says:
  3                   "I spoke with Barry at length."
  4                 I take it that's Barry Lyons (sic)?
  5                 A:   I would guess that, yes.
  6                 Q:
  7                   "And he and I will be able to resolve
  8                   this."
  9                 Do you recall what the issue was that
 10  required resolution?
 11                 A:   What's the date again?
 12                 Q:   This is November the 5th, 2007.
 13                 A:   No, I don't.
 14                 Q:   Okay:
 15                   "Will reconvene the meeting either
 16                   today or tomorrow, and when Peter comes
 17                   back..."
 18                 Peter being you?
 19                 A:   I would assume, yes.
 20                 Q:   There is no other Peter in...
 21                 A:   Not involved, that I'm aware of.
 22                 Q:
 23                   "...will look at the budget, and move
 24                   forward."
 25                 Do you recall if you were away in November


  1  of 2007?
  2                 A:   Quite possibly.
  3                 Q:   And do you recall coming back, and
  4  looking at the budget?
  5                 A:   No, I do not.
  6                 Q:   But did you reca -- do you recall
  7  ever sitting down with Mr. DeCicco and reviewing the
  8  budget for World Class Developments?
  9                 A:   No, I did not.
 10                 Q:   Do you have any idea why he'd be
 11  telling your mother that he intended to review the budget
 12  with you, since you never did it at all, ever?
 13                 A:   I cannot answer that.  I never looked
 14  at the budget.
 15                 Q:   The next sentence is:
 16                   "I told him..."
 17                 I told Barry, I think:
 18                   "...that John and I want to pay our
 19  bills."
 20                 John would be Mr. Di Poce?
 21                 A:   I cannot answer that.
 22                 Q:   Is there another John in -- that you
 23  know of in WCD?
 24                 A:   No.
 25                 Q:   All right.  It says:


  1                   "Thanks for your help.  It's just that
  2                   based on the information I had, I
  3                   thought we were being ransacked."
  4                 Did he ever tell you who he thought was
  5  ransacking WCD?
  6                 A:   No.
  7                 Q:   Did he ever accuse Barry Lyons (sic)
  8  of ransacking WCD?
  9                 A:   I don't recall that at all.
 10                 Q:   Do you know -- do you have any
 11  recollection of him having a discussion with you about
 12  paying bills that he thought were legitimate, and not
 13  paying bills that you thought were overstated?
 14                 A:   No, he did not.
 15                 Q:   All right.  Could we please go to the
 16  next exhibit, 236.
 17                 So the first call was at 8:00 -- what'd I
 18  just say -- 8:00 something in the morning, and now within
 19  an hour, at 9:03 a.m., is a second call.  This --
 20                 A:   The same day?
 21                 Q:   The same day.  This time, Mr. DeCicco
 22  asks your mother:
 23                   "Were you able or have you considered
 24                   getting Murray..."
 25                 That's Murray Cook?


  1                 A:  Yes.
  2                 Q:
  3                   "...to sign the agreement terminating
  4                   the call?"
  5                 We know what that refers to, because there
  6  was an agreement that's been entered as an exhibit -- I
  7  don't have the exhibit number right now -- in which the
  8  ho -- the -- the shotgun provisions of the agreement were
  9  terminated, Put-and-call (phonetic) between the
 10  shareholders were terminated.  Do you recall that?
 11                 A:   I recall that, yes.
 12                 Q:   It'd be important to you, because
 13  what he was terminating was the agreement between Murray
 14  Cook and Leo Couprie.
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 Q:   And Leo Couprie was holding his
 17  shares in trust for you, so therefore, you would be
 18  affected if Murray Cook called on your shares.
 19                 A:   On Leo's shares at the time.
 20                 Q:   That he was holding for you.
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   All right.  And you say to your
 23  mother that -- was she able to get Murray to sign the
 24  agreement terminating the call.
 25                 To your knowledge, what was her role to


  1  being -- get -- convincing Murray Cook to enter in to the
  2  agreement that terminated the share -- the call on your
  4                 A:   Other than she knows Murray, and Tony
  5  as well.
  6                 Q:   And why -- why would you ne -- need
  7  to involve the Mayor of Mississauga for what is
  8  essentially a private issue?
  9                 A:   I didn't.  Tony did.
 10                 Q:   I see.  And he says:
 11                   "The sooner we get it, the better off
 12                   we are."
 13                 Did you agree that it was necessary to get
 14  Murray to sign off earlier rather than later?
 15                 A:   It didn't matter when he signed off,
 16  just as long as he signed off.
 17                 Q:   All right.  Now we'll go over to
 18  Exhibit 237.  The same day, 11:36 a.m., text.  The
 19  message is:
 20                   "I just wanted to keep you updated on
 21                   this, because I have just -- I -- I
 22                   just spoke with Saul."
 23                 S-A-U-L.  Who is Saul?
 24                 A:   I don't remember who he is.
 25                 Q:   Could I suggest he was a bookkeeper


  1  of some sort?
  2                 A:   I don't remember who he is.
  3                 Q:   Is see.  He said:
  4                   "We had a good discussion.  There was a
  5                   lot of miscommunication.  But the thing
  6                   I wanted to know was if Murray knew
  7                   about the outstanding amount."
  8                 He's asking your mother if Murray Cook
  9  knew about the outstanding amount.  Murray said he did,
 10  and he believes there's a letter telling him there's a
 11  hundred and sixty-one thousand (161,000) outstanding
 12  rather than sixty-one (61) outstanding.
 13                 What do you know -- what -- what do you
 14  understand this to mean?
 15                 A:   I'm not familiar with it.
 16                 Q:   Well, it was important to you to get
 17  Murray to sign off.  And apparently, it was important to
 18  -- to Mr. DeCicco to find out if Murray knew about an
 19  outstanding amount.
 20                 A:   In reference to?
 21                 Q:   He's asking your mother about that.
 22                 A:   I don't know what that's about.
 23  Outstanding with who?
 24                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   Excuse me.  If I
 25  could just stand up for a moment.  It seems -- Mr.


  1  Commissioner, it seems to me that while it's very
  2  difficult to translate somebody else's message, it would
  3  appear that the miscommunication -- the request was made
  4  by Mr. DeCicco to Saul, and not to the Mayor, as to the
  5  question as to whether Murray knew about the un --
  6  outstanding amount.
  7                 Obviously, we're going to have Mr. DeCicco
  8  himself here to testify, but -- but that characterization
  9  of the message, I would suggest, is -- is not necessarily
 10  the correct one.
 12  right.
 15                 Q:   And do you know, Mr. McCallion, why
 16  it was that Mr. DeCicco was sharing any of this
 17  information with your mother?  What was --
 18                 A:   I'm not aware of why.
 19                 Q:   Thank you.  Can we please turn now to
 20  the next exhibit, 224, which is November the 13th, 2007.
 21  This is the meeting you had at 4:30 in the afternoon at
 22  the Canyon Creek -- sorry, go back up -- Canyon Creek
 23  Restaurant with Mr. Sajecki.
 24                 And we'll hear evidence about this, but we
 25  believe it says, "P. McCallion/AR."  We believe that's a


  1  reference to Alberta Revenue, or AIM, as they're known in
  2  this -- in these proceedings.
  3                 Do you recall who else was there at this
  4  meeting?
  5                 A:   I don't recall who AR is.
  6                 Q:   Yeah.  Do -- were -- were you at the
  7  meeting?
  8                 A:   We met for drinks.
  9                 Q:   Well, is there a Mr.  Robeznieks that
 10  -- that this could refer to?
 11                 A:   It was just me an Ed.
 12                 Q:   Do you know an Agris Robeznieks?
 13                 A:   Oh, Agris.  Yes, I do know an Agris.
 14                 Q:   And is it a he or a she?
 15                 A:   He.  He.
 16                 Q:   And was Mr. -- was Agris there at
 17  this meeting as well?
 18                 A:   I don't remember the specific
 19  meeting.  I can't say if he was or was not there.
 20                 Q:   And would it be fair to say that the
 21  meeting would have had to deal, at least in part, with
 22  the World Class Developments?
 23                 A:   It's not impossible.
 24                 Q:   Okay, is it extremely likely?
 25                 A:   If the topic didn't come up, I would


  1  be surprised, correct.
  2                 Q:   All right.  Please turn to Exhibit
  3  228, page 4.  You and Mr. Couprie are requesting a brief
  4  meeting with the Mayor at the Mayor's house at 3:45 that
  5  day.
  6                 A:   What's the date again?
  7                 Q:   November the 20th, 2007.  Do you
  8  recall why it was that you were requesting a meeting with
  9  the Mayor on November 20th, 2007, with Mr. Couprie?
 10                 A:   I can speculate.
 11                 Q:   Yes.
 12                 A:   It could have been about Murray.
 13                 Q:   Murray Cook?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   Well, that was a hot issue, because
 16  you wanted him out of the picture, right?
 17                 A:   Well, he wasn't putting any money in.
 18                 Q:   And if we go to Exhibit 224 for a
 19  moment.
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 23                 Q:   That's not correct.  I'm sorry.  I've
 24  given you the wrong number.


  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  3                 Q:   All right, let's skip on, because
  4  I've -- and why would Mr. -- we've -- we've seen Mr.
  5  DeCicco speaking to your mother about Murray Cook, or you
  6  could speak to your mother about Murray Cook.
  7                 Why would Mr. Couprie want to meet with
  8  your mother about Murray Cook?
  9                 A:   I can't exactly say why, but that's
 10  most likely the topic at the time.
 11                 Q:   Pardon me?
 12                 A:   That is most likely the topic at the
 13  time.
 14                 Q:   And do you recall what the discussion
 15  was?
 16                 A:   No, I do not.
 17                 Q:   Now, Exhibit 256, please.  November
 18  21st, 2007.  This is the minutes of the meeting that were
 19  held at Page & Steel on November the 21st.
 20                 And I'm told that Page & Steele resigned
 21  their retainer the following day, November 22nd, 2007.
 22  Does that accord with your memory?
 23                 A:   What did they do the next day?
 24                 Q:   They -- they quit.
 25                 A:   Oh, they quit.  At one point, Tony


  1  asked them to quit, yes.
  2                 Q:   And I'm told that they ceased working
  3  for WCD after this meeting?
  4                 A:   I was told that by Tony, yes.
  5                 Q:   So what we have here are some
  6  minutes.  Could we just go back up to the very top,
  7  please, for a moment.  These are minutes now by Mr.
  8  Walker.
  9                 And you can see that Mr. DeCicco is one of
 10  the people to whom it's addressed.  Mr. Bisceglia is one
 11  of the people to whom it's -- it's addressed.  And then
 12  if we go down to -- just -- no, no, you're going too far.
 13  Yeah, where is it?  Okay.  Now, if we go back up, please,
 14  on the screen.
 15                 In the second to the last line of the "to"
 16  category, worldclass@primus.ca, that's -- that's your
 17  address?
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   All right.  I take it that you were
 20  there at that meeting on the same basis as Mr. Bisceglia
 21  and Mr. DeCicco?
 22                 A:   What basis is that?
 23                 Q:   Well, whatever they were there for,
 24  you were there too.  They --
 25                 A:   I was representing Leo Couprie at


  1  that time.
  2                 Q:   I see.  All right.  We'll just -- he
  3  was too busy to come to this meeting?
  4                 A:   He came to no meetings.
  5                 Q:   And this is an important meeting,
  6  because Page & Steele was owed a lot of money, and there
  7  were trouble with -- there was trouble with Page &
  8  Steele, because, as -- as we -- as I said, they -- they
  9  stopped working on this file immediately thereafter.
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   Was that not important for Mr.
 12  Couprie to know?
 13                 A:   Yes, and I probably conveyed it.
 14                 Q:   Now, at this time, were you trying to
 15  get Mr. Couprie to put any more money into the project to
 16  assist its -- to relieve its financial pressures?
 17                 A:   No.
 18                 Q:   Go to Exhibit 212.  Now, sorry, the -
 19  - don't go there.  That's -- that's your -- that's your
 20  affidavit, Mr. McCallion.
 21                 The important date, Mr. Commissioner, is
 22  December the 4th, 2007.  That's when WCD submits a
 23  revised site plan application to the City.  The support
 24  for that is in his -- in Mr. McCallion's affidavit.
 25                 Exhibit 228, page 5, December 14th, 2007.


  1  This is a luncheon meeting with yourself, Mr. DeCicco,
  2  Mr. Di Poce, and the Mayor.  This is the second time now
  3  that Mr. Di Poce has met with the Mayor in your presence
  4  and the presence of Mr. DeCicco.
  5                 I take it that this meeting is to discuss
  6  WCD.
  7                 A:   I would say no.
  8                 Q:   Why would you say that?
  9                 A:   Because Mr. Di Poce was there.
 10                 Q:   That answer makes no sense to me,
 11  because we know that Mr. Di Poce became -- was an
 12  investor in WCD.  He'd have every reason to be there.
 13                 A:   He would if that was the topic, but I
 14  was not aware that he was a partner.
 15                 Q:   Whether you were aware or not, was
 16  WCD the topic of discussion?
 17                 A:   I would have said, for there, for
 18  sure not.
 19                 Q:   But you have no recollection.
 20                 A:   Of?
 21                 Q:   Of that, of what the discussion was
 22  in Nove --
 23                 A:   No, I do not.
 24                 Q:   -- on December the 14th, correct?
 25                 A:   But because Mr. Di Poce was there, it


  1  was not WCD.
  2                 Q:   All right.
  4                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  6                 Q:   On December the 19th, 2007, you sold
  7  your house to Mr. Couprie.
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   We're going to come back to this
 10  transaction in a moment, Your Honour.
 11                 On December 21st, 2007, would you please
 12  look at Exhibit 238.
 13                 Mr. DeCicco calls the Mayor at 3:24 p.m.,
 14  asking her to call him regarding Murray Cook.
 15                 A:   Okay.
 16                 Q:   And he suggested to you that it would
 17  be good if the three (3) of you met the following day.
 18  Do you recall your discussion with Mr. DeCicco with the
 19  need to meet with the Mayor the following day about
 20  Murray Cook?
 21                 A:   I don't recall that now.
 22                 Q:   Well, was there -- was there anything
 23  about the Murray Cook dispute which involved a larger
 24  public issue for the City of Mississauga?
 25                 A:   Not that I'm aware of.


  1                 Q:   Was it purely a personal fight,
  2  private fight, between Mr. DeCicco and you and Mr. Cook?
  3                 A:   I would say it was between Mr.
  4  DeCicco and Mr. Cook.
  5                 Q:   Mr. Couprie, who was the nominal
  6  plaintiff, but he really wasn't the person making the
  7  decisions; the person making the decisions was Mr.
  8  DeCicco and you, correct?
  9                 A:   Mr. Couprie had the shares.  He made
 10  decisions.
 11                 Q:   He had the shares, holding them in
 12  trust for others.  People who were the beneficial owners
 13  were the real people making the decisions, isn't that
 14  correct?
 15                 A:   Mr. DeCicco made all those decisions.
 16                 Q:   So these discussions that Mr. DeCicco
 17  was having with your mother is simply to enlist her
 18  support in trying to bring pressure to bear on Mr. Cook.
 19                 A:   I would assume that.
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 23                 Q:   Please turn to Exhibit 227, March the
 24  6th, 2008.  You have a meeting with Ed Sajecki, four
 25  o'clock in the afternoon.   Was that a meeting in his


  1  office?
  2                 A:   I don't recall where that was.
  3                 Q:   And was the topic of discussion the
  4  World Class Development?
  5                 A:   I would say at that time, most
  6  likely.
  7                 Q:   And what was it -- and what was it
  8  that you discussed?
  9                 A:   I don't remember what we discussed.
 10                 Q:   And would you have gone with
 11  instructions from Mr. DeCicco as to what it was he wanted
 12  you and Mr. Sajecki to discuss?
 13                 A:   I don't remember.  It could have
 14  been.
 15                 Q:   But you don't recall what your
 16  instructions were?
 17                 A:   No, I do not.
 18                 Q:   And you don't recall what the
 19  discussion was?
 20                 A:   No, I do not.
 21                 Q:   And you don't recall what outcome, if
 22  any, was the result of that discussion.
 23                 A:   No.
 24                 Q:   Exhibit 246, please.  May 13th, 2008.
 25  Now these -- this is an email from Mr. Kitt to Mr.


  1  Filipetti.  Go down, please, to the lower of the page.
  2  Yes.
  3                 So we understand the whole thing, we start
  4  off with the email that says, "How did it go" -- subject,
  5  "How did it go?"
  6                 There's -- can you -- can you see that,
  7  Mr. --
  8                 A:   Yeah.
  9                 Q:   All right.  And then we go above
 10  that, refer to the paragraph higher on the page, it says:
 11                   "Okay.  I think we came to an
 12                   agreement.  Basically, our letter, plus
 13                   has additional six (6) months to start
 14                   and finish the hotel.  They're going to
 15                   send a revised letter, and we'll see.
 16                   Hazel's son did show up later and asked
 17                   for more."
 18                 Now, do you recall attending this meeting
 19  on that date?
 20                 A:   I don't recall the meeting, but if I
 21  had been there, I was asking for more time.
 22                 Q:   You were asking for more time.
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   And who else was at the meeting on
 25  behalf of WCD?


  1                 A:   Like I said, I don't remember the
  2  meeting.  It could have been Tony.
  3                 Q:   And if he had had discussions, and
  4  you showed up later and asked for more, was that part of
  5  a -- of a -- of a -- of -- of a plan, that you would
  6  split your -- your proposals to OMERS, and he'd ask for
  7  six (6) months, and then you'd ask for more?
  8                 A:   Not that I recall, no.
  9                 Q:   Turn, please, to Exhibit 239.  This
 10  is May 22nd.  Mr. DeCicco calls your mother, and in about
 11  the fifth line down, he says:
 12                   "I got your message.  I think we should
 13                   get together.  There's a lot happening
 14                   with Murray that we need to speak
 15                   about.  We can get together tonight any
 16                   time at your convenience.  I'll be busy
 17                   over the next few days, but I'll
 18                   obviously make time for you.  Let me
 19                   know if you're available tonight.  I'm
 20                   giving Peter a call to see what his
 21                   schedule is like."
 22                 Do you recall attending a meeting at your
 23  mother's home that night --
 24                 A:   No, I do not.
 25                 Q:   -- with Tony DeCicco to discuss


  1  Murray Cook?
  2                 A:   No, I do not.
  3                 Q:   Do you recall Mr. DeCicco calling you
  4  --
  5                 A:   Well, I don't --
  6                 Q:   -- to see what your availability was
  7  for such a meeting?
  8                 A:   -- I don't recall that on that date.
  9                 Q:   Exhibit 204, please.  This is June
 10  the 5th, 2008.  Mr. DeCicco calls your mother and says:
 11                   "I spoke to Peter this morning, and he
 12                   spoke to David."
 13                 Who was David?
 14                 A:   Well, what is this topic about?  It
 15  could have been David Toor.
 16                 Q:   That's who we think it is.
 17                 A:   That's who I think it is.
 18                 Q:   All right.  And what was David Toor's
 19  involvement with respect to WCD?
 20                 A:   He was a hotelier.
 21                 Q:   Okay.  And what had you -- what
 22  approach had you made to David Toor?
 23                 A:   To operate and manage the hotel, and
 24  build it.
 25                 Q:   And to pay something for that


  1  privilege?
  2                 A:   Well, to buy the land.
  3                 Q:   I see, okay.  And so this is
  4  important, because it's in June of 2008, which is also
  5  the time that we've seen the document from Ernst & Young,
  6  where you're out looking for financing.  Do you recall
  7  that document?
  8                 A:   I'm not aware of that document until
  9  this --
 10                 Q:   I know, but you've seen it now,
 11  correct?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   The document that describes you as
 14  one of the principals.
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 Q:   And, at the same time, who had made
 17  the approach to David Toor?
 18                 A:   Well, he was a past customer of mine.
 19                 Q:   So was it you that approached David
 20  Toor?
 21                 A:   I introduced him to Tony, yes.
 22                 Q:   And the purpose of that was to see if
 23  he would pay for the land.
 24                 A:   To pay for the land and build a
 25  hotel.


  1                 Q:   This message comes back to your
  2  mother from Mr. DeCicco saying that:
  3                   "As you suspected, he [being David
  4                   Toor] was not ready to pay for anything
  5                   at that stage."
  6                 A:   Correct. 
  7                 Q:   And "Peter" -- this -- I'm looking at
  8  the message now.
  9                   "Peter agrees that he may or -- that he
 10                   may not pay for it at all."
 11                 Correct?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   That you didn't think he was really
 14  interested in it.
 15                 A:   He was interested if you gave him the
 16  land.
 17                 Q:   Yeah.  Well, most people are
 18  interested in things that don't cost very much.
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   Okay.  And so he says:
 21                   "Peter agrees we should send the
 22                   paperwork, agree to sell at that
 23                   price."
 24                 What price is it that you agreed that you
 25  should send out the paperwork?


  1                 A:   I believe, as I recall, I think it
  2  was 3 million.
  3                 Q:   He says:
  4                   "I have a strong suspicion that they
  5                   will not come on this -- on this deal."
  6                 This is Toor won't come through on the
  7  deal.
  8                 A:   That's what Tony's opinion was, yes.
  9                 Q:   All right.  And he says:
 10                   "At least we can -- then we can start
 11                   negotiations on getting them out at a
 12                   reduced price."
 13                 I don't understand how that follows.
 14                 A:   I don't either.  I don't know who
 15  "them" is.
 16                 Q:   He never discussed this with you?
 17                 A:   I don't recall who "them" is.
 18                 Q:   And when he says, "I spoke to Peter
 19  this morning," did he talk about getting somebody out of
 20  the deal at a reduced price?
 21                 A:   Not -- I'm -- I'm not aware of that.
 22                 Q:   Just turn, please, to Exhibit 240.
 23  This is June the 6th.  The other message was June the
 24  5th, the one we just looked at.
 25                 Mr. DeCicco says:


  1                   "I just spoke with Peter again, and we
  2                   confirmed the deal is not coming
  3                   through, as I suspected.  I'd like to
  4                   meet with you tonight, if possible, any
  5                   time at your house."
  6                 Is that the deal with Toor, or is that the
  7  deal with somebody else?
  8                 A:   I'm going to assume that's the deal
  9  with Toor. 
 10                 Q:   And what was the reason that you
 11  wanted to meet with your mother that night, if possible,
 12  now that you knew that -- that Toor wasn't going to make
 13  an offer?
 14                 A:   I wasn't requesting a meeting with my
 15  mother.
 16                 Q:   Well, he just said, I just spoke with
 17  Peter, and we would like to know if you're available.
 18  That we --
 19                 A:   No.
 20                 Q:   -- would like -- well, I guess you're
 21  right, "I'd like to meet with you tonight."  You're --
 22  you're quite right.  You weren't going to be part of that
 23  meeting, as far as you know.
 24                 A:   I wasn't invited.
 25                 Q:   July the 4th, 2008, Exhibit 241.


  1  July the 4th, 2008, Mr. DeCicco says to your mother:
  2                   "I just spoke with Peter.  If you get a
  3                   chance, please give me a call."
  4                 Do you know what it was that he wanted to
  5  discuss with your mother that he had just discussed with
  6  you as of that date?
  7                 A:   I do not recall that. 
  8                 Q:   Please go to Exhibit 249.
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12                 Q:   Go down to the bottom of this page,
 13  please.
 14                 Now, this -- just so you understand the
 15  sequence of this, Mr. McCallion, this is the letter that
 16  had been received from the lawyer at McCarthy, saying
 17  that the -- this -- that -- that World Class Development
 18  -- they did not consider that the hotel proposal for
 19  World Class Developments was a four-star proposal, and
 20  that the agreement would be in -- it would be held in
 21  breach of the agreement.  Go up, please.
 23                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 25                 Q:   The -- the note says:


  1                   "We're putting them on notice to live
  2                   by the terms of the deal."
  3                 And then he said:
  4                   "We have a surprise meeting requested
  5                   by Peter McCallion tomorrow.  I will
  6                   report afterwards."
  7                 What was that request about?
  8                 A:   The hotel.
  9                 Q:   And what was it that you were hoping
 10  to get them to do about the hotel as of Wednesday,
 11  October the 8th?
 12                 A:   Well, due to the economic times at
 13  the time, we needed more time for the hotel, for
 14  completion.
 15                 Q:   And you were approaching them with
 16  the approval of Mr. DeCicco?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   Go to Exhibit 242, please.  Mr.
 19  DeCicco calls your mother the next day after you had the
 20  surprise meeting.
 21                 And the point of this call was for her to
 22  call him about, "How we can move forward."
 23                 "We" being WCD can move forward.  Did you
 24  report it to your mother on the discussion that you had
 25  had the day before with Oxford?


  1                 A:   No, I reported to Tony.
  2                 Q:   What was it that you and Tony thought
  3  you mother could do to assist you in moving forward with
  4  Oxford?
  5                 A:   I'm unaware of that.
  6                 Q:   So you have no idea what Tony's
  7  referring to on "how best to move forward"?
  8                 A:   No, I do not.
  9                 Q:   Please turn to Exhibit 247.  This is
 10  October 23rd, 2008.  Down at the bottom, please.  Yes.
 11  Top paragraph on the screen now -- no, just leave it the
 12  way it is.
 13                 This is a meeting of October 23rd that
 14  apparently, these notes suggest that you suggested that
 15  WCD might agree to increase the selling price by $2.5
 16  million if the hotel conditions were dropped.  Was that
 17  accurate?
 18                 A:   No, it is not.
 19                 Q:   You never made that suggestion?
 20                 A:   No.
 21                 Q:   Okay.  And --
 22                 A:   Mr. Kitt made that suggestion.
 23                 Q:   Okay.  And you could see that Mr.
 24  Filipetti attributes it to you?
 25                 A:   I understand that.


  1                 Q:   But that's just dead wrong?
  2                 A:   Completely.
  3                 Q:   All right.  And then in the last
  4  paragraph it says:
  5                   "Peter has advised us that he has
  6                   spoken to the [quote] 'key people in
  7                   the City,' who are apparently okay with
  8                   these restrictions being removed."
  9                 That's the -- that's the hotel
 10  restrictions:
 11                   "We will do our own checking on this if
 12                   this is our agreed direction."
 13                 And I think yesterday you told Mr.
 14  McDowell that you had checked with Ed Sajecki?
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 Q:   And how had you done that, with a
 17  meeting or a telephone call?
 18                 A:   Most likely either I met him at a
 19  function or a phone call.
 20                 Q:   You have an email address, but we
 21  haven't seen any emails produced by you.  Is there a
 22  reason for that?
 23                 A:   I gave them all over to Emilio.
 24                 Q:   To who?
 25                 A:   Emilio.


  1                 Q:   Including the emails that you would
  2  have sent out?
  3                 A:   I didn't send very many emails out.
  4                 Q:   Did you send any?
  5                 A:   Very, very few.
  6                 Q:   But we haven't seen any.
  7                 A:   Mr. Emilio (sic) has them.
  8                 Q:   I see.  And in terms of -- can you --
  9  maybe I didn't understand this.  Why was it that you gave
 10  the -- the emails that came to your address, or that you
 11  sent from your address, to Mr. Bisceglia?
 12                 A:   Because of the lawsuit back in August
 13  of 2009.
 14                 Q:   Go, please, to Exhibit 245.  This is
 15  the letter from DeCicco to Kitt, which follows up, in
 16  effect, with the -- or -- or it doesn't follow up; it --
 17  it sets the stage for your request.  Go down to the
 18  bottom, please.
 19                 Whereby the suggestion being that they
 20  delete the requirement for the hotel, correct?
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   And that's what you were proposing,
 23  or that's what the email says you were proposing on
 24  October the 23rd, and if they would go along with it,
 25  that they would increase the purchase price by $2.5


  1  million.
  2                 A:   They suggested that if they were to
  3  delete the hotel, that we would have to increase the
  4  purchase price.
  5                 Q:   And who's -- who suggested the $2 1/2
  6  million adjusting number?
  7                 A:   Mr. Kitt.
  8                 Q:   Not you.
  9                 A:   Not me.
 10                 Q:   We turn, please, to Exhibit 250.
 12                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 14                 Q:   We know that Mr. DeCicco had asked by
 15  letter that the hotel condition be deleted.  We know it
 16  was a matter of discussion between you and Mr. Kitt.
 17                 Now we are in December 2nd, 2008.  This
 18  email reports that Mayor McCallion is calling Mr.
 19  Filipetti, as Michael Kitt was out of town.  The purpose
 20  of her call was that she wanted Oxford to relax the hotel
 21  requirement because of economic conditions.
 22                 Were you aware that your mother was
 23  following up on the very same topic that you had raised,
 24  and that Mr. DeCicco had raised, with Oxford?
 25                 A:   No, I did not.


  1                 Q:   Weren't aware of it.  So until --
  2  these proceedings, it was the first you'd heard that she
  3  was making the argument on your behalf.
  4                 A:   Yes.
  6                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  8                 Q:   Exhibit 243, please.  Sorry, just one
  9  (1) minute, please.
 11                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 13                 Q:   I'm almost finished.  Exhibit 276.
 15                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 17                 Q:   It was a message from you to your
 18  mother on December the 11th, asking her to call Tony
 19  DeCicco, as Tony DeCicco had information for your mother.
 20                 Well, what was -- why were you asking your
 21  mother to call Tony DeCicco, and what was the information
 22  that he had for her?
 23                 A:   I don't know what the information
 24  was, but sometimes Tony would call my mother and make
 25  several calls, and she wouldn't necessarily return them.


  1                 Q:   Could it be that what he's calling --
  2  what -- you had some further discussion about what the
  3  negotiating position was that -- between World Class
  4  Developments and Oxford --
  5                 A:   I can --
  6                 Q:   -- over this issue about deleting the
  7  hotel condition?
  8                 A:   I can speculate on that, but, no, I
  9  do not know.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  You have no recollection.
 11                 A:   No.
 12                 Q:   So far I've asked you about every
 13  meeting, and every phone call, and you've had no
 14  recollection about any of them.  Is it -- is that --
 15                 A:   Those were over two (2) years ago.
 16                 Q:   I see.  We turn, please, to Exhibit
 17  215.  These are Ms. Bench's notes of her discussions with
 18  Dave O'Brien, who had been the City Manager.
 19                 And Mr. O'Brien says that he met with Mr.
 20  DeCicco and with you at the request of the Mayor.  Do you
 21  recall meeting with Mr. O'Brien at the request of the
 22  Mayor?
 23                 A:   I recall the meeting, but I didn't
 24  know who requested it.
 25                 Q:   You what?


  1                 A:   I recall the meeting with Mr. O'Brien
  2  and Mr. DeCicco, but it was -- it was me who set that
  3  meeting up --
  4                 Q:   All right.  You --
  5                 A:   -- at the request of Mr. O'Brien.
  6                 Q:   He -- you set the meeting up with Mr.
  7  DeCicco at -- at Mr. O'Brien's request?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   All right.  And did O'Brien say that
 10  he was getting involved because his -- your mother had
 11  asked him to?
 12                 A:   No, he did not.
 13                 Q:   Did he indicate that he had read your
 14  affidavit --
 15                 A:   M-hm.
 16                 Q:   -- and he had concerns about
 17  conflicts of interest?
 18                 A:   No, he did not.
 19                 Q:   Did he ever indicate to you in that
 20  meeting that he had authority from Oxford to try and
 21  negotiate a settlement with WCD?
 22                 A:   Yes, he did.
 23                 Q:   And then how did you come to
 24  understand that Mr. O'Brien had gotten in the middle of
 25  this at all?  He wasn't the City Manager any longer.


  1                 A:   He volunteered.
  2                 Q:   Did -- did he volunteer at your
  3  mother's request or --
  4                 A:   I cannot --
  5                 Q:   -- to your understand --
  6                 A:   -- answer that.
  7                 Q:   Pardon me?
  8                 A:   I cannot answer that.
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12                 Q:   Now, I just want to go back for just
 13  a moment, please.
 15                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 17                 Q:   213.  Exhibit 213.  This is the
 18  mortgage that you gave on your house on Durie Road to Mr.
 19  Couprie in 2005.
 20                 Is there an issue with it?  Okay.
 21                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Mr. Commissioner, I
 22  rise because we're now in an area that I alerted my
 23  friend and, of course, you to at the end of the day
 24  yesterday.  It might be appropriate for Mr. McCallion to
 25  be excused at this moment.


  2  right.  We're getting close to the luncheon break, so Mr.
  3  McCallion, you may step out if you would --
  4                 THE WITNESS:   Okay.
  5                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   -- and
  6  we'll see you at 2:15.
  8                     (WITNESS RETIRES)
 11  right.  Mr. Gover, we know that Mr. McCallion sold his
 12  house to Mr. Couprie for eight hundred thousand
 13  (800,000).
 14                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Yes.
 15                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   And it
 16  looks as though there was a mortgage involved?
 19                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   That's right.  And at
 20  this point, I return to my submission at the end of the
 21  day yesterday pertaining to the scope of cross-
 22  examination by the City's counsel.
 23                 And you'll recall that yesterday, I
 24  referred to standing having been granted, of course, to
 25  the City, and the City being an important party, but that


  1  the right of cross-examination being limited to cross-
  2  examination to the extent of the interest of the
  3  Corporation of the City of Mississauga.
  4                 And I won't repeat what I said, Sir, but
  5  what I did say yesterday at the end of the day is found
  6  at pages 2000 through 2003 of the transcript.
  7                 You will recall that yesterday I submitted
  8  that the interest of the Corporation of the City of
  9  Mississauga would become engaged if the conduct of one of
 10  its elected or non-elected officials was called into
 11  question or if the appropriateness of some process of the
 12  Municipality was called into question.
 13                 And this morning, of course, we've --
 14  we've heard cross-examination that has related to a
 15  series of meetings or invitations to meetings, at least
 16  where the Mayor was attending meetings or invited to
 17  meetings, where there meetings with non-elected
 18  officials, et cetera, and I haven't risen at this point.
 19                 I do rise now, though, because in my
 20  submission, we're now getting squarely into an issue
 21  where the City really has no valid interest and where, in
 22  fact, there has been inquiry by your counsel.
 23                 And of course, this morning, you received
 24  Exhibit 289, which is the transcript of the cross-
 25  examination, which was conducted by Mr. McDowell on April


  1  23rd.  And in my submission, it was fair enough for
  2  Commission counsel to enter into the examination of that
  3  issue.
  4                 I referred you yesterday, very briefly, to
  5  Justice Cory's comments in the -- what I call the Krever
  6  Commission case, and that's the case that's also known as
  7  the case dealing with the Commission of Inquiry on the
  8  Blood System.
  9                 And I've cause to be handed up to you,
 10  sir, that case.  And the well-known passages to which I
 11  had in mind, are found at pages -- pardon me, paragraphs
 12  31 and 55.
 13                 My point yesterday was that the Commission
 14  and Commission counsel, in conducting the process, are
 15  required to safeguard the fairness of what is, after all,
 16  an inquisitorial process.
 17                 And of course, Justice Cory, at paragraph
 18  31, referred to the great importance of the Inquiry's
 19  roles of investigation and education, but said that:
 20                   "Those roles should not be fulfilled at
 21                   the expense of the denial of the rights
 22                   of those being investigated."
 23                 Continued:
 24                   "The need for the careful balancing was
 25                   recognized by Justice Decary when he


  1                   stated at paragraph 32, 'The search for
  2                   the truth does not excuse the violation
  3                   of the rights of the individuals being
  4                   investigated.'  This means that no
  5                   matter how important the work of the
  6                   Inquiry may be, it cannot be achieved
  7                   at the expense of the fundamental right
  8                   of each citizen to be treated fairly."
  9                 And at paragraph 55, which you will find
 10  at page 35, you'll see that Justice Cory then referred to
 11  the findings of fact, which may be made at the conclusion
 12  of an Inquiry, but pointed out that:
 13                   "Procedural fairness was essential for
 14                   the findings of Commissions may damage
 15                   the reputation of a witness.  For most,
 16                   a good reputation is their most highly
 17                   prized attribute.  It follows that it
 18                   is essential that procedural fairness
 19                   be demonstrated in the hearings of the
 20                   Commission."
 21                 Now, I also refer to -- to the Consortium
 22  Developments case, and in particular, to paragraph 41.
 23  And I won't read this entire passage.  I side-barred it
 24  in what I've provided to you, Sir.
 25                 But you'll see that Justice Binnie there


  1  recognized that a judicial inquiry often resembles a
  2  giant, multi-party examination for discovery, with no
  3  pleadings, minimal pre-hearing disclosure, and relaxed
  4  rules of evidence.
  5                 He referred to the glare of publicity and
  6  that the Inquiry necessarily moves forward in some sort
  7  of convoy fashion, carrying participants of widely
  8  different interests, motives, information, involvement,
  9  and exposure.
 10                 He said in the passage, which -- which I
 11  will conclude:
 12                   "It is a tall order to ask any
 13                   Commissioner to orchestrate this
 14                   process to further the public interest
 15                   in getting at the truth, without
 16                   risking unnecessary, unavoidable, or
 17                   collateral -- [pardon me] wrongful
 18                   collateral damage to the participants."
 19                 Now, yesterday I referred, as well, to the
 20  role of Commission counsel as the guardians of the public
 21  interest, which in my submission, impacts on the role of
 22  other participants in the process.
 23                 And to that end, I've provided you with
 24  excerpts from Professor Ratushny's book, which was
 25  published just last year, The Conduct of Public


  1  Inquiries, Law, Policy, and Practice.
  2                 And in particular, in the excerpt that
  3  I've handed up to you, Sir, I would refer you to page
  4  217, where the -- the tole of Commission counsel was
  5  examined.
  6                 And -- and by the way, I -- I don't
  7  question the manner in which your counsel has conducted
  8  this Inquiry at all.  It's in keeping with all of what is
  9  said here by Professor Ratushny, where he refers to the
 10  need for Commission counsel to take a part -- an
 11  impartial and balanced approach to the case.  Also to
 12  conduct a thorough investigation to gain the confidence
 13  of the public about the process itself.
 14                 Professor Ratushny referred to the fact
 15  that in a ruling in the Air India inquiry, Commissioner
 16  Major -- and this is at page 218 -- ruled that:
 17                   "The pubic interest in the full
 18                   exploration of all the facts would be
 19                   adequately addressed by Commission
 20                   counsel's responsibility to act on
 21                   behalf of that public interest."
 22                 Now, the role of counsel for other parties
 23  is dealt with by Professor Ratushny at page 258.  And I
 24  really will only take you to this excerpt.  I've added,
 25  in what you have there, Sir, the portion that he refers


  1  to toward the bottom of the page, from section (d) of
  2  chapter 7.
  3                 Suffice to say this, that -- that
  4  Professor Ratushny refers to section 5 of the Ontario
  5  Public Inquiries Act as identifying the proper scope of
  6  examination by counsel for other parties, and refers to:
  7                   "The ability to examine or to cross-
  8                   examine witnesses personally, or by
  9                   counsel, on evidence relevant to that
 10                   person's interest."
 11                 Now, I've referred to your rule, Rule
 12  32(b), which captures precisely what section 5 of the
 13  Ontario statute says.  Now par -- pardon me, section 5 is
 14  found in part 1 of the Ontario Act.  Part 2 is applicable
 15  to your proceeding, but part 1 isn't.
 16                 My submission is that what we have there
 17  in section 5, as reflected in this excerpt from Professor
 18  Ratushny's book, is simply a statement of the law
 19  relating to the scope of examination by counsel for other
 20  parties, which of course, quite appropriately, found its
 21  way into the rules of this Commission.
 22                 Then we see in the further excerpt that I
 23  -- or further portion that has been side-barred from page
 24  258, Professor Ratushny says this:
 25                   "Apart from the legislation, the


  1                   principle of fairness would establish
  2                   some procedural rights for everyone
  3                   with a direct and substantial interest
  4                   and for some witnesses as well.  The
  5                   extent of the right to participate
  6                   depends on the extent to which their
  7                   interest might be affected.  The right
  8                   to be heard does not necessarily
  9                   include the right to call or cross-
 10                   examination witnesses or be represented
 11                   by counsel."
 12                 And then refers to the principle of
 13  fairness in greater detail.  And as I have said, I've
 14  included that portion for the sake of completeness.
 15                 My point is that the -- the principle to
 16  which Professor Ratushny refers recognizes that counsel
 17  for other parties do not have an unbridled right of
 18  cross-examination.
 19                 Now, I've taken into account a portion of
 20  Justice Bellamy's report in the Toronto Computer Leasing
 21  Inquiry that Mr. McDowell was kind enough to provide to
 22  me this morning.
 23                 I recognize that at page 75 -- I'm -- I'm
 24  now told you may not have a copy, so we'll provide that
 25  to you now, Sir, if I might take a moment.


  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  3                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   And I was referring,
  4  Commissioner, to page 75.  This is under the heading
  5  "Examinations," and it's an excerpt from the Inquiry
  6  process portion of the report.
  7                 Toward the bottom of the page, you'll see
  8  that Justice Bellamy said:
  9                   "I wanted to give all counsel a chance
 10                   to explore any avenue that was relevant
 11                   or helpful to me in fulfilling my terms
 12                   of reference, especially considering
 13                   the investigative nature of a public
 14                   inquiry."
 15                 Now, I would point out that on the next
 16  page, Justice Bellamy was quick to add:
 17                   "I was vigilant, however, in ensuring
 18                   that cross-examinations did not become
 19                   repetitive.  Given the many parties
 20                   withstanding, some with similar
 21                   interests, there was great potential
 22                   for overlapping.  I continually
 23                   reminded counsel of the need to confine
 24                   themselves to questions that had not
 25                   already been sufficiently explored, and


  1                   counsel were generally cooperative in
  2                   avoiding unnecessary repetition."
  3                 Of course, Justice Bellamy did observe
  4  that the inquiries took two hundred and fourteen (214)
  5  days in that instance.
  6                 My -- my point is that there has to be a
  7  limit on the scope of cross-examination.  And what we're
  8  about to hear, or what is proposed by Mr. Lax on behalf
  9  of the Corporation of the City of Mississauga, in my
 10  submission, does not relate to the interest of the
 11  Municipality, as I've endeavoured to understand it and
 12  explain it in the course of these submissions.
 13                 At -- here at its highest, this would be
 14  cross-examination going to credibility.  You have the
 15  benefit of the transcript already, where your counsel
 16  engaged in a probing examination of this issue, in
 17  Exhibit 289.  And I would submit, that if reference is
 18  made to the terms of reference contained in the
 19  resolution which constituted this Inquiry, that it would
 20  be appropriate to interpret those terms of reference by
 21  referring to Section 274 of the Municipal Act, under
 22  which the -- the resolution was purportedly passed.
 23                 If I might have a moment.  It's hard to
 24  carry all of these things around.
 25                 Section 274, of course, sir, provides


  1  that:
  2                   "If a municipality so requests, by
  3                   resolution, a judge of the Superior
  4                   Court of Justice shall..."
  5                 And then of course we see (a), (b) and
  6  (c):
  7                   "Investigate any supposed breach of
  8                   trust [et cetera];
  9                   (b) inquire into any matter connected
 10                   with the good government of the
 11                   municipality; or (c) inquire into the
 12                   conduct of any part of the public
 13                   business of the municipality, including
 14                   business conducted by a commission
 15                   appointed by the council or elected by
 16                   the electors."
 17                 So I submit, in this respect that while
 18  you may have an expansive interpretation of the terms of
 19  reference contained in the resolution, urged upon you by
 20  Mr. Lax, that in any event you must interpret the
 21  resolution in light of the section in the Municipal Act
 22  under which it was purportedly passed.
 23                 Those are my submissions.  Thank you.
 24  Subject to any questions, of course, sir.


  1  right.  Thank you.  I think what we'll do is break now
  2  and I'll hear any further submissions -- I suppose Mr.
  3  Lax will want to make some submissions, Mr. McDowell may
  4  well as well.  And we'll come back at 2:15.
  5                 MR. JOHN FINNIGAN:   Mr. Commissioner,
  6  just before you rise, just a point for clarification and
  7  perhaps direction.  We have other witnesses scheduled for
  8  this afternoon, including Michael Latimer --
  9                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Right.
 10                 MR. JOHN FINNIGAN:   -- who is the Chief
 11  Investment Officer of OMERS and the former President and
 12  CEO of Oxford Properties.
 13                 Now, I know that we have -- Mr. Lax has to
 14  finish; we have other counsel who want to examine this
 15  Witness; then we have another witness before Mr. Latimer;
 16  so I'm wondering whether it's necessary for us to bring
 17  him out here this afternoon?  So I just want to lay that
 18  on the table.
 19                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Yeah.
 20                 MR. JOHN FINNIGAN:   I don't know exactly
 21  how long people are going to be.
 22                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   I think
 23  the first witness is fairly brief if I'm not mistaken.
 24  Is that correct, Mr. McDowell?
 25                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   That's right.  We


  1  just had Ms. McIntyre -- we have some indication from
  2  her; I'm pretty confident we can actually get Mr. Latimer
  3  on and off today.
  4                 MR. JOHN FINNIGAN:   If -- if that's the
  5  belief then we'll --
  6                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Sure.
  7                 MR. JOHN FINNIGAN:   -- certainly have him
  8  out here.
  9                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Let's -
 10  - let's try and do that.
 11                 MR. JOHN FINNIGAN:   Thank you.
 12                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thanks.
 13  See you all at 2:15.
 14                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 15  please.  The Inquiry stands recessed until 2:15.
 17  --- Upon recessing at 1:05 p.m.
 18  --- Upon resuming at 2:18 p.m.
 20                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 21  please.  Good afternoon, Your Honour.  This Inquiry is
 22  now in session.  Please be seated.
 24  Ms. McIntyre.


  2                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   Mr.
  3  Commissioner, without repeating any of the submissions
  4  made to by Mr. Gover, I would like to adopt those
  5  submissions.
  6                 Clearly you have broad discretion to set
  7  your own procedure, guided by the principles of fairness
  8  and expedition.
  9                 But I would submit to you, it's important
 10  that counsel for the City be restricted from going into
 11  areas that are beyond the City's interest and that they
 12  not be allowed to usurp the role of Commission counsel.
 13                 That's why I'm supporting Mr. Gover's --
 14                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 15  you.
 16                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   -- submissions.
 19                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Sir, I -- I think
 20  that Mr. Gover has -- has, as usual, very fairly stated
 21  the law to you.
 22                 In my submission, you have to bear in mind
 23  the nature of the public purpose in relation to the land
 24  transaction that the Mayor was ostensibly promoting.  And
 25  the evidence is, as we've heard it so far, that the Mayor


  1  -- it would appear on the evidence that we've heard over
  2  the last couple of days, employed her office in the
  3  promotion of this transaction, the development, but also
  4  the particular developer.
  5                 And so as in many of these municipal
  6  inquiries, either a central or a subsidiary question
  7  becomes, How did we become, as a City, enmeshed with
  8  these people, and what are the relationships among these
  9  people, as we saw in the Consortium Developments case.
 10                 So when you look at the public purpose, or
 11  the public dimension to the transaction in that way, and
 12  you hear the evidence that I -- that I think you would
 13  hear if this line of questioning were permitted, it's
 14  well within the -- the boundaries of what other
 15  commissions of inquiry have heard.
 16                 So for example in Waterloo, Waterloo was
 17  at the other end of an improvident transaction with MFP.
 18  The details of -- of the transaction weren't the only
 19  subject of inquiry.  I've got an excerpt from the report
 20  that -- that will show you that, in fact, the internal
 21  processes of MFP were the subject of a lot of
 22  examination, including as a -- I was one of the counsel
 23  on that inquiry -- including by counsel for the City.
 24                 So Mr. Lax, so far, has, I think, done a
 25  very thorough job examining in -- in some areas without


  1  any objection.  I leave it to you whether to allow this
  2  area of inquiry.  I would say that if it went too much
  3  further, we do hit the outfield fence.  I mean, I know a
  4  bit of -- of where this is going, and I think that he's
  5  really at the limit.
  6                 I would be inclined to think that he could
  7  ask a limited number of questions on this topic.  And
  8  then it would be my submission, if he seeks to go beyond
  9  that, I would be objecting as well.
 11  know more than I know about where Mr. Lax may be going
 12  with this line of questioning, and perhaps Mr. Lax will
 13  tell me.  But I agree, and I'll deal with this after I
 14  hear from Mr. Lax.
 15                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Right.
 18                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Well, I don't intend
 19  to make it a secret.  I've told co-counsel.  What we're
 20  about to go into is a situation in which Mr. McCallion,
 21  at least initially, grants a mortgage on his house to Mr.
 22  Couprie.
 23                 And we have to understand that Mr. Couprie
 24  is not a third-party lender.  He is very, very involved
 25  in this entire picture.  And how he -- how he is


  1  involved, with great respect, is one of the most
  2  important questions that has to be determined, because it
  3  doesn't appear to me, at least, and -- and this will be
  4  my submission, that he has any real interest himself.
  5                 He's only there, frankly, in a
  6  representative role for others.  Who the others are at
  7  the time of the mortgage remains to be determined.
  8                 But then we move forward, when Mr.
  9  McCallion has already indicated that he was out of money.
 10  And what happens is is that a sale of his house is
 11  arranged to Mr. Couprie.
 12                 Mr. McCallion's a real estate agent.  One
 13  would have thought that a real estate agent would have
 14  been interested in obtaining the highest price for his
 15  house with the broad -- with the broadest exposure to the
 16  market possible, but that's not what happens.  What
 17  happens is that there's an arranged sale to Mr. Couprie.
 18                 Now, who is Mr. Couprie at the time of the
 19  sale?  Mr. Couprie is a plaintiff, not a nominal
 20  plaintiff because he does have legal title to the shares,
 21  but he doesn't have the beneficial interest in the
 22  shares.  He is a plaintiff in the lawsuit in which Mr.
 23  DeCicco is giving the instructions.
 24                 And I want to know more about who was
 25  behind that purchase of that -- of that property and why


  1  that happened.
  2                 I believe that that's relevant to the
  3  terms of reference of this Commission, where you were
  4  specifically asked to investigate and inquire into the
  5  relationships between the existing and former elected and
  6  administrative representatives of the City of Mississauga
  7  and the existing and former principals and
  8  representatives of WCD -- you can stop there -- and its
  9  affiliate companies and the context of the transactions
 10  and matters described in the recitals to this resolution.
 11                 When you look at the recitals to the
 12  resolution, you will -- it will include the -- the
 13  Agreement of Purchase and Sale with WCD.  It includes the
 14  lawsuit involving Leo Couprie as a notional, if not
 15  nominal, plaintiff.
 16                 So I -- I suggest that -- I understand the
 17  -- the point that if this was a sale to a third party, I
 18  wouldn't be entitled to look into it.  But it's not a
 19  sale to a third party.  It's a sale to a person who's
 20  very intimately involved in the factual matrix of this
 21  case under circumstances, which I say are -- are relevant
 22  to the determination of those relationships.
 24  you.  Mr. Gover, anything further?


  2                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Yes, I can be very
  3  brief, Mr. Commissioner.  As Mr. Lax has endeavoured to
  4  justify this line of cross-examination, you'll -- you'll
  5  appreciate that it relates to a mortgage and sale
  6  relating to Mr. McCallion's house, a mortgage to Mr.
  7  Couprie and a sale to Mr. Couprie.
  8                 Mr. Lax seems to think there's some
  9  significance to this Inquiry of the fact that the house
 10  was sold privately, that it wasn't, in his words,
 11  "exposed to the market."
 12                 In fact, Mr. Lax's interpretation of the
 13  terms of reference are precisely of the nature that I
 14  warned about in the course of my main submissions, and
 15  that is an expansive interpretation of, it would appear
 16  in particular, item 2 of the terms of reference, which
 17  goes far beyond what section 274 of the Municipal Act
 18  authorizes.
 19                 This is -- this is an inquiry, in my
 20  submission, into the transaction -- the failed
 21  transaction involving OMERS and WCD, and ultimately the
 22  transaction between OMERS and the City of Mississauga,
 23  with, as we know, a long-term lease to Sheridan College.
 24                 And yesterday I warned about the,
 25  obviously, political character of this particular public


  1  inquiry.  And, in my submission, that engages a -- a
  2  strong concern that, in fact, the Inquiry is being used
  3  to go far beyond something that's properly within the
  4  realm of an investigation that can be caused by a
  5  municipality.
  6                 In fact, I respectfully submit that --
  7  that really there's a -- sort of a zone of relevance here
  8  that's established by the terms of reference, and that
  9  there comes a point when -- when it's appropriate to draw
 10  a line.  And here, when we think of some unrelated --
 11  apparently unrelated transaction between Mr. McCallion
 12  and Mr. Couprie, leading to what your own counsel has
 13  said will be a line that Commission counsel will feel
 14  must not be crossed, I submit that -- that the safest
 15  course is to end the Inquiry now; that this doesn't
 16  relate to an interest, a proper interest of the
 17  municipality, and that, in fact, the line of cross-
 18  examination should be foreclosed.  Thank you.
 20  RULING:
 21                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 22  you, Mr. Gover.  Well, I'll be very brief in my -- in my
 23  reasons.
 24                 As has been pointed out, the role of a
 25  commissioner in an inquiry such as this is something of a


  1  balancing act.  On the one (1) hand, I have to be mindful
  2  of procedural fairness, as it relates to those witnesses
  3  who are called before the Inquiry, and against that I
  4  have to balance the right of the public to get at the
  5  truth; in other words, as Mr. Justice Binnie put it, "The
  6  investigation and education of the public."
  7                 Now, Mr. Lax represents the City of
  8  Mississauga.  No doubt he is receiving his instructions
  9  from the City Solicitor.  But the sol -- the City
 10  Solicitor will no doubt be receiving her marching orders
 11  from council; not just the seven (7) counsellors who
 12  voted for this Inquiry, but all of council, so that
 13  ultimately, Mr. Lax represents the citizens of
 14  Mississauga, whom council represents.  And in my view,
 15  the citizens of Mississauga have a right to know, and a -
 16  - have a right to get at the truth.
 17                 The question for me, of course, is, how
 18  does the proposed evidence assist me in fulfilling my
 19  mandate?  In other words, how does it tie into the City's
 20  particular interest in this Inquiry, given the terms of
 21  reference that I'm dealing with?
 22                 Inquiries such as this are investigative
 23  in nature, but I always must be mindful of relevance, as
 24  has been pointed out by Mr. Gover in his concluding
 25  submissions.  Relevance really is something that I have


  1  to determine as we move along.
  2                 Having heard the submissions of counsel on
  3  this issue, and being assisted by Commission counsel, I'm
  4  satisfied that this line of questioning, this proposed
  5  line of questioning, involving Mr. Couprie, who, the
  6  evidence is clear, was sufficiently involved in various
  7  transactions; that I am satisfied that this proposed line
  8  of question is relevant -- questioning is relevant, and
  9  that ultimately it will assist me in my determination of
 10  -- in my various findings, fact, and my conclusions at
 11  the end of this Inquiry.
 12                 I'm mindful of the -- the limit to which
 13  counsel other than Commission counsel ought to be allowed
 14  to -- to go in examining and cross-examining witnesses,
 15  but I'm satisfied, at this time, on this proposed line of
 16  question -- questioning, that Mr. Lax is within the
 17  bounds, so I'm asking that Mr. McCallion return to the
 18  courtroom and that cross-examination continue.
 19                 And, Mr. Lax, I think you were at Exhibit
 20  213.
 21                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Yes.
 23  April 25, 2005, Madam Clerk.
 24                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Yes.  I hadn't asked
 25  any questions yet and phoom (phonetic) --


  1                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Right.
  2                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:  -- there was an
  3  objection.
  5                 PETER MCCALLION, Resumed
  8                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, on the screen there
  9  should be a -- an abstract of the mort -- of the charge
 10  that was placed on your property at 5404 Durie Road, D-U-
 11  R-I-E Road, Mississauga, Ontario, on April 27th, 2005.
 12                 Do you see that?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   This is the mortgage to three (3)
 15  people.  Leo Couprie, who we know; that's the same Leo
 16  Couprie who was involved with you in WCD?
 17                 A:   Correct.  
 18                 Q:   And, actually, as of this date he had
 19  not yet assumed the position of -- of a shareholder?
 20                 A:   I'm not sure.
 21                 Q:   All right.  But he was going to
 22  become one?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   Yeah.  And -- and Sam Singal and Joe
 25  Pasternak -- and who are Singal and Pasternak?


  1                 A:   Friends of Mr. Couprie.
  2                 Q:   And what involvement did you have
  3  with them?  Why were they lending you any money?
  4                 A:   They -- I guess Leo asked them to
  5  share in the loan.
  6                 Q:   Okay.  There is a note, and frankly,
  7  I don't know whose handwriting it is, on the abstract
  8  indicating that their interests, Singal and Pasternak's
  9  interest was transferred to Leo Couprie.
 10                 Do you have any knowledge of that?
 11                 A:   I'm not initially aware of that.
 12                 Q:   Now, this mortgage was outstanding, I
 13  take it, until the property was sold; is that correct?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   And could you tell us, at the --
 16  during the time between April the 27th, 2005 and the date
 17  of the sale which was on March the 7th, 2008, was this
 18  mortgage in good standing?
 19                 A:   I believe so.
 20                 Q:   It never fell into arrears?
 21                 A:   Not to the best of my knowledge, no.
 22                 Q:   All right.  I don't need to know all
 23  the uses of the funds that of -- that this mortgage
 24  represented, the four hundred and fifty thousand
 25  (450,000), but was any part of the four hundred and fifty


  1  thousand dollars ($450,000) invested in the WCD deal --
  2                 A:   None of it was.
  3                 Q:   Pardon me?
  4                 A:   None of it was.
  5                 Q:   It was used for other purposes?
  6                 A:   Other purposes.
  7                 Q:   All right.  Now, when we get to the
  8  sale of your property and the --
  9                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Just one (1)
 10  second here.  I want -- this is a clarification.  Our
 11  understanding is that the two (2) other names were an
 12  administrative error; that it was just a mistake made in
 13  the lawyer's office and we've accepted that for our
 14  purposes.
 15                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   All right.
 17  right.
 20                 Q:   Please go to the Robins Appleby
 21  reporting letter, COM001002846.  I don't have an exhibit
 22  number for it.
 24                       (BRIEF PAUSE)


  1                 Q:   Turn, please, to the letter of May
  2  14th.  It appears that your house was sold to Mr.
  3  Couprie, pursuant to an agreement of purchase and sale
  4  that was dated November -- December the 19th, 2007; and
  5  the closing date was March 2008 sometime?
  6                 A:   I believe so, yes.
  7                 Q:   All right.  And how was it that you
  8  came to sell your house to Leo Couprie at this time?
  9                 A:   To help him recover some of the money
 10  for loan that he made me.
 11                 Q:   What do you mean?
 12                 A:   Well, he had security then.
 13                 Q:   Yes, but the mortgage was in good
 14  standing; you were making all the payments?
 15                 A:   Not at that point.
 16                 Q:   Oh.  I thought I asked you if -- if
 17  during the time between the granting of the mortgage and
 18  the sale of the house the mortgage was in arrears.
 19                 A:   At the point of the sale of the house
 20  it was, yes.
 21                 Q:   And how long had it been in arrears
 22  for?
 23                 A:   Probably six (6) months.
 24                 Q:   Okay.  And did he approach you then
 25  with respect to the sale?


  1                 A:   Well, I believe it was mutual.
  2                 Q:   And was there any consideration given
  3  to offering the sale -- the house for sale to the public
  4  with a listing, as real estate agents typically do?
  5                 A:   No.
  6                 Q:   Why not?
  7                 A:   When you --
  8                 Q:   You could have sold the house and pay
  9  -- paid off the mortgage.
 10                 A:   Could have.  I didn't really want to
 11  sell it.
 12                 Q:   Well, but you did sell it.
 13                 A:   I did sell it so he had security.
 14                 Q:   Yes, but you could have sold it to
 15  anybody.  Why did you sell it to him?
 16                 A:   Could have.  I didn't.
 17                 Q:   Pardon me?
 18                 A:   But I didn't.
 19                 Q:   Why did you decide to sell it to him
 20  in effectively a private sale?
 21                 A:   It was mutually agreed to.
 22                 Q:   Why though did you agree to do that,
 23  you, Peter McCallion, the real estate agent?  Why did you
 24  not seek to sell -- to offer the house for sale to the
 25  public and see what the best price was?


  1                 A:   I believe that was a good price at
  2  the time.
  3                 Q:   Yes.  And is that the only reason?
  4                 A:   That's the only reason.
  5                 Q:   Now, Mr. Couprie was then going to
  6  take over the house and he'd own the house.
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   And you had to vacate the house?
  9                 A:   No, I did not.
 10                 Q:   You could say -- you could sell the
 11  house but live in it.
 12                 A:   I'm paying -- yeah, I'm paying rent
 13  on it now.
 14                 Q:   And that's the way you continue to
 15  live there at the present time.
 16                 A:   Currently.
 17                 Q:   Now, we know in 2008, you've told us
 18  before, that Leo Couprie, for example, in the Murray Cook
 19  litigation, was a plaintiff, but the instructions were
 20  coming to Mr. Bisceglia from Mr. DeCicco.
 21                 Was Mr. DeCicco the effective purchaser of
 22  your house and Leo Couprie was acting as a notional
 23  planti -- purchaser?
 24                 A:   Not at all.
 25                 Q:   Not at all.  How do you know that?


  1                 A:   Well, it has nothing to do with Mr.
  2  DeCicco.
  3                 Q:   Now, on the second page of the
  4  letter, of the reporting letter, three (3) pages in --
  5  yes, the next page.  Keep going.  Keep going.  Yes.
  6                 Yes, now -- okay.  "Direction refunds,"
  7  that paragraph.  Thank you.
  8                 Here's how that -- from the purchase price
  9  of eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000), two hundred
 10  and forty-three thousand seven seventy-one (243,771) was
 11  paid to the Toronto Dominion Bank.
 12                 And is that where the Couprie mortgage
 13  ultimately ended up?
 14                 A:   What are you asking again?
 15                 Q:   There was two hundred and forty-three
 16  thousand seven seven one (243,771) paid to the Toronto
 17  Dominion Bank?
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   I can't see any other payments that
 20  are discharged to the mortgage to Leo Couprie; I'm asking
 21  you is the Toronto Dominion Bank entry the same thing as
 22  the Leo Couprie mortgage?
 23                 A:   No, it is not.
 24                 Q:   All right.  You had another mortgage
 25  to the Toronto Dominion Bank?


  1                 A:   It doesn't show up there.
  2                 Q:   The last line is -- indicates that --
  3                 A:   Well, that's Toronto Dominion Bank.
  4                 Q:   -- two hundred forty-three thousand
  5  (243,000) was paid to the Toronto Dominion Bank.
  6                 A:   Correct.
  7                 Q:   Did you have another debt to the
  8  Toronto Dominion Bank for two hundred and forty-three
  9  thousand seven seventy one (243,771)?
 10                 A:   That was the original mortgage on the
 11  house.
 12                 Q:   All right.  And so Mr. Couprie's
 13  mortgage then was no -- in no way discharged by -- by the
 14  sale.
 15                 A:   It was discharged and I paid him from
 16  the five hundred thousand (500,000).
 17                 Q:   I see.  So part of the five hundred
 18  and two thousand (502,000) went to Mr. Couprie?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   And what's the evidence of that
 21  payment?
 22                 A:   It went directly to him from Robins
 23  Appleby.
 24                 Q:   From Robins Appleby, okay.  So there
 25  should be a statement of adjustments here then; I may


  1  have missed it.  I'll have somebody...
  3                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  5                 Q:   And how much were you left with at
  6  the end of the day?
  7                 A:   Not very much.
  8                 Q:   We have -- we do have a statement of
  9  adjustments, Mr. McCallion.  It's found at page 860,
 10  001002860.
 12                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 14                 Q:   And so what this shows is that Robins
 15  Appleby was holding eight hundred thousand dollars
 16  ($800,000) in trust after the closing or as further
 17  directed.  They were waiting for further directions with
 18  respect to what -- what was to happen to the money.
 19                 A:   I don't see that here.  
 20                 Q:   You don't see that?
 21                 A:   No.
 22                 Q:   Do you see the statement of
 23  adjustments at the top of that page?
 24                 Oh, no, you've got the wrong page, sorry.
 25  What's -- what's the page number?


  1                 MS. NAOMI LOEWITH:   Fifteen (15).
  4                 Q:   Fif -- page 15 of the document.
  5  Okay.
  6                 This is called a statement of adjustments;
  7  you're aware of that -- what that is?
  8                 A:   Yeah.
  9                 Q:   And so at the end of the day, Robins
 10  Appleby & Taub were holding in trust seven hundred and
 11  ninety-five thousand (795,000), plus the deposit of five
 12  thousand (5,000), for a total of eight hundred thousand
 13  (800,000)?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   For further directions?
 16                 A:   I see that, yes.
 17                 Q:   Okay.  And then...
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21                 Q:   Turn back to page 7, under the
 22  heading "Mortgages to be Discharged After Closing."  Go
 23  down please on the page.  Okay.
 24                 The first was the Toronto Dominion Bank
 25  mortgage, which is the one (1) we see on the prior page


  1  of two hundred and forty-three thousand seven seventy-one
  2  (243,771).
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   Okay.  And then we get to the Couprie
  5  mortgage.  And do you know how much that was, as of the
  6  date of closing?
  7                 A:   I believe -- well, it was four fifty
  8  (450) plus any outstanding --
  9                 Q:   But you had already paid for a few
 10  years, too.
 11                 A:   Yeah, but there was no  --
 12                 Q:   No principal.
 13                 A:   -- principal.
 14                 Q:   All right.  So it was four fifty
 15  (450) plus the arrears?
 16                 A:   I would suggest, yes.
 17                 Q:   And you don't know what the arrears
 18  were.
 19                 A:   No, I do not know now.
 20                 Q:   Okay.  So by this account, it would
 21  have taken up pretty much all of the eight hundred
 22  thousand dollars ($800,000)?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   It must have left you with something?
 25                 A:   Very little.


  1                 Q:   And when you take the agreement, was
  2  it more or less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)?
  3                 A:   Oh, a lot less.
  4                 Q:   A lot less.  Now, at that time, we
  5  know that -- that -- well, let me just understand.
  6                 So then you stay in the house, and now you
  7  -- and you pay rent?
  8                 A:   I pay rent, yes.
  9                 Q:   And that's the pos -- that's the
 10  situation you're in today?
 11                 A:   Correct.
 12                 Q:   And is there a term on the lease
 13  whereby at some stage you have to get out of that house,
 14  and it can be sold?
 15                 A:   When I stop paying the rent.
 16                 Q:   So that you could live in that house
 17  for the rest of your life as long as you pay the rent?
 18                 A:   I suspect that won't ever happen that
 19  long.  Who knows.
 20                 Q:   But there's no -- but there's no --
 21                 A:   There's no --
 22                 Q:   -- term in the lease that can force
 23  you out?
 24                 A:   No.
 25                 Q:   Just a moment, please.


  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  3                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   All right, sir, thank
  4  you very much.  I've no further questions.
  6                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  9  McIntyre...?
 12                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, you know that my name
 13  is Elizabeth McIntyre, and I act on behalf of the Mayor.
 14  And I would like to ask you a few questions, starting
 15  with your relationship with your mother.
 16                 You told us that during the relevant
 17  period that you were in contact with your mother on an
 18  almost daily basis.
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And I take it that your mother is a
 21  single woman living on her ho -- on her own since the
 22  death of your father?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And that you do assist her in a
 25  variety of -- of jobs around the house?  Like, you said -


  1  -
  2                 A:   I do.
  3                 Q:   -- cleaning her pond, driving her to
  4  functions.  I understand that you had to take squirrels
  5  out of her fireplace recently?
  6                 A:   Yes.  That's not an easy job.
  7                 Q:   I also understand that your mother
  8  has a dog, a German Shepherd.
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   And that you are -- you assist your
 11  mother with respect to the care of that dog, letting the
 12  dog out in the yard, feeding the dog.
 13                 A:   Yes, I do.
 14                 Q:   And that you have frequent telephone
 15  calls with her with respect to what her schedule is, and
 16  whether you need to --
 17                 A:   Absolutely.
 18                 Q:   -- go and let the dog out?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   And I take it that, from what you've
 21  told us yesterday, that in the course of your discussions
 22  with your mother, that she often asks you what you're
 23  doing work-wise?
 24                 A:   Yes. 
 25                 Q:   And you answer her in general terms?


  1                 A:   In general terms, yes.
  2                 Q:   It will be her testimony that it is
  3  your habit not to provide her with a lot of detail with
  4  respect to what you're doing.
  5                 Would you agree with that?
  6                 A:   Totally.
  7                 Q:   In fact, she will testify that you're
  8  not at all good at sharing personal information.
  9                 A:   No, I'm not.
 10                 Q:   For example, I take it you didn't
 11  tell her that you lost your real estate licence for two
 12  (2) to three (3) months in 2007, and for six (6) months
 13  in 2009?
 14                 A:   No, I did not.
 15                 Q:   And I take it you did not share with
 16  her the financial difficulty you were in in 2007 and
 17  2008?
 18                 A:   No, I did not.
 19                 Q:   The bottom line, Mr. McCallion, is, I
 20  take it, that you only tell your mother what it is you
 21  would like her to know.
 22                 Is that fair?
 23                 A:   Fair.
 24                 Q:   So now let's talk about what your
 25  mother knew about World Class Developments.  And we all


  1  know a lot now, having poured over thousands of
  2  documents, and trying to guess what people were thinking
  3  by reading their cryptic emails, but let's go back and
  4  try to understand what your mother knew at the relevant
  5  time.
  6                 So, first of all, your role in the hotel
  7  project.  I take it you told your mother about some of
  8  your early attempts to find an investor --
  9                 A:   Yes. 
 10                 Q:   -- for the hotel project?  She knew
 11  about your contact with Mr. Shim, for example?
 12                 A:   Yes, she did.
 13                 Q:   And then in 2006/2007 you told her
 14  that Mr. Couprie had agreed to be the investor for the
 15  project?
 16                 A:   I probably did, yes.
 17                 Q:   And your mother will testify that
 18  that didn't come as any surprise to her; she knew he was
 19  a partner of Mr. Shim --
 20                 A:   Yes. 
 21                 Q:   -- in the importing business?
 22                 A:   Yes, in the importing.
 23                 Q:   And she would have understood that
 24  Mr. Couprie had significant financial resources?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   It will be her testimony, in fact,
  2  that she went -- she understood throughout, up until the
  3  time this Inquiry commenced, that it was Mr. Couprie who
  4  was the investor in the project?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And you never told her anything that
  7  would make her think any different than that, correct?
  8                 A:   No, nothing.
  9                 Q:   And with respect to your role, you
 10  told her that you were the agent and representative of
 11  Mr. Couprie?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   And she will say that made sense to
 14  her, because that's the only job you ever had, was as a
 15  real estate agent, correct?
 16                 A:   Yes. 
 17                 Q:   You'd never worked as a developer or
 18  an investor?
 19                 A:   Never.
 20                 Q:   She will testify that she knew that
 21  you would need an investor, and that she knew that you
 22  would need people with expertise in development, and that
 23  you would need consultants?
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   And she did not think that you had


  1  the means or the experience to do any of those things?
  2                 A:   I would suggest that's right.
  3                 Q:   On the expertise side, your mother
  4  will testify that it was you who recruited Murray Cook to
  5  join -- join the project?
  6                 A:   Yes. 
  7                 Q:   And that it made sense to her that he
  8  be involved, because she knew he was somebody with the
  9  expertise in that area?
 10                 A:   Yes. 
 11                 Q:   Let's talk about what she didn't
 12  know, Mr. McCallion.  I take it that you never told her
 13  that you loaned money to WCD in the spring of 2007,
 14  either the thirty thousand dollar ($30,000) loan in
 15  March, or the seventy-three thousand five hundred dollar
 16  ($73,500) loan in May?
 17                 A:   No, I did not.
 18                 Q:   In fact, you never told her, sir,
 19  that WCD was having difficulty meeting its payment
 20  obligations --
 21                 A:   No.
 22                 Q:   -- either to the City or to OMERS?
 23                 A:   No, I did not.
 24                 Q:   She wouldn't have been happy to hear
 25  that, would she?


  1                 A:   No, she would not be.
  2                 Q:   You also, sir, did not tell her about
  3  the fifty-thousand dollar ($50,000) loan that you
  4  arranged through TACC, is it, in July of 2007?
  5                 A:   Yes, I did not tell her that.
  6                 Q:   And you certainly didn't tell her
  7  that you signed a promissory note that you gave to secure
  8  that loan.
  9                 A:   No, I did not.
 10                 Q:   No, you didn't show her that, the pro
 11  --
 12                 A:   I didn't talk about it.
 13                 Q:   You kept that from her?
 14                 A:   Oh, yes.
 15                 Q:   She wouldn't have been happy about
 16  that, either?
 17                 A:   No, wouldn't have been happy.
 18                 Q:   So when she had lunch, or dinner, or
 19  whatever it was, with -- with Mr. de Gasperis she didn't
 20  know anything about that loan?
 21                 A:   Nothing.
 22                 Q:   and it was never discussed with her
 23  in your presence?
 24                 A:   Not in my presence.
 25                 Q:   By the way, sir, I take it that when


  1  you signed that promissory note, it was your intention to
  2  repay that loan at some point?
  3                 A:   At some point it was to be repaid,
  4  yes.
  5                 Q:   Now, we've just gone through the
  6  transactions.  Mr. Lax has taken you through -- you
  7  through the transactions involving your home.  You also
  8  didn't tell your mother about that, did you?
  9                 A:   No, I did not.
 10                 Q:   And you certainly did not tell your
 11  mother that you were receiving W -- money from WCD for
 12  living expenses?
 13                 A:   No.
 14                 Q:   So now let's talk about the financial
 15  arrangements for WCD.  We've already agreed that your
 16  mother was led by you to believe that Leo Couprie was the
 17  investor throughout, and you did not advise her
 18  otherwise?
 19                 A:   No, I did not.  
 20                 Q:   So she did not see the incorporation
 21  documents of WCD, correct?
 22                 A:   No.  I didn't even see them.
 23                 Q:   And she understood, sir -- she will
 24  testify, that she never thought you were a shareholder,
 25  director, owner, in any way, of WCD?


  1                 A:   In any way.
  2                 Q:   And that's consistent, I guess, with
  3  your own understanding --
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   -- of your -- of your role?  So with
  6  respect to the investment, she knew that Mr. Couprie was
  7  an investor, but you never advised her, nor did Mr.
  8  Couprie advise her in your presence, of how much money he
  9  put in?
 10                 A:   No.
 11                 Q:   Nor of how much money he was entitled
 12  to get out?
 13                 A:   No.
 14                 Q:   And when you brought Murray Cook into
 15  the project you did not discuss with her what the
 16  arrangements for that were?
 17                 A:   No, I did not.
 18                 Q:   How he was going to be compensated?
 19  Whether he put money in?
 20                 A:   Never.
 21                 Q:   And you did not advise her, sir, that
 22  Mr. Couprie agreed to transfer to Mr. Cook 20 percent of
 23  his shares?
 24                 A:   No, I did not.
 25                 Q:   And, again, she didn't see that


  1  document?
  2                 A:   She didn't see that.
  3                 Q:   And then when you brought Mr. DeCicco
  4  into the project -- and to be clear here, this was your
  5  initiative to bring Mr. DeCicco in.  It was not the
  6  suggestion of your mother, correct?
  7                 A:   No, definitely not.
  8                 Q:   You did not discuss with the Mayor
  9  what the financial arrangements were between Mr. DeCicco
 10  and WCD?
 11                 A:   No, I did not.
 12                 Q:   And I take it that you did not
 13  discuss, nor did anyone else, while you were there, the
 14  declaration of trust and shareholder agreement between
 15  Mr. Couprie and Mr. DeCicco?
 16                 A:   No.
 17                 Q:   And I take it at no time did you
 18  advise your mother that Mr. Di Poce was the investor --
 19  was an investor in World Class Developments?
 20                 A:   I couldn't discuss it because I
 21  didn't know it at the time myself.
 22                 Q:   So, at the end of the day, the only
 23  pieces of paper that your mother actually saw at the
 24  time, with respect to World Class Developments, were the
 25  trust declaration and the loan agreement signed at Pier -


  1  - Pier 1?
  2                 A:   Pier 4.
  3                 Q:   Pier 4.  Correct?
  4                 A:   Correct.
  5                 Q:   In -- in January of 2007?
  6                 A:   Correct.
  7                 Q:   Those would be the only -- of all
  8  those legal documents we've gone through, those would the
  9  only -- be the only ones that she laid eyes on, correct?
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  And you've already testified
 12  about her involvement in those, and how they came to be
 13  signed.  It's Exhibits 189 and 190.  I don't think we
 14  need to look at them.
 15                 But the Mayor will testify that she was
 16  invited out to dinner by you and Mr. Couprie, prior to a
 17  trip you were making to Asia; and I think you've told us
 18  that --
 19                 A:   Yeah.
 20                 Q:   -- correct?
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   And she will say the reason for the
 23  invitation, and the reason for the dinner, is because you
 24  and Mr. Couprie wanted to get her ideas regarding hotel
 25  operators in Asia that might be interested in developing


  1  the hotel next to the Living Arts Centre?
  2                 Do you remember that?  Does that bring it
  3  back?
  4                 A:   That does bring it back, yes.
  5                 Q:   And that she recommended to you that
  6  you talk to the operators of the Shangri La --
  7                 A:   Correct.  I do recall that now.
  8                 Q:   -- because she'd been to that hotel.
  9  She was impressed with that chain.  At the time, there
 10  was not a Shangri La in -- in Canada, and she thought it
 11  would be a real coup for Mississauga to get the first
 12  one.
 13                 A:   Correct.
 14                 Q:   Does that bring it back?
 15                 A:   Yes, it does bring it back.
 16                 Q:   That was the focus of the discussion
 17  --
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   -- at that dinner?  And is it fair to
 20  say that your mother, at that point, was excited about
 21  the prospect that finally a hotel was going to be built,
 22  or could be built, at -- at -- next to the Living Arts
 23  Centre?
 24                 A:   Correct.  Very excited.
 25                 Q:   For your mother, this was the jewel


  1  in the crown, wasn't it, Mr. McCallion?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   She had devoted her -- her -- much of
  4  her time as mayor to developing the city core of
  5  Mississauga, and this was one (1) of the last remaining
  6  pieces that she wanted to put in place in her lifetime,
  7  correct?
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   So the focus of that dinner in the
 10  dark at Pier 4 was figuring out which hotel operators
 11  might be able to fulfill that dream?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   And by the way, during the course of
 14  the dinner you asked the Mayor -- you and Mr. Couprie, to
 15  witness your signatures on some documents?
 16                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Just -- just a
 17  moment.  Excuse me.
 18                 Professor Ratushny, in his book, The
 19  Conduct -- or The Conduct of Public Inquiries, says at
 20  the conclusion of a paragraph on page 321:
 21                   "Cross-examination by successive
 22                   parties should not be permitted, nor
 23                   should sweetheart questioning, where
 24                   parties with similar interests attempt
 25                   to place the Witness in a more


  1                   favourable light."
  2                 So I -- I guess I make two (2) points.
  3  First, it'll be for you to decide whether this is
  4  sweetheart questioning, or a blistering cross-
  5  examination, but secondly, I really -- if this is the way
  6  it's going to be conducted, I really wonder what weight
  7  one would assign to it at the end of the day.
  9  much.
 12                 Q:   I take it, Mr. McCallion, that the
 13  Mayor did not read those two (2) documents during the
 14  course of the dinner?
 15                 A:   No, she did not.
 16                 Q:   Nor was there any further
 17  conversation about their content?
 18                 A:   There was no conversation about them.
 19                 Q:   Nor have you reviewed them with the
 20  Mayor since that time?
 21                 A:   No.
 22                 Q:   Let's talk about what benefit you
 23  would have gotten if the WCD deal with OMERS had been
 24  completed.  Your mother will testify that she understood
 25  throughout that you would be compensated as an agent in


  1  the usual course with a commission on the completion of
  2  the sale if it closed?
  3                 A:   Originally, yes.
  4                 Q:   And she will testify that you never
  5  told her that the co-owners had said they would not pay
  6  you a commission?
  7                 A:   No, I did not.
  8                 Q:   Nor did you tell her that Tony
  9  DeCicco wouldn't pay you a commission?
 10                 A:   No, I did not.
 11                 Q:   And there was no discussion between
 12  you and the Mayor regarding your hopes that you would get
 13  to be the signing agent for the sale of the condos?
 14                 A:   No, I did not.
 15                 Q:   And you never discussed with her the
 16  conclusion, which you now seem to have reached, that you
 17  might be entitled to some part of the shares of WCD?
 18                 A:   No.
 19                 Q:   The Mayor will testify that she
 20  assumed that your interest in the WCD deal died when it
 21  was terminated by the co-owners of January, 2009?
 22                 A:   That would be correct.
 23                 Q:   We've -- we've talked about the other
 24  -- Mr. DeCicco and the fact that -- that -- that it was
 25  you and not your mother who suggested bringing him into


  1  WCD.
  2                 A:   It was me.
  3                 Q:   And, in fact, I take it that you did
  4  not ask the Mayor to vouch for his financial status with
  5  the co-owners?
  6                 A:   No, I did not.
  7                 Q:   And with respect to the disputes
  8  between Mr. Cook and the WCD, you said your mother tried
  9  to act as a peacemaker between the two (2) of them?
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   I take it she wasn't successful in
 12  that?
 13                 A:   No, she was not.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  You've been asked Mr. Lax,
 15  he's taken you through a long list of phone calls and
 16  meetings and I don't proposed to do that, but with
 17  respect to meetings betwe -- well, first of all, let me -
 18  - let me ask you this:  I take it that -- that the Mayor
 19  has a very busy schedule?
 20                 A:   Oh, very busy.
 21                 Q:   And for you to have lun -- and she,
 22  in fact, has a full-time scheduling clerk that works for
 23  her?
 24                 A:   Yes, she does.
 25                 Q:   And for you to have lunch or dinner


  1  with her you actually have to make those arrangements
  2  through the scheduling clerk?
  3                 A:   Always. 
  4                 Q:   And you have had many dinners with
  5  her and others, including, not only Tony DeCicco and Leo
  6  Couprie, but many developers, many business people?
  7                 A:   Many different business people.
  8                 Q:   I take it she eats many of her meals
  9  in restaurants with a variety of -- of people, including
 10  yourself and many others?
 11                 A:   Many others.
 12                 Q:   What we're seeing in this Inquiry,
 13  this list is -- is just a small sample of the lunches and
 14  dinners she would have?
 15                 A:   Oh, very small.
 16                 Q:   And now you've told us that you
 17  cannot remember what was discussed at many of these
 18  lunches and dinners.
 19                 A:   Well, we're talking over a period of
 20  eight (8) years.
 21                 Q:   I take it, sir, that you don't have a
 22  particularly good memory; is that fair?
 23                 A:   Well, she might say that, yes.
 24                 Q:   With respect to Mr. DeCicco, in
 25  particular, it was put to you with -- that many of those


  1  discussions would have involved WCD and you said you
  2  couldn't remember any other business transactions.
  3                 I would suggest to you that there was --
  4  that Mr. DeCicco owned a property on Derry Land Road
  5  (phonetic) where there was an issue with respect to
  6  easement over another property, a restaurant next door.
  7                 A:   Oh, yes.  Grill One.
  8                 Q:   And that there were a number of -- of
  9  lunches or discussions between Mr. DeCicco and the Mayor
 10  where you were present that may have involved the
 11  resolution of -- of that problem?
 12                 A:   That could be, yes.
 13                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   I just -- I just rise
 14  because I'm not going to have the opportunity to cross-
 15  examine, and obviously what's going on right now isn't
 16  exactly a cross-examination, it's purportedly a re-
 17  examination, but I asked those questions and got answers.
 18  I can't reopen the issue.
 20                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 23                 Q:   Now, I'd like to take you to the --
 24  the interactions between your mother and the co-owners,
 25  with respect to the WC proposal, and ask you whether you


  1  can recall, in the period leading up to the -- the
  2  agreement of purchase and sale in January of 2007, do you
  3  recall whether or not you advised the Mayor that there
  4  was difficulty in setting up a meeting with the co-
  5  owners?  Do you have --
  6                 A:   No, if I -- 
  7                 Q:   -- any recollection of that?
  8                 A:   -- made any comment, it would have
  9  been it's just taking a long time.
 10                 Q:   And with respect to the nex -- my
 11  next question is:  Did you ask her to set up any meeting
 12  or to --
 13                 A:   No, I did not.
 14                 Q:   -- intervene on behalf of WCD?
 15                 A:   I did not do that.
 16                 Q:   Okay.  And we've -- we've heard a --
 17  a number of references to WCD being the Mayor's preferred
 18  group.  Do you have any recollection of her saying that
 19  WCD was her preferred group?
 20                 A:   I never had any recollection of that.
 21  I believe that was the only group.
 22                 Q:   That was my next question.  Were you
 23  aware of any other group that was -- that was
 24  interesting, or came forward in -- to develop the hotel?
 25                 A:   No.  Nobody else, that I'm aware of.


  1                 Q:   Okay.  And you suggested, Mr.
  2  McCallion, that it was -- it was your idea to develop a
  3  hotel.  I take it you know that this was ot -- at that
  4  location, at the Living Arts Centre?
  5                 A:   It was odd?
  6                 Q:   It was your idea?
  7                 A:   Oh, correct.
  8                 Q:   I take it that this was actually the
  9  idea of the City of Mississauga, and had been their idea
 10  for a number of years?
 11                 A:   I believe it was a -- I believe it
 12  was an idea of a lot of people.
 13                 Q:   Well, I would like to take you to
 14  Exhibit number 275.  I've got the wrong exhibit number.
 15  This is, I had thought, the exhibit number for the
 16  brochure that -- that was put on the system from 1991.
 17  Perhaps I could...
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21                 Q:   Thank you.  This -- and if we could -
 22  - this is a -- a marketing brochure from the Mississauga
 23  City Centre from 1991.  And if we could get a closeup.  I
 24  believe it's the next page.  It's hard to read this
 25  document.  That says that they're -- I guess we don't


  1  have the original here.  This is one (1) of the documents
  2  that's difficult to put on the system.
  3                 But I put to you, sir, that as far back as
  4  1991, that Mississauga was putting out a brochure
  5  suggesting that a luxury hotel with conference facilities
  6  was planned by the City of Mississauga?
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   Okay.
  9                 A:   I'm familiar with the document.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  And if we could go then to
 11  Exhibit 181.
 13                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 15                 Q:   This is a document entitled,
 16  "Mississauga City Centre 1998 Marketing Group Partners."
 17  There's a -- a list of -- of partners down the left
 18  there, including Hammerson and Oxford Properties.
 19                 Are you familiar with this?
 20                 A:   Yes, I am.
 21                 Q:   And the Living Arts Centre is
 22  identified on -- on this document.
 23                 How do we do the pointer?
 25                       (BRIEF PAUSE)


  2                 A:   I see it.
  3                 Q:   Yes.  And north of that then would be
  4  the land in question, right --
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   -- correct?  And if we go to the next
  7  page, we can see that being number 3, which at the time
  8  was owned by Hammerson Canada Limited?
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   And that's 4.37 acres.  Would also
 11  contemplate a hotel at the south end to displace the
 12  residential?
 13                 A:   Correct.
 14                 Q:   So again, this is put out by the
 15  Mississauga -- City of Mississauga, and in conjunction
 16  with marketing partners?
 17                 A:   Yes, I -- I -- 
 18                 Q:   And --
 19                 A:   -- sat on that.
 20                 Q:   You sat on that.  So you were well --
 21  it was well known to everybody that the City's vision was
 22  to put a hotel on that site?
 23                 A:   Yes. 
 24                 Q:   And then if I could ask you to look
 25  at Exhibit 182.  This is a document from the Economic


  1  Development office of the City of Mississauga setting out
  2  a development opportunity, and here the idea becomes more
  3  specific, for a hotel conference centre.
  4                 Do you see that?
  5                 A:   Yes, I see it.
  6                 Q:   And if you could -- if we could go to
  7  the second page.  So this is a business quality hotel, et
  8  cetera.  If we go to the second page we can see that
  9  there's a long list of hotel developers to whom this
 10  proposal was apparently sent, including Marriott Hotels,
 11  InterContinental, as well as a number of development
 12  companies.
 13                 So this is the -- the very specific idea
 14  of a luxury hotel next to the Living Arts Centre was in
 15  fact the idea of the City of Mississauga?
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   And what you were doing was trying to
 18  implement that idea?
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And I take it that had you been
 21  successful in doing so, that that would have been a
 22  significant benefit to the City of Mississauga, correct?
 23                 A:   Correct.  And the Living Arts Centre.
 24                 Q:   Yes.  The City of Mississauga would
 25  have got a much increased tax base?


  1                 A:   Correct.
  2                 Q:   And it would have been a benefit,
  3  obviously, to yourself?
  4                 A:   Correct.
  5                 Q:   And you've -- you've told us about
  6  what you intended or what you anticipated getting out of
  7  that transaction if it was completed.
  8                 A:   If it was completed, yes.
  9                 Q:   Okay.  Now, turning to the -- the --
 10  your dealings with City staff regarding the -- the WCD
 11  proposal.  And you've testified about meetings you
 12  attended, discussions you had with Mr. Sajecki, Ms. Ball,
 13  and others.
 14                 I take it that your mother didn't attend
 15  any of those meetings?
 16                 A:   I believe not, no.
 17                 Q:   And, in fact, you did not discuss
 18  with your mother what happened at those meetings.
 19                 A:   Oh, definitely not.
 20                 Q:   In fact, I would suggest to you that
 21  at the outset of your proposed project, she told you not
 22  only would she have to declare a conflict if your project
 23  came before council, but that she would not involve
 24  herself in staff diss -- discussions around the
 25  development aspects of your project --


  1                 A:   Correct.
  2                 Q:   And I just want to ask you about the
  3  Peel regional bylaw on development fees.  We've heard the
  4  Peel Region passed a bylaw which changed the development
  5  fees that were applicable to projects, including WCD,
  6  sometime in the fall of 2007.
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   And you were aware of that?
  9                 A:   No, I was not.
 10                 Q:   Okay, are you now aware of that?
 11                 A:   I am now aware of it, yes.
 12                 Q:   And are you now aware that there were
 13  transitional provisions that were included with that
 14  bylaw that had the effect of red circling some projects
 15  that were already in the works?
 16                 A:   At the time I was not, no.
 17                 Q:   Okay.  How did you become aware of
 18  that?  And you apparently now are aware of it, correct?
 19                 A:   Yes, now.  Well, I was aware of it
 20  after the fact, and I was brought -- I was notified of it
 21  by Mr. De Zen because were selling homes in Brampton,
 22  which meant we had to pre-site the homes in order to get
 23  our permits in on time, regarding the development charges
 24  in Brampton.
 25                 Q:   Mr. De Zen, is it?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   Okay, D-E Z-E-N?
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   Did you have any discussions with
  5  your mother about those development fees and how they
  6  would be applied to -- to the WCD project?
  7                 A:   No, I did not.
  8                 Q:   Or the transitional provisions?
  9                 A:   No, I didn't even know about them.
 10                 Q:   With respect to the negotiations with
 11  the co-owners in the fall of 2008, and you've been taken
 12  to -- to various emails and discussions around proposed
 13  amendments to the deal.
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   And there wa -- Mr. Lax this morning
 16  took to you emails appointed to a discussion with respect
 17  to selling -- getting rid of the hotel conditions, upping
 18  the purchase price, and closing the deal.  Remember Mr.
 19  Lax taking you to that?
 20                 A:   Yes, I do. 
 21                 Q:   Did you ever have any discussions
 22  with your mother about the possibility of selling those
 23  lands for the -- for the building of condos without a
 24  hotel being included?
 25                 A:   No, I did not.


  1                 Q:   What would her reaction have been, do
  2  you think, if you had told her that there was a proposal
  3  in the works to sell that land for building condos but no
  4  hotel?
  5                 A:   Not very happy.
  6                 Q:   Would she have agreed with that
  7  approach?
  8                 A:   I can't tell you what she would have
  9  said, but she wouldn't have been happy.
 10                 Q:   But you do not recall having those
 11  discussions?
 12                 A:   I did not have those discussions, no. 
 13                 Q:   And you said that WCD itself never
 14  backed away from the building of the hotel.
 15                 A:   No, we did not.
 16                 Q:   It was a matter of timing?
 17                 A:   Timing only.
 18                 Q:   Now, in terms of -- in terms of the -
 19  - the termination of the WCD deal --
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   -- the Mayor will testify that she
 22  attended at a meeting with Mr. Kitt and Mr. DeCicco on
 23  December 15th of 2008, and at that time was convinced
 24  that WCD could not come through with an appropriate
 25  hotel, and therefore, the deal had to be terminated.


  1                 Did she discuss that with you at the time?
  2                 A:   No, and I was not aware of the
  3  meeting.
  4                 Q:   Did she have any discussions with you
  5  about the impact on you and your -- your anticipated
  6  commission before agreeing that the deal should be
  7  terminated?
  8                 A:   Not with me.
  9                 Q:   The settlement of the WCD litigation
 10  with the co-owners, you have testa -- testified about
 11  Dave O'Brien offering to mediate a settlement and said
 12  that it was raised during a golf Tournament.
 13                 Is it your evidence that Mr. O'Brien spoke
 14  to your mother about it at that golf Tournament?
 15                 A:   I cannot say if he spoke to her.  He
 16  did speak to me, though.
 17                 Q:   You've told us about your attendance
 18  at two (2) meetings between Mr. DeCicco and Mr. O'Brien
 19  and said that you were not part of the final settlement
 20  discussions, and, in fact, you didn't know what they were
 21  until the Inquiry commenced.
 22                 So I take it you never discussed the terms
 23  of the settlement with your mother?
 24                 A:   No, I did not.
 25                 Q:   In fact, I take it that you didn't


  1  discuss the details of these meetings, or really anything
  2  about this, with your mother?
  3                 A:   No.
  4                 Q:   Now, with respect to your interest in
  5  this settlement, I'm a little confused about -- about
  6  your testimony on this.
  7                 You said to Mr. Gover that your -- you
  8  thought your entitlement was limited to repayment of the
  9  loans that you had made or arranged.
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   Presumably plus interest?
 12                 A:   I wasn't expecting interest.
 13                 Q:   Okay.  But minus the monies that you
 14  took out?
 15                 A:   Minus the monies I took out, yes.
 16                 Q:   And you said to Mr. Gover that
 17  ultimately it would be up to Mr. Couprie?
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   No, Mr. Couprie, correct?  Isn't that
 20  what --
 21                 A:   Mr. Couprie.
 22                 Q:   -- you told us?  Yes.
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   That's what you told Mr. McDowell, I
 25  believe.


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   Then you told Mr. Lax that, in fact,
  3  you agreed that you might be entitled to 16 percent?
  4                 A:   I said that that's the way the
  5  agreements read at this point.
  6                 Q:   So I take it that now that you've
  7  been taken through the documents by a number of lawyers,
  8  that that's in interpretation that can be put on those
  9  documents?
 10                 A:   That is correct.
 11                 Q:   But I take it you don't actually feel
 12  you're entitled to any more than what you put into it.
 13  Is that --
 14                 A:   I'm not entitled to any more than
 15  what I put in.
 16                 Q:   And I'd -- I'd actually like to take
 17  --
 18                 A:   I would believe that Mr. Couprie
 19  would be entitled to some of it though.
 20                 Q:   I would like to actually take you to
 21  the documents.  But I know you've been taken to them a
 22  number of times, but if we could look at -- at -- at
 23  Exhibit 190, please.
 25                       (BRIEF PAUSE)


  1                 Q:   And this is the declaration of trust
  2  that is -- that was witnessed by the Mayor at that
  3  dinner.  But it was January 25th through January 29th,
  4  correct?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And it says that -- now going into
  7  this, I take it that Mr. Couprie held 100 percent of the
  9                 A:   I -- 
 10                 Q:   Mr. --
 11                 A:   I believe, yes.
 12                 Q:   Mr. Lax took us through the exchange
 13  with the lawyers this morning that transferred the entire
 14  interest to him.  And this says that he's holding 80
 15  percent of those shares in trust for you, correct?
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   And that he won't deal with them
 18  except with your instructions and consent.  So he could
 19  deal with them if you gave him consent, correct?
 20                 A:   Correct.
 21                 Q:   Okay.  It also says here that you're
 22  to pay him double the amount of money advanced by WCD for
 23  the deposit.  So that's --
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   -- seven hundred and fifty thousand


  1  (750,000), plus seven hundred and fifty thousand
  2  (750,000)?
  3                 A:   Correct.
  4                 Q:   And at this point, as I understand
  5  it, Mr. Couprie has gotten back seven hundred and fifty
  6  thousand (750,000)?
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   But he hasn't got his additional
  9  seven hundred (700) --
 10                 A:   No, he does not have it yet.
 11                 Q:   So whatever -- whatever the -- the
 12  legalities are at the end of the day, he's at least
 13  entitled to another seven hundred and fifty thousand
 14  (750,000)?
 15                 A:   According to that, yes.
 16                 Q:   Okay.  So at this point, he's holding
 17  80 percent of the shares in trust, subject to disposing
 18  of them with your agreement.
 19                 So then we go to 190 -- Exhibit 193, which
 20  is the Shareholders' Agreement with Mr. Cook, where Mr.
 21  Couprie transfers 20 percent of the shares to Mr. Cook,
 22  correct?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And you were aware at that -- of that
 25  at the time?


  1                 A:   I was aware of it.
  2                 Q:   And you agreed with it?
  3                 A:   I didn't sign any documentation, but
  4  I was aware of it, yes.
  5                 Q:   But did you agree with it or
  6  disagree?
  7                 A:   Well, I didn't disagree, so I had to
  8  agree, I guess.
  9                 Q:   And then we've got the agreement in
 10  193 -- sorry, 193, Exhibit 193, which is the trust and
 11  Shareholders' Agreement between Landplex and Mr. Couprie,
 12  which is August 1st, 2007.  Well...
 13                 It is -- I think it's actually, perhaps,
 14  page 23 of the same document.
 16                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 18                 Q:   Can we try 197?  If we can go just
 19  down a bit.
 20                 Now, Mr. Lax suggested to you that you --
 21  whoa, thank you -- that you were the beneficial owner of
 22  80 percent of the shares.  In fact, this document says
 23  that Mr. Couprie is the beneficial owner of 80 common
 24  shares.  Do you see that?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   But in any event, the effect of this
  2  was to transfer to -- to Mr. DeCicco 80 percent of
  3  whatever Mr. Couprie's interest was?
  4                 A:   Correct.
  5                 Q:   And you were in a -- you were aware
  6  of that?
  7                 A:   Yes, I was.
  8                 Q:   And did you agree with it?
  9                 A:   I agreed with it.
 10                 Q:   Okay, you consented to that.  Thank
 11  you.
 12                 I would like to ask -- jump forward to
 13  August/September of 2009 and the issue of the affidavit.
 14                 The Mayor will testify -- and I want to
 15  know if you -- you recall this, Mr. McCallion -- that
 16  prior to any of the affidavits being signed, she was told
 17  by either yourself, or by Mr. DeCicco, or by Mr.
 18  Bisceglia that they would be commencing litigation on
 19  behalf of WCD as against the co-owners.
 20                 A:   Yes.  I don't remember who would have
 21  told her though.
 22                 Q:   But you knew she was aware of that.
 23                 A:   She was aware of it, yes.
 24                 Q:   And she will testify that she was
 25  told that there would be affidavits filed by yourself and


  1  by Mr. DeCicco --
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   -- and that those affidavits would --
  4  would say that she attended a number of meetings in
  5  connection with WCD.
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   Do you remember that?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   And that her response to that was, Do
 10  what you have to do.  Do you remember that?
 11                 A:   I don't remember that, no.
 12                 Q:   I take it that you also don't recall
 13  her actually reviewing any of these affidavits.
 14                 A:   No.
 15                 Q:   But you do recall her calling you up
 16  when she learned that an affidavit had been filed in
 17  court in which you said you were a principal of WCD.
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   And I take it that she indicated to
 20  you in that phone call that she was very surprised that
 21  you were being represented as a principal of a dub -- of
 22  WCD.
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   That it was not her understanding
 25  throughout that that was what you were.


  1                 A:   Exactly.
  2                 Q:   And she said to you, something to the
  3  effect, Are you a principal of WCD.  And you said, no,
  4  you're not.
  5                 A:   Yeah, it is correct.
  6                 Q:   And at the time, you didn't tell her
  7  -- this time, you didn't tell her about the loans, right?
  8                 A:   No.
  9                 Q:   You didn't tell her about the money
 10  you'd put in or taken out.
 11                 A:   No.
 12                 Q:   You didn't tell her any of those --
 13  those transactions that we have reviewed here.  You
 14  didn't --
 15                 A:   No.
 16                 Q:   You told her that your name was on
 17  nothing.  You told her that you weren't a shareholder.
 18                 A:   That is correct.
 19                 Q:   And she said to you -- well, I think
 20  she asked you, did she not, if you had gotten independent
 21  legal advice before you filed the affidavit.
 22                 A:   I don't recall if she asked that.
 23  But if she asked it, I would have answered, no, I did
 24  not.
 25                 Q:   And I take it she encouraged you to


  1  make sure that the documents filed in court were
  2  accurate.
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, I would suggest to you
  5  the bottom line, sir, is that you misled your mother with
  6  respect to your actual role in WCD.
  7                 A:   Misled or I wasn't aware of it at the
  8  time?
  9                 Q:   You led her to believe that your only
 10  involvement with WCD was as an agent.
 11                 A:   Correct.
 12                 Q:   And that when you had the
 13  opportunity, when she confronted you in August of 2009
 14  around the affidavit and what your role was, you again
 15  misled her with respect to your real role in WCD.
 16                 A:   At the time, I expressed what I
 17  thought my role was.
 18                 Q:   Finally, I want to ask you about some
 19  evidence you gave when Mr. Gover was asking you
 20  questions.  You talked about the impact on your real
 21  estate practice and the fact that your mother has been
 22  the Mayor for your entire adult life, and you said there
 23  were some detriments and some benefits.
 24                 In dealing with the City staff of
 25  Mississauga, and I take it you've had to deal with them


  1  in a number of transactions, not just this one?
  2                 A:   Correct.
  3                 Q:   Do you receive any preferential
  4  treatment from the City staff because of your
  5  relationship with the Mayor?
  6                 A:   Absolutely not.
  7                 Q:   Why do you say that?
  8                 A:   Because they're very cautious when
  9  they see me coming.
 10                 Q:   With respect to the WCD deal in
 11  particular, did you get any prefer -- did WCD get any
 12  preferential treatment from the City staff?
 13                 A:   Not at all, in my eyes.
 14                 Q:   And what about from the owners?
 15                 A:   I can't answer about the owners.
 16                 Q:   And what about from your mother and
 17  her interactions with OMERS on behalf of WCD?  Did you
 18  get any prefer -- did WCD get any preferential treatment
 19  because of your relationship with the Mayor?
 20                 A:   I would say, no.
 21                 Q:   Thank you.  I have no further
 22  questions.
 23                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 24  you.  Mr. McDowell...?
 25                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Just a few


  1  questions.
  3                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  6  Gover -- ordinarily I would have asked Mr. Gover --
  7                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   I -- I didn't see
  8  him rise, so I didn't --
  9                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Yeah.  No, fair enough.
 10                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Do --
 11  do you have some re-examination?
 12                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   And -- and I don't, in
 13  fact, and I had just said to Mr. McDowell, ordinarily
 14  there would be a right of re-examination.  I was not
 15  seeking to exercise it, and I was letting him know that -
 16  - that I wasn't holding anyone to that right.  Thank you.
 17                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   I didn't sense Mr.
 18  Gover looming there, so I -- I got up.
 21                 Q:   Just a -- a few questions, sir.  You
 22  gave evidence with respect to the number and frequency of
 23  telephone calls through 2007/2008 from Mr. DeCicco to
 24  your mother, the Mayor.
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   And Ms. McIntyre has elicited from
  2  you that you didn't tell your mother anything about Mr.
  3  DeCicco's role in this company and that effectively, she
  4  knew nothing about his ownership interest.
  5                 A:   Well, she may have, but not from me.
  6                 Q:   All right.  What did you think she
  7  understood to be Mr. DeCicco's role with WCD?
  8                 A:   Owner, manager.
  9                 Q:   Owner.
 10                 A:   Financier.
 11                 Q:   Right.  You told us, or it was
 12  suggested to you, that you never discussed with your
 13  mother the basis upon which you were going to be
 14  compensated, in commissions or otherwise?
 15                 A:   No, I did not.
 16                 Q:   Right.  You don't mean to suggest to
 17  us that your mother thought that getting into the WCD
 18  transaction was just a wholly altruistic act on your
 19  part.
 20                 She understood that you were going to be
 21  compensated in some way, I take it.
 22                 A:   At some way, yes, but I didn't
 23  discuss how or how -- or when.
 24                 Q:   Fair enough.  And you didn't get into
 25  the specifics of the commission arrangements, if there


  1  were any, in fact.
  2                 A:   Exactly.
  3                 Q:   All right.  You discussed this
  4  festive dinner on January the 25th, 2007, down at Pier 4.
  5  And it was suggested to you, and you now recall, that
  6  there were discussions about your mother --
  7                 A:   Suggestion.
  8                 Q:   -- suggest -- suggesting hotels in --
  9  in Asia that you might want to visit, for example, the
 10  Shangri La and others?
 11                 A:   Correct.
 12                 Q:   And did you have any discussions with
 13  these hoteliers?
 14                 A:   We visited them.
 15                 Q:   Did you discuss with the management
 16  of the hotels?
 17                 A:   No, we did not.
 18                 Q:   No.  As I understand it, your mother
 19  will come and testify that you -- that she suggested to
 20  you that having regard to the contents of the affidavit
 21  that you had sworn, it was important that you get
 22  independent legal advise, and you can't recall whether or
 23  not that was something that she said to you?
 24                 A:   I don't recall that specifically, no.
 25                 Q:   You do recall, I take it, that once


  1  you had had a look at the affidavit and the error had
  2  been pointed out to you, that you did get independent
  3  legal -- get you got legal advise from your mother's
  4  lawyer, effectively, Mr. Schwarz, and his firm?
  5                 A:   No.
  6                 Q:   That's who swore -- that's who
  7  commissioned the second and third affidavits?
  8                 A:   They commissioned it.  That's all
  9  they did.
 10                 Q:   They gave you no advice?
 11                 A:   No.
 12                 Q:   Did you seek any advise from them?
 13                 A:   No.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  Thank you, sir.
 15                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 16  you.  Thank you very much, Mr. McCallion.
 17                 THE WITNESS:   Thank you.
 18                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   You may
 19  step down.
 21                   (WITNESS STANDS DOWN)
 23                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Now, we
 24  have a brief witness.  How brief?
 25                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   I would think


  1  about twenty (20) minutes or twenty-five (25) minutes in-
  2  chief.
  4  right.  Well, why don't we take a very brief -- let's
  5  take ten (10) minutes and come back.  I -- I want to get
  6  the final witness on this afternoon if we can.
  7                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Yes.
  8                 THE COURT CLERK:  Order.  All rise,
  9  please.
 10                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Commissioner, just
 11  right before you're leaving, we only have one (1) witness
 12  to do.
 13                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Oh, do
 14  we?
 15                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Yes, we dispensed
 16  with the other one.  Thanks.
 17                 THE COURT CLERK:   The Inquiry stands
 18  recessed for ten (10) minutes.
 20  --- Upon recessing at 3:37 p.m.
 21  --- Upon resuming at 3:50 p.m.
 23                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 24  please.  The Inquiry is reconvened.  Please be seated.
 25                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   If we


  1  could swear Mr. Latimer, please.
  2                 THE COURT CLERK:  Do you wish to be sworn
  3  on the Bible or make an affirmation?
  4                 MR. MICHAEL LATIMER:   The Bible is fine.
  5                 THE COURT CLERK:   Hold the Bible in your
  6  right hand, please, and state your name in full.
  7                 MR. MICHAEL LATIMER:   Robert Michael
  8  Latimer.
  9                 THE COURT CLERK:   Spell your last name
 10  for the record.
 11                 MR. MICHAEL LATIMER:   L-A-T-I-M-E-R.
 13               ROBERT MICHAEL LATIMER, Sworn
 16                 Q:   Mr. Latimer, you are the Executive
 17  Vice President and Chief Investment Officer of OMERS, I--
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   And you have held that position since
 20  January 1st of this year?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   Now, we simply ask everybody this:
 23  Tell us about your education before going into business.
 24                 A:   Oh, well, my education, I'm -- I'm a
 25  graduate -- business graduate from McMaster University


  1  where I currently happen to be on the Board of Governors.
  2                 Q:   And you say that you've got thirty
  3  (30) years of corporate leadership experience in public
  4  and private companies.  Before OMERS just go back a few
  5  years and tell us --
  6                 A:   Sure.
  7                 Q:   -- about your background.
  8                 A:   Maybe I'll take you back as far as
  9  Trizec Corporation where I was the President of the
 10  Canadian office company; Executive Vice President of the
 11  corporation.  From there I went to OMERS Realty
 12  Corporation where I was their Managing Director, and from
 13  there over to Borealis, and then from there to Oxford
 14  Properties as their President and CEO.
 15                 Q:   Right.  So when we're talking about
 16  the City Centre/WCD land deal, what capacity were you in
 17  at that point?
 18                 A:   When I -- during my tenure at -- at
 19  Oxford?
 20                 Q:   Right.
 21                 A:   The President and CEO.
 22                 Q:   Right.  And that's throughout -- if
 23  we just take the years 2005 onwards, is that the position
 24  you held during that --
 25                 A:   Yes, I -- actually since the


  1  beginning of 2004.
  2                 Q:   Right.  Now, we have had fairly
  3  extensive evidence about the -- where the lands were, and
  4  the -- the ownership structure between the -- the co-
  5  owners.
  6                 What was your understanding about the
  7  historical position, if I can put it that way, of the
  8  City and the Mayor, with respect to developing the
  9  downtown core, specifically with respect to a -- to a
 10  hotel complex?
 11                 A:   Well, the -- the City of Mississauga
 12  and their official plan, I mean, they were really
 13  shifting to what I would call more of an -- an urban
 14  orientation, so more like the City of Toronto, quite
 15  frankly, and the -- a hotel was always envisioned as part
 16  of the overall development scheme.  And so we, of course,
 17  with our ownership interest in -- in Square One, had a
 18  pretty significant role as it relates to that.
 19                 So, you know, I mean my view it was that
 20  the official plan was a -- was an evolution that was
 21  there from -- from the day that we bought Hammerson
 22  Canada, which is when we actually picked up our interest
 23  in Square One, and it was always a vision to develop it
 24  beyond a suburban mall environment.
 25                 Q:   And was this goal specific to the


  1  Mayor, or was it more broad than that, as far as you
  2  understood?
  3                 A:   No, it's more broad.  It's -- it's
  4  encompassed in their -- in their official plan.
  5                 Q:   All right.  Now, with respect to the
  6  Mayor, not just with respect to this project, what's it
  7  like -- what was it like being the CEO of Oxford, dealing
  8  with the -- the Mayor of Mississauga?
  9                 A:   Well, you know, my own view of -- of
 10  the Mayor is that she's a very focussed individual.  She
 11  has a desire to see the execution of the official plan,
 12  which is in place in Mississauga, and she was certainly
 13  out there championing the cause to have different things
 14  developed.
 15                 And frankly if you look at it, I mean, you
 16  know, from our perspective, it's the sixth largest
 17  municipality in Canada, it's probably got upwards of
 18  sixty (60) of the Fortune 500 companies situated here,
 19  and so, you know, these things are good for us.  I mean,
 20  we've got $400 million invested in -- at our -- at our
 21  interest in -- in Square One.
 22                 Q:   And does the Mayor deal with things
 23  personally, or does she delegate everything down?
 24                 A:   I'd say it was a combination, but
 25  she's definitely hands-on.


  1                 Q:   Now, in dealing with the City,
  2  obviously from time to time you deal with the Mayor, but
  3  do Oxford officials deal with municipal officials?
  4                 A:   Yes, we would.  I mean, you know,
  5  maybe I'd explain it in this way, we -- we are -- manage
  6  our own -- our -- our money, so our -- we're direct
  7  management.  So when you actually view Oxford, we have --
  8  we don't use third party managers, and so our style of
  9  business would have -- would have us with multiple people
 10  across our organization.  So you would have had exposure
 11  to our development group, as an example.
 12                 Q:   Right.
 13                 A:   And so that development group would
 14  deal with the transportation department, the planning
 15  department, you know, various relationships which would
 16  exist across our organization, and of course, across the
 17  City.
 18                 Q:   And are these relationships ones that
 19  you -- that you -- your officials developed over the
 20  years, but particularly City officials?
 21                 A:   That -- that does take place, and
 22  that's -- frankly, that's beneficial for us to know the
 23  people we're dealing with.
 24                 Q:   Now, talking about third party
 25  managers, do I take it that AIM is set up with third


  1  party managers in Ontario at least?
  2                 A:   They have a different business model
  3  than we do; they utilize third party managers.
  4                 Q:   Right.  So in other words, these are
  5  people who own their own businesses and then provide
  6  advice to AIM.
  7                 Is that a fair way of putting it?
  8                 A:   That's fairly put.
  9                 Q:   Now, in the fall of 2005, I gather
 10  there was some contact with the Mayor in relation to the
 11  notion of a four-star hotel in the City Centre.  I wonder
 12  if we could pull up OMR002002891, which I think is
 13  Exhibit 258.
 15                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 17                 Q:   So there had been an email which
 18  related to the Mayor's contact with Paul Haggis.  And I
 19  know there was some prominence in the media of this email
 20  today.  But the Mayor had been fairly vigorous in
 21  speaking with Mr. Haggis, and this is your email back.
 22  Can you just give us a synopsis of the message in this
 23  email.
 24                 A:   I can.  I -- just -- if I could ask
 25  maybe to centre it.  I just -- there's a portion of it on


  1  my screen that's been just cut off and --
  2                 Q:   Sure.  Can you move that a little bit
  3  -- no?
  4                 A:   It would have to go to the right,
  5  please.
  6                 Q:   I'm not sure we can move that one for
  7  some reason.
  8                 A:   Okay.
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12                 A:   Well, I'll go -- let -- let -- allow
 13  me -- if you can't move it, allow me to attempt to
 14  respond to it then, Mr. McDowell.
 15                 So it's -- you know, there's obviously
 16  some correspondence, which is in discussion, which has
 17  gone on with Paul Haggis, who is the President and CEO of
 18  OMERS, with the Mayor, and with -- with Fred Biro, who
 19  is, I believe, the Chair of the OMERS Board of Directors.
 20                 And this was my response back to Paul, in
 21  wanting to make it perfectly clear how we would conduct
 22  our business and -- and the fact that our responsibility,
 23  specifically, my responsibility on behalf of OM -- OMERS
 24  and Oxford, specifically, as their president and CEO, was
 25  to -- to make sure that we got the right decisions and


  1  the right uses and that we executed things that were
  2  appropriate for us.
  3                 Q:   Right.
  4                 A:   And so respective of what others and
  5  third parties may desire, our focus and responsibility
  6  was to our shareholders.
  7                 Q:   So you say:
  8                   "Our decisions may not always be
  9                   popular.  It may not fit a third party
 10                   agenda."
 11                 So, in other words, that they may or may
 12  not align with the City, I take it?
 13                 A:   In that case, yes, I -- I think I was
 14  making specific reference to the City.
 15                 Q:   And then the next paragraph:
 16                   "We -- we have no intention to
 17                   frustrate the Mayor, nor, frankly,
 18                   would it be in our best interest as you
 19                   would expect in our investments in
 20                   Mississauga."
 21                 So just to pause there, you know, what is
 22  your attitude about getting on with the Mayor of a major
 23  municipality if you've got big land holdings in the -- in
 24  the city?
 25                 A:   It -- it's fundamental.  It's


  1  extremely important at the end of the day.  And so,
  2  whether it's the Mayor's office, Mr. McDowell, what asked
  3  me, or whether it's through the Planning Department or --
  4  or other departments, it's very important to have a
  5  relationship with the party you're doing business with in
  6  the City.
  7                 Q:   Right.  So you set to -- to see
  8  whether your interest can align, but at the end of the
  9  day the interest of your stakeholders, your shareholders,
 10  are -- are paramount.
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   Now, the Mayor had been quoted in the
 13  -- in one (1) of the emails about being frustrated that
 14  there had not been a sale to her preferred group, and I
 15  guess your response to that notion is answered in this
 16  email.
 17                 Were you concerned about Peter McCallion's
 18  involvement of WCD when you learned about it?
 19                 A:   No.
 20                 Q:   Maybe I should start by asking you
 21  when you learned about it.
 22                 A:   I'd say probably right from the --
 23  from the -- the get go.  So let -- let me describe that
 24  as probably late 2005, 2006.
 25                 Q:   All right.  And --


  1                 A:   Early 2006, that's correct.
  2                 Q:   And then I cut you off.  Did that
  3  cause you any concern?
  4                 A:   No.
  5                 Q:   Just explain that for us.
  6                 A:   You know, he was a real estate agent;
  7  we're accustomed to dealing with real estate agents.  I
  8  know that -- that our organization, when we -- there's a
  9  specific document here on May the 1st where -- where the
 10  way we conduct our business, our Executive Committee
 11  would have -- would have reviewed, as a part of our
 12  process, how we were going to view going forward with --
 13  with the WCD.
 14                 So, as part of the normal course, we would
 15  have -- have reviewed any involvement of Mr. McCallion
 16  and the fact whether there was any commission payable.
 17  And, at the end of the day, the agreement of purchase and
 18  sale made specific reference that there would not be.
 19                 Q:   All right.  Is there a distinction
 20  between just -- and I appreciate that you had no notion
 21  that -- that he had any interest apart from being an
 22  agent, but would there have been a distinction between
 23  his commission received from whatever source as an agent
 24  and a shareholding that he had in the proposed purchaser?
 25                 Would that have made any difference?


  1                 A:   I'm sorry, are you asking me would it
  2  have made a difference?
  3                 Q:   Yeah.
  4                 A:   We weren't aware that he was a
  5  shareholder.  We understood him to be an agent.
  6                 Q:   No, I appreciate that.  But -- but if
  7  you had, would that have made any difference?
  8                 A:   We would have taken a different view,
  9  yes.
 10                 Q:   Right.  And why is that?
 11                 A:   Because we would have wanted to make
 12  sure that -- that he was conducting himself accordingly.
 13                 Q:   All right.  Now, dealing with the
 14  negotiations with WCD, to what extent were you involved
 15  in the negotiations after the offer had been received?
 16                 A:   Maybe I can just explain our -- our
 17  business model.  As I --
 18                 Q:   Sure.
 19                 A:   -- as I said, I mean, I have a number
 20  of direct reports.  So, in this particular instance,
 21  between the Executive Vice President of Asset Management,
 22  Paul Brundage, and Ron Peddicord, as our Senior Vice
 23  President of Development --
 24                 Q:   M-hm.
 25                 A:   -- it would have been delegated to


  1  them.
  2                 Q:   All right.  And do you they keep you
  3  aware -- or did they keep you aware, from time to time,
  4  about what was going on?
  5                 A:   They would keep me aware, in
  6  addition, the Executive Committee Group that we have.
  7                 Q:   Okay.  Now, could we pull up
  8  OMR001002395.
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12                 Q:   Two eight two (282) -- two eight two
 13  (280).  Two eighty (280) -- that's two eighty seven
 14  (287).
 16                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 18                 Q:   So this is submitted to the executive
 19  committee of Oxford?
 20                 A:   That would be correct.
 21                 Q:   Right.  Explain to us the approvals
 22  process.  You began to, and I -- I -- I think I cut you
 23  off. But how does this work?
 24                 A:   So this would be the -- the committee
 25  itself, the executive committee, would be represented


  1  with membership, which would include myself and my direct
  2  reports.
  3                 So the sponsorship group would -- would
  4  bring forward a recommendation.  That recommendation,
  5  without seeing the benefit of the entire document, would
  6  capture what that recommendation would entail.
  7                 And as a result of assuming an approval,
  8  then the management would then be responsible to go back
  9  and effect the -- the direction from the committee.
 10                 Q:   Right.  And how much time would be
 11  spent in an executive committee meeting dealing with
 12  this, or is it just -- is it just done on kind of a
 13  negative option basis, if anyone's got an -- an issue
 14  with this --
 15                 A:   Well, there's always -- there's
 16  always discussion.  It depends on -- this could have been
 17  part of a multiple agenda.  We wouldn't necessarily just
 18  deal with one (1) thing at a time.  But there would be
 19  the appropriate amount of time spent to deal with it.
 20                 Q:   Now, the OMERS Investment Committee
 21  was also advised of this, I take it.  If we could pull up
 22  OMR001002225.
 23                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Do you
 24  have a number?
 25                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Just a second.


  1                 THE COURT CLERK:   Two eighty three (283).
  3  eighty three (283), there we go.
  6                 Q:   So this is Oxford passing up the line
  7  the -- the submission with respect to this transaction?
  8                 A:   That is correct.
  9                 Q:   And is that -- again, I -- I don't
 10  want to get too far into this.
 11                 But is this put before the -- the OMERS
 12  investment committee as sort of an information item, or
 13  is there a full discussion there as well?
 14                 A:   It would have been put forward as an
 15  information item, but there would have been -- in this
 16  particular case, I would have been responsible to address
 17  the item, and to deal with any Q&A.
 18                 Q:   Now, I know that in your Will Say
 19  document you speak of protracted negotiations.
 20  Negotiations were carried on with the assistance of -- of
 21  teams of lawyers on both sides, I take it.
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   And we know that these went over a
 24  period of about eight (8) months.  Could you speak to two
 25  (2) issues in the negotiations; one (1) the sale price of


  1  the lands, and two (2) the -- the use that Oxford
  2  envisioned for the lands.  How important is price in the
  3  scheme of things?
  4                 A:   It was secondary.
  5                 Q:   Can you speak to the issue of use and
  6  why use is important, given the Square One landholder?
  7                 A:   Use, at the end of the day, I mean,
  8  actually drives -- drives value.  I mean, if you -- if
  9  you view our business, we're in the value creation
 10  business.
 11                 Our material investment in the City of
 12  Mississauga is Square One, the shopping centre.  And so
 13  where we have an opportunity to actually add
 14  complementary uses, util -- utilizing and letting someone
 15  else put their capital at risk to do that, but it's
 16  complimentary to our shopping centre --
 17                 Q:   Okay.
 18                 A:   -- frankly, at the end of the day,
 19  that's good use of -- of their capital on our behalf for
 20  value creation.
 21                 Q:   All right.  And when you consider the
 22  use of having a -- a hotel, or a high -- and the high-
 23  rise condominium project right next to the Square One
 24  lands, how does that feature in your evaluation of that
 25  as a -- as a -- an ideal use?


  1                 A:   I think it's a very good use.  It was
  2  part of the official plan, and it was seen as something
  3  that was complimentary to the development of a City
  4  Centre.
  5                 Q:   All right.  Would it have been better
  6  to have the thing all condos as opposed to condos and a
  7  four-star hotel, from the point of view of use?
  8                 A:   No.  My -- my view is that that was
  9  an appropriate use.
 10                 Q:   Now, if you're considering a four-
 11  star hotel in -- in this location in Mississauga, how
 12  economically feasible would it have been to put a hotel
 13  there?  You've heard some evidence about that from a
 14  number of people.
 15                 A:   It would have been difficult.
 16                 Q:   And why is that?
 17                 A:   It's just -- it -- it -- it's -- any
 18  hotel takes a period of time to actually mature.  And so
 19  those investment dollars, the initial return probably
 20  would have been reasonably nominal.
 21                 So the -- you know, the mixed use, if you
 22  will, the hotel in -- in concert with the residential,
 23  would have actually helped the economics of an overall
 24  development at the end of the day.
 25                 Q:   And it's our understanding, based on


  1  the evidence we've heard, that that's becoming more
  2  common with high-end hotels, combining them with
  3  condominium projects?
  4                 A:   Yes, it is.
  5                 Q:   Now we won't go into the purchase and
  6  sale agreement, but from your standpoint what were the
  7  principal protections with respect to use in the
  8  agreement of purchase and sale?
  9                 A:   There were multiple conditions that
 10  were in there that were in our favour, so it was a very
 11  vendor favourable document as it related to specifics of
 12  use, time of execution, the amount of deposits that were
 13  required.
 14                 Q:   And the idea, I take it, was to
 15  ensure that WCD, in fact, was carrying forward with its
 16  intention to put a four-star hotel on the property?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   Now, again, you were kept up to speed
 19  in some fashion as proposed changes were made to the
 20  agreement before execution?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   Did you have to sign off on the final
 23  form of the agreement of purchase and sale or was that
 24  entrusted to the lawyers?
 25                 A:   That would have been delegated.


  1                 Q:   To the lawyers or to somebody -- to
  2  your in-house legal staff?  To whom was that delegated?
  3                 A:   To our officers of our -- of -- of
  4  Oxford.
  5                 Q:   Right.  Now were you aware of who the
  6  principal was of WCD at the time the negotiations were
  7  taking place?
  8                 A:   I understood it to be Murray Cook.
  9                 Q:   Did you know Murray Cook?
 10                 A:   I did not.
 11                 Q:   And did you become aware at some
 12  point in 2008 that there had been a change in the
 13  ownership group at WCD?
 14                 A:   At one (1) point I was informed by
 15  our management.
 16                 Q:   And who did you understand to be the
 17  new owner or proponent at WCD?
 18                 A:   Mr. Tony DeCicco.
 19                 Q:   And did you know what his interest
 20  was, whether he was a principal shareholder or a
 21  shareholder, or what was your understanding of his
 22  capacity within the company?
 23                 A:   I -- I was not aware.
 24                 Q:   Now we have heard a fair amount of
 25  evidence about negotiations from February onward with


  1  respect to amendments to the agreement of purchase and
  2  sale and specifically with respect to extensions sought,
  3  some of them contemplated by the original agreement, some
  4  of them outside the agreement.
  5                 What was your attitude generally about the
  6  grant of extensions?
  7                 A:   I -- I was -- I was fine with the
  8  extensions.
  9                 Q:   Now this -- we've heard evidence here
 10  that in the early going, in the fall of 2007 -- or sorry,
 11  the early going in 2006 going into 2007, it had been Ron
 12  Peddicord who had been handling the negotiations.  And I
 13  gather than Michael Kitt joined Oxford in the fall of
 14  2007; is that right?
 15                 A:   Yes, November 2007.
 16                 Q:   And can we just have a look at one
 17  (1) of these emails dealing with extensions, which is
 18  OMR001002339.
 19                 MS. NAOMI LOEWITH:   Exhibit 285.
 22                 Q:   Exhibit 285.  And so the bottom one
 23  there:
 24                   "Hazel [the Mayor] is said to have
 25                   called via Michael Nobrega and asked


  1                   that WCD be given six (6) more months
  2                   to find a hotel."
  3                 Was it your understanding that she had
  4  been put on to Mr. Kitt by Mr. Nobrega about the
  5  extension?
  6                 A:   I don't recall the specifics of -- of
  7  that.
  8                 Q:   And then you indicated your -- your
  9  assent to the extension at the top email there?
 10                 A:   Yes, I did.
 11                 Q:   Was there anything unusual in your
 12  view about the Mayor being in contact with Mr. Nobrega to
 13  get the extension and the -- the developer himself not
 14  calling?
 15                 A:   It wasn't unusual for the Mayor to
 16  contact people across the organization.
 17                 Q:   So that was sort of standard practice
 18  as far as --
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   -- you were concerned?
 21                 Now there had been a clause in the
 22  agreement that allowed for the repurchase of Block 9
 23  apart from the hotel site for ten dollars ($10) if the
 24  hotel was not substantially performed within a certain
 25  period of time, what was the reason for that clause in


  1  the first place?
  2                 A:   It was -- frankly, specific
  3  performance to the extent they weren't -- they weren't
  4  able to execute on the hotel.  We wanted to ensure that
  5  we had the rights to -- to secure our property back.
  6                 Q:   Right.  And you'd have to spend a lot
  7  of money if it was partly completed itself, I take it?
  8                 A:   There would be major complications,
  9  yes.
 10                 Q:   Now, what was your understanding
 11  about the ability of WCD through the fall of 2008 to
 12  actually meet the hotel conditions?
 13                 A:   I -- I would -- I would offer that as
 14  you -- you got to late 2008, it was becoming quite
 15  obvious that they weren't going to be able to meet those
 16  conditions.   Another comment I'd offer is 2008 was a
 17  fairly difficult economic environment.
 18                 Q:   Okay.  So if we could pull up
 19  OMR002002558, this is this memorandum from the 15th of
 20  December 2008.
 22                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 24                 Q:   This sets out, for your benefit, a
 25  chronology for Mr. Filipetti with respect to the progress


  1  on the conditions of the agreement.  And this memorandum
  2  contemplates that the agreement was going to be
  3  terminated?
  4                 A:   Could I just -- 
  5                 Q:   Can you just go up to the top again--
  6                 A:   Can you scroll back up to the top --
  7                 Q:   -- just for a second please?
  8                 A:  -- of that, up to the top.
  9                 Q:   Thank you.
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   You've
 12  got your book there.  It's Tab 8, I think, if you want to
 13  look at it there.  And by the way, I apologize.
 14                 THE WITNESS:   Thank you.
 16  finding it very warm in here, and I know it's -- I'm not
 17  sure why that is, but --
 18                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Nobody else is.
 19                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Yeah.
 20  If anybody out there is watching, if they could do
 21  something about it?
 24                 Q:   So this -- in any event, we know that
 25  the -- the deal was terminated on January the 9th, but --


  1  of the next year.
  2                 But what was your assessment of the
  3  advisability of terminating the Agreement of Purchase and
  4  Sale, as this memorandum seemed to contemplate?
  5                 A:   It would be in concurrence with the
  6  memorandum.
  7                 Q:   What consideration did you give to
  8  the fact that the economy had really slowed down, that
  9  credit was difficult to get, that WCD were looking for
 10  further extensions and so on?
 11                 A:   I think earlier on, we made -- there
 12  was an amendment that was made to -- to the agreement.
 13  But quite frankly, at this juncture, it was pretty
 14  obvious that things weren't going to come together, and -
 15  - respective of the economy.
 16                 Q:   Right.
 17                 A:   Irrespective, I should say, of the
 18  economy. 
 19                 Q:   So let's go to the second page.  So
 20  the Mayor and WCD, Mr. DeCicco -- DeCicco, I'm sorry,
 21  undertook to persuade AIM that a clean sale could be
 22  orchestrated so if the -- if the price was inflated by $2
 23  1/2 million, and then a designation, I guess, registered
 24  on land saying that only a hotel could be built, perhaps
 25  it could be done that way.


  1                 What was your attitude about that way of
  2  modifying the deal?
  3                 A:   It was one way that you could modify
  4  the -- could modify the deal, because in accordance, with
  5  the second bullet, you'd actually be putting it -- you'd
  6  --encumbering title with -- with a restriction, and you'd
  7  actually be putting the onus on the City to live up to
  8  its official plan with a hotel designation.
  9                 Q:   Was there a risk with that that the
 10  City could change its official plan back after you had
 11  actually let title pass?
 12                 A:   There's always a risk.
 13                 Q:   All right.  And so if you're looking
 14  out for the -- the use as the most important feature,
 15  that would disincline you to do that, I take it?
 16                 A:   You'd be disinclined.
 17                 Q:   All right.  And in the end, the --
 18  you know, the deal of course was terminated.  And I take
 19  it that there was no alternate purchaser in -- in view
 20  for this land for some period of time?
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   And then I gather that the -- the
 23  prospect of having Sheridan College use the lands for its
 24  purposes came into play.
 25                 When did you learn about that as a


  1  possibility?
  2                 A:   That would have been in -- in the --
  3  probably March or April of -- of 2009.
  4                 Q:   So you've had the prospect of
  5  condominium developments and the four-star hotel, where
  6  do -- having ten (10) or twelve thousand (12,000) college
  7  kids running around, where does that sit in the penumbra
  8  of possible uses for this land?
  9                 A:   To be frank, right at the top.
 10                 Q:   Why is that?
 11                 A:   Well, you know, when you think about
 12  a 24/7 city and you think about what makes the City of
 13  Toronto vibrant, and -- and so if you're trying to
 14  develop an urban environment in an suburban environment,
 15  what makes the City of Toronto vibrant?
 16                 You know, it's hotels.  It's universities.
 17  It's condominiums.  It's rental accommodation.  It's
 18  retail.  It's office.  So quite frankly, the -- the
 19  campus is incredibly complimentary for our -- our
 20  shopping centre.
 21                 Q:   Now, the deal's been terminated with
 22  WCD at this point.  WCD maintains it still has certain
 23  rights to the land.  I take it there was some desire to
 24  settle up whatever -- whatever dispute there was
 25  lingering with WCD.


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And can you just, in overview, walk
  3  us through the positions that had been taken?  I know
  4  that there's been reference in the evidence to date to
  5  the notion of returning about seven hundred and fifty
  6  thousand dollars ($750,000) in refundable deposits, and
  7  then part -- so a 1/4 million of non-refundable deposits
  8  -- in exchange for a release, so putting $1 million on
  9  the table.
 10                 Did that go anywhere?
 11                 A:   Did not.
 12                 Q:   And the negotiations continued for a
 13  number of months with respect to the terms of sale of the
 14  land.  So initially, I gather that you were going to sell
 15  the lands directly to Sheridan?
 16                 A:   I think those were part of the
 17  initial discussions, yes.
 18                 Q:   Right.  And then the deal changed at
 19  some point.  The proposal was then to sell the lands to
 20  the City, which would then lease them to Sheridan?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   There had been discussions, I gather,
 23  between Sheridan and the Federal Government to get
 24  infrastructure financing?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   Now, what part, if we look at coming
  2  up to a closing date, the fact that there's federal
  3  infrastructure money, what was the relevance to the fact
  4  that the Federal Government was putting infrastructure
  5  money into this?
  6                 A:   It would be material.  The -- at the
  7  end of the day, they -- those funds were necessary for
  8  the college to actually be built and...
  9                 Q:   And there are time lines associated
 10  with that, I take it?
 11                 A:   My understanding was that they had to
 12  be substantially completed for March 2011.
 13                 Q:   Which means you have to get the deal
 14  done.  You have to start construction fairly quickly.
 15                 A:   Things had to be expedited, correct.
 16                 Q:   And was there a commencement -- you
 17  may not know this, but was there a commencement deadline
 18  for the construction?
 19                 A:   I -- I don't know the answer to that.
 20                 Q:   Now, as we're approaching the -- the
 21  closing date for the deal, what was your attitude with
 22  respect to settling with WCD?  What -- what were you
 23  prepared to do?
 24                 A:   We're talking about the closing date
 25  with the City?


  1                 Q:   Yes.  Well, let me ask an intervening
  2  question.  I gather there was litigation commenced at
  3  some point to get a declaration with respect to the
  4  rights of WCD.
  5                 So OMERS commenced that litigation?
  6                 A:   Yes, that was in July, I believe,
  7  2009.
  8                 Q:   All right.  So we know that
  9  ultimately there's a settlement.  And why is it decided
 10  that OMERS will try and resolve the issue rather than
 11  just letting the litigation play out?
 12                 A:   There's a number of factors in play.
 13  I mean, July's a pretty -- pretty busy month when you
 14  actually look at -- at what was taking place.
 15                 You know, in July, we're entering into the
 16  Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the City.  We were
 17  sitting with and knew that there was litigation pending.
 18  In fact, I believe there was a court date set for October
 19  of that year on -- on WCD in the Agreement of Purchase
 20  and Sale with the City.  There were conditions that had
 21  to be -- had to be met.
 22                 We knew that Sheridan College was there.
 23  They needed it.  They had timing pressure as it relates
 24  to the infrastructure grant.  So many moving parts.
 25                 Q:   Right.  And so the attempt then was


  1  made to settle without letting the litigation play out?
  2                 A:   There were attempts back and forth,
  3  yes.
  4                 Q:   Now, at some point, I gather from the
  5  evidence that we've heard to date, there was an effort on
  6  the part of WCD's lawyers to offer to settle litigation
  7  by the payment of $3.8 million?
  8                 A:   That was in July, correct.
  9                 Q:   Right.  And then I gather that in
 10  July, as well, there's a conditional Agreement of
 11  Purchase and Sale which is executed so that you know that
 12  there's an agreement which has the potential to close at
 13  some point in the next few months?
 14                 A:   With the City of Mississauga,
 15  correct.
 16                 Q:   And what was the proposed closing
 17  date?
 18                 A:   September the 17th, because I believe
 19  there was a council meeting on the 16th.
 20                 Q:   We can look, it's Exhibit 128, but I
 21  believe that's correct.
 22                 Now, you've got -- you've got the
 23  litigation at this point that is still ongoing.  You're
 24  going to sell to the City, the City is going to conclude
 25  a lease with Sheridan.


  1                 So what do you do to protect the City and
  2  protect Sheridan, having regard to the fact that
  3  litigation is outstanding?
  4                 A:   Well, the City -- so first of all,
  5  the City has conditions in the agreement which we -- will
  6  have to be fulfilled that relate to the environmental and
  7  the ultimate soil conditions.  And then of course there's
  8  an indemnity that -- that exists.
  9                 And so the -- we had filed a notice of
 10  application to have it confirmed that the termination of
 11  the agreement with WCD was -- was -- was concluded.
 12                 Q:   Right.  So in other words, that's on
 13  your desk to get rid of?  Not yours personally, but it's
 14  -- it's up to Oxford and OMERS to -- to somehow deal with
 15  the litigation?
 16                 A:   We are definitely dealing with --
 17  with the litigation, yes.
 18                 Q:   Now, we're into the summer now at --
 19  at this point.  And I gather at some point in the summer,
 20  you had discussions with Mr. Nobrega about -- about
 21  settling the litigation?  What do you recall of those?
 22                 A:   I -- I went to see Michael in, would
 23  have been the end of August, I think the 28th of -- of
 24  August.  I would have gone to see him in the normal
 25  course on a number of different things, but this was


  1  clearly one of the -- the topics.  And, you know, from
  2  the period of July until August, there were a number of
  3  different things that were -- that were moving around.
  4                 And so we discussed the -- Sheridan.  We
  5  discussed the infrastructure grants.  We discussed the
  6  timeliness of it, the City agreement, the soil
  7  conditions, our ability to be able to deliver that so
  8  that we didn't void the arrangement, the indemnity.
  9                 And if I'm forgetting something, I'm not
 10  intentionally doing that.  There are just multiple things
 11  that I would have been reviewing with Michael in and
 12  around the -- the activities there.  It would have been
 13  normal course reporting for me.
 14                 Q:   The possibility, dare we suggest,
 15  that maybe the litigation doesn't go on the -- the
 16  contemplated time line?
 17                 A:   Well, the litigation was a -- was a -
 18  - an important part of that -- that discussion.  I mean,
 19  at this juncture it's -- we know that we have a court
 20  date, which is in October.  It's obviously well known
 21  that we have an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the
 22  City.
 23                 And so, you know, I'm -- I'm -- I'm
 24  concluding at that point that the -- the best thing in
 25  our favour is to actually bring conclusion with WCD --


  1                 Q:   Right.
  2                 A:   -- so that we're in a position where
  3  we actually can find ourself where we can deliver the
  4  title to the City, so that what we don't do is put
  5  Sheridan College in jeopardy and find ourself, frankly,
  6  in a position where we lose both Sheridan College and we
  7  end up in litigation that's protracted.
  8                 You know, my experience has been, given
  9  the number of litigation lawyers in here, the experience
 10  has been that these things never go according with the
 11  original time scra -- time frame.  So my expectation was
 12  that we just would have ha -- we would have lost
 13  everything.
 14                 Q:   That's the risk, anyway?
 15                 A:   That was the risk in my view.
 16                 Q:   Now, looking across the table to Mr.
 17  DeCicco, I take it when there's no other alternate
 18  purchaser there, he has some leverage.  But he has more
 19  leverage once the Sheridan deal is there and there to be
 20  imminently closed?
 21                 A:   I -- I'd say that's a reasonable
 22  comment.
 23                 Q:   Right.  Now, in thinking about
 24  expectations of the range of -- of dollars, if I can put
 25  it that way, that you're going to have to spend in order


  1  to resolve this, what does it tell you when there's been
  2  an offer from Mr. DeCicco for $3.8 million?
  3                 A:   That tells me we know the price to
  4  settle.  So -- give or take.  I mean, I'm not -- but it -
  5  - what it tells me is that -- that we know what -- what
  6  the range of settlement is now.
  7                 Q:   Right.  So that that looks like the
  8  ceiling to you, subject to increased costs or whatever?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   Right.  Now, tell us about the
 11  involvement of Mr. O'Brien in trying to resolve this
 12  litigation.
 13                 A:   Mr. O'Brien became involved, to the
 14  best of my knowledge, when we -- at our pre-IC meeting,
 15  which is an investment committee meeting.  We have Mr.
 16  O'Brien as a member of our -- of our board.  He attends
 17  that meeting.  And so Michael Nobrega briefed, actually,
 18  the group that morning on what was taking place.
 19                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Could
 20  you keep your voice up, sir.
 21                 THE WITNESS:   Oh, I'm sorry.  So do you
 22  want me to go back?
 25                 Q:   Just back up.  Mr. O'Brien became


  1  involved, and then you said that he briefed the group, I
  2  think.
  3                 A:   Yeah, Michael Nobrega would have
  4  brief the -- the pre-IC meeting.  And so David would have
  5  been part of that -- part of that group.
  6                 Q:   All right.  You -- can you fix a date
  7  on that?
  8                 A:   The pre-IC meeting was September the
  9  8th.
 10                 Q:   September the 8th.  And then would
 11  there have been a subsequent meeting after the settlement
 12  was concluded?
 13                 A:   After the settlement was con --
 14  concluded, would --
 15                 Q:   Yeah, where -- where this was
 16  referred to.
 17                 A:   I can't recall specifics.
 18                 Q:   And how -- how do you do these things
 19  -- actually, you know what, I better not ask that,
 20  because I think that's -- I'm going to get into
 21  privileged territory here, so I won't ask that.
 22                 Once it was learned within Oxford that the
 23  litigation had been settled for an all-in price of $4
 24  million, what was the reaction on your part?
 25                 A:   Quite frankly, I thought that was an


  1  appropriate solution.  It's part of the discussion that
  2  I'd had with Michael back in -- on the 28th.  It was my
  3  view that settling at -- at -- on or about $4 million was
  4  the right thing for us to do.
  5                 Q:   All right.  And if you look at that,
  6  I gather that it protects against the downside risk that
  7  you lose the Sheridan deal, that you're still involved in
  8  litigation, that's one feature?
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   The fact that you're getting a
 11  terrific use in the scheme of things, that's another
 12  feature?
 13                 A:   Absolutely.
 14                 Q:   All right.  So if you -- if -- I'm
 15  just going to suggest to you, if you're going to pay
 16  another half million or $1 million from where you sit,
 17  taking the long view, that's --that's just fine.
 18                 A:   Absolutely.
 19                 Q:   Were you aware that Mr. O'Brien
 20  apparently had been contacted by the Mayor, or had
 21  discussions with the Mayor, about taking on the role of
 22  settling this litigation?
 23                 A:   I was not.
 24                 Q:   All right.  Did you ever speak with
 25  him directly, except within the context of this meeting


  1  that you're referring to?
  2                 A:   Well, I would see David at other
  3  meetings, but I've not -- if you're asking me
  4  specifically about this topic, no.
  5                 Q:   All right.  I note for the record
  6  that it is a few degrees cooler now.  So apparently --
  7  apparently this internet thing works.  Those are my
  8  questions.
  9                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 10  you.
 11                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Now, maybe -- I
 12  don't know how many counsel have questions, but if we
 13  could just canvass how long people are going to be.  I
 14  really want to get Mr. Latimer out of here today, if we
 15  can.
 16                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Yeah.
 17  Well, what's the order?
 18                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   I'm prepared to
 19  go next --
 21  right,  Ms. McIntyre.
 22                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   -- we have had
 23  some discussion here with...


  1                 Q:   Mr. Latimer, I introduced myself to
  2  you earlier as counsel for the Mayor.
  3                 So you've -- you've told us that the City
  4  of Mississauga, known to you, was developing a
  5  traditional downtown core as opposed to a suburban-type
  6  environment through its official plan?
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   And you were aware of that.  And that
  9  because OMERS, we've -- we've learned, and its -- and its
 10  partner in Alberta not only owns Square One, but a lot of
 11  property around City core -- the City core, that you
 12  would have been integral to the development of downtown
 13  Mississauga?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   And as part of the City's vision for
 16  the core, you were aware of this plan to develop a hotel
 17  convention centre in connection with the Living Arts
 18  Centre?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   And you knew that the Mayor was a
 21  vocal supporter of the official plan generally and of
 22  that hotel development in particular?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   And in that context, I take it that
 25  it was not unusual to -- to you that the Mayor would


  1  communicate with Oxford with respect to her vision of the
  2  development of the City core?
  3                 A:   Correct.
  4                 Q:   And in fact, in your experience, the
  5  Mayor had been very active in communicating her views
  6  with a wide range of matters with respect to the City
  7  core and dealt with employ -- various employees of
  8  Oxford?
  9                 A:   That is correct.
 10                 Q:   And in particular, with respect to
 11  Square One.
 12                 A:   That is correct.
 13                 Q:   So I take it that there was nothing
 14  unusual, in your view, about her contact with yourself
 15  and Mr. Nobrega and Mr. Haggis, with respect to the WCD
 16  project.
 17                 A:   Correct.
 18                 Q:   That would be in keeping with her
 19  usual manner of dealing with things?
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   And I take it that Oxford deals with
 22  a number of mayors in a number of jurisdictions; is that
 23  fair?
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   I believe the same co-owners also own


  1  Yorkdale and Scarborough Town Centre; is that right?
  2                 A:   That is correct.
  3                 Q:   And with respect to this particular
  4  mayor, she's known to be an enthusiastic promoter of her
  5  city?
  6                 A:   Yes, she is.
  7                 Q:   And I think that -- or I would
  8  suggest to you that -- that she is very strategic and
  9  that her knowledge of the management of the city goes
 10  very deep, in part because of those very close
 11  relationships she forges with individuals in various
 12  businesses, including yours?
 13                 A:   Yes, she's had many years to develop
 14  those relationships.
 15                 Q:   And as a result, Mississauga has
 16  grown and developed in a way that's really unparalleled
 17  really with respect to other similar cities; is that not
 18  correct?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   And that development is a significant
 21  benefit, not only to -- to the City of Mississauga but
 22  also to Oxford and AIM, correct?
 23                 A:   We've been a -- we have been a
 24  beneficiary.
 25                 Q:   So now we have -- we have heard some


  1  suggestion that with retect -- with respect to the sale
  2  of -- the sale of these lands to WCD that the co-owners
  3  were reluctant sellers.
  4                 And I want to ask you about that because
  5  obviously -- obviously, when it came to the spring of --
  6  of 2009, the same owners were prepared to sell the
  7  property to Sheridan, ultimately to the City, but to
  8  Sheridan, correct?
  9                 A:   Yeah, that's correct.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  So with respect to moving
 11  backwards in the time frame that you were negotiating
 12  with WCD, I take it that the property was sitting there
 13  vacant and not being used for any purposes, correct?
 14                 A:   It was vacant property.
 15                 Q:   And -- and we heard from Mr. Lusk
 16  that pension funds prefer income-producing investments
 17  but, ultimately, it was decided that a tenant-based use
 18  was not something that was feasible for that property?
 19                 A:   I'm --
 20                 Q:   That's what he told us.
 21                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Rental.
 24                 Q:   Rental.  Rental properties was not --
 25  was not a -- a complementary use for that particular


  1  piece of property?
  2                 A:   I can't comment on what -- what Mr.
  3  Lusk opined on. 
  4                 Q:   Fair enough.  You have told us that -
  5  - that using the property for condos in conjunction with
  6  a hotel was a complementary use from OMERS' point of
  7  view?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   And ultimately, as long as the -- the
 10  price was right and the use was right and all of the
 11  other terms and conditions were right then, in fact,
 12  OMERS was a willing seller for the WCD project, correct?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   And, in fact, if that deal had been
 15  completed as agreed, it would have been a very good
 16  project for the co-owners in terms of the vibrancy of the
 17  city core and -- and your other investments in -- in the
 18  city core, correct?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   And it would have -- it would have
 21  increased activity and a convention hotel would have
 22  increased activity in the city core, correct?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   And it would have had shoppers like
 25  myself and other women going into -- into -- into the


  1  mall to generate revenue, correct?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Affluent women.
  6                 Q:   And it would also have been good for
  7  the City of Mississauga, correct?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   Because not only would it have
 10  achieved the -- a step towards achieving the City's
 11  vision for the city core with the hotel convention centre
 12  but that also the condos would have generated significant
 13  property val -- or property tax revenue, correct?
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   Now the next thing I wanted to ask
 16  you about was WCD as the Mayor's preferred group, and I
 17  keep reading about that in the newspaper, so I want to
 18  ask you about that.
 19                 I take it that Mississauga had been trying
 20  for some time to get someone to build a hotel beside the
 21  Living Arts Centre, is that fair?
 22                 A:   That would be my understanding.
 23                 Q:   And, in fact, we've looked at several
 24  promotional pieces that were put out, and I want to show
 25  you one (1) of those, which is Exhibit 182, to ask you if


  1  you're familiar with this.  This is from July of 2005,
  2  which I think falls within the time frame that you would
  3  have been with -- with Oxford.
  4                 And this is something put out by the
  5  economic development office of the City and is a --
  6  listed as a development opportunity for a hotel
  7  conference centre.  And we know that's it's been sent to
  8  quite a long list of hotel developers.
  9                 Were you familiar with this?
 10                 A:   I haven't -- I'm familiar with this
 11  document.
 12                 Q:   But you did know that economic
 13  development office of the City was promoting the idea of
 14  this hotel conference centre?
 15                 A:   We were aware in general that the
 16  City was promoting the -- the hotel conference centre.
 17                 Q:   And I take it that other than the WCD
 18  proposal, which came forward, that there were no other
 19  developers that approached OMERS, Oxford, AIM to your
 20  knowledge with respect to a proposal for a hotel
 21  conference centre on that site?
 22                 A:   They were the party we were dealing
 23  with.  We weren't pursuing any other partners.
 24                 Q:   And you weren't aware of any other
 25  parties that were pursuing you?


  1                 A:   I should have said parties.  I meant
  2  -- I said "partners."  I was not.
  3                 Q:   Thank you.  Now I did want to ask you
  4  a question about the documents to which Mr. McDowell took
  5  you, and, first of all, Exhibit 283.  If this is the --
  6  it's difficult when you can't see the actual document.
  7  You may have it the binder in front of you, I understand.
  8                 This is the report to the Investment
  9  Committee, Mr. Latimer, on May 18th, 2006.  And --
 10                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   Tab 3 of your
 11  binder.
 14                 Q:   Tab 3 of your binder, apparently.
 15  Thank you.  And this -- this is a report on the -- on the
 16  proposal, and it goes through the background, and then
 17  has a number of next steps.  Do you see that?
 18                 And if you go on to the third page,
 19  there's a point there which I wanted to ask you about,
 20  which -- where it says:
 21                   "WCD is committed to provide a letter
 22                   from the Mayor's office affirming
 23                   support for WCD in the development."
 24                 Do you see that?
 25                 A:   I see that.


  1                 Q:   And do you know if that was ever
  2  provided?
  3                 A:   I do not.
  4                 Q:   Perhaps if you could turn then to
  5  Exhibit 284, which is the report of January 31st, 2007,
  6  tab 4 in your book, sir --
  7                 A:   Thank you.  
  8                 Q:   -- which is -- is another report from
  9  January 31st.  And if you go to the third page, it says
 10  there, on the seventh bullet down --
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   -- that:
 13                   "The City of Mississauga has indicated
 14                   through the Planning Office and Janice
 15                   Baker, CAO of Mississauga, that they
 16                   are in support of this proposed
 17                   development and WCD."
 18                 So I take it that that was received,
 19  although I don't know that I see an actual letter from --
 20  from Ms. Baker.
 21                 A:   I don't.  Unless you can show me in
 22  here the -- the actual letter, I -- I'm not aware of it.
 23                 Q:   I couldn't find it, sir.  But I take
 24  it that, as far as you know, there wasn't an actual
 25  letter from the Mayor's office received, as contemplated


  1  by that earlier report?
  2                 A:   Sorry, are you -- have you now
  3  referenced back to the -- the May 18th report?
  4                 Q:   Yes.  Perhaps you can't shed any
  5  further light on it.
  6                 A:   Well, I -- I think I gave you my
  7  response.  I'm not aware.
  8                 Q:   Thank you.  Now I wanted to ask you a
  9  question about the agreement of purchase and sale.  And
 10  you may well have it there.  I'm not sure that you need
 11  it.  My understanding is that it did not have a change in
 12  management clause, change in control clause?
 13                 A:   I don't recall that it had one.
 14                 Q:   And I take it that that would -- is a
 15  clause that is quite usual in those kinds of agreements?
 16                 A:   Quite -- you know, it depends on the
 17  circumstance, and so, you know, to make -- that's a very
 18  broad statement to make.  It depends on how the agreement
 19  of purchase and sale is constructed.
 20                 Q:   Fair enough.  I think you told us
 21  that this was a very vendor friendly agreement of
 22  purchase and sale?
 23                 A:   I made that comment.
 24                 Q:   I -- do you -- can you recall if
 25  there was any discussion at the time as to whether or not


  1  such a clause should be put in?
  2                 A:   I -- I -- you know, that would have
  3  been delegated -- delegated down at my management --
  4                 Q:   Fair enough.
  5                 A:   -- to my management team.
  6                 Q:   But I take it if there had been such
  7  a clause that would have meant you'd be entitled to --
  8  the vendors would have be entitled to notification of a
  9  change in control at the -- of the purchaser's company?
 10                 A:   Subject to how it's drafted, yes.
 11                 Q:   It might have entitled the vendors to
 12  terminate the agreement, if they weren't happy with the
 13  change in control?
 14                 A:   I -- you know, I -- I won't comment
 15  on that.
 16                 Q:   Okay.  Fair enough.  So back for a
 17  moment to -- you got a call yourself, I take it, from
 18  Mayor McCallion with respect to the WCD proposal?
 19                 A:   I did.
 20                 Q:   And you were aware of two (2) other
 21  calls that she made; one (1) to Mr. Nobrega, and one (1)
 22  to Mr. Haggis?
 23                 A:   I'm aware of the call to Mr. Haggis
 24  because that lead to a response, my response to Mr.
 25  Haggis back in -- in October --


  1                 Q:   Right.
  2                 A:   -- of that period.
  3                 Q:   Right.  And were you also not aware
  4  of the call to Mr. Nobrega?
  5                 A:   Can you reference what call, or what
  6  -- where that is, and -- and what that timing is?
  7                 Q:   There is -- if I could -- I could
  8  refer you to Exhibit 285, and I don't know whether you
  9  have this in your book, but there's an --
 10                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   Tab 6.
 13                 Q:   Tab 6 of your book, sir.  Is a series
 14  of emails, and one (1) of them is from Michael Kitt to
 15  yourself, sent July 9th, 2008.  Do you see that?
 16                 A:   It's 7:18 a.m.?
 17                 Q:   Yes.
 18                 A:   Yes, that's --
 19                 Q:   You start work early, or Mr. -- Mr.
 20  Kitt starts work early.
 21                 A:   M-hm.
 22                 Q:
 23                   "Hazel called me last Friday via
 24                   Michael Nobrega, and asked me to give
 25                   the WCD people six (6) more months to


  1                   find a hotel."
  2                 I'm sorry, so the call -- well, I guess
  3  the call was from -- to Mr. Nobrega.  In any event, she
  4  called to ask that the WCD people be given six (6) more
  5  months to find a hotel.  So you were aware that that call
  6  had been made?
  7                 A:   I had that memorandum, and I
  8  responded to Michael July 9th at 8:58, it appears.
  9                 Q:   And you've told us already that you
 10  didn't think there was anything unusual about the Mayor
 11  calling with respect to this development, or this
 12  development proposal with respect to WCD.
 13                 And I take it that your understanding
 14  throughout that the Mayor's agenda was to get the -- this
 15  hotel built by the Living Arts Centre?
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   And that at no time to your knowledge
 18  did the Mayor ever back down on her focus on getting that
 19  hotel built.
 20                 A:   That's correct?
 21                 Q:   In fact, she was very outspoken about
 22  that, wasn't she?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And that it -- it never occurred to
 25  you that what she was doing was really pushing her agenda


  1  because of her son Peter's interest in the project?
  2                 A:   Would have never -- would have never
  3  contemplated that.
  4                 Q:   Thank you.  I have no further
  5  questions.
  8                 Q:   Good afternoon, Commissioner.  Good
  9  afternoon, Mr. Latimer.  My name is Luisa Ritacca.  I'm a
 10  lawyer for Peter McCallion, and I just have a couple of
 11  questions for you.
 12                 First, in answer to a question that
 13  Commission counsel put to you, you said that you
 14  understood that the economics of developing a four-star
 15  hotel in Mississauga city centre core, were challenging?
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   Okay.  And I -- I take it that part
 18  of what could make the economics challenging is if the
 19  timing isn't right.  Is that fair?
 20                 A:   That would be one (1) element of the
 21  development.  
 22                 Q:   And I also take it from your
 23  evidence, sir, that you certainly have seen an evolution
 24  in the city centre in the time that OMERS has had an
 25  interest there?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And certainly that over time, the
  3  city centre looks very different ten (10) years ago, for
  4  example, than it -- than it likely will look ten (10)
  5  years from now?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   Okay.  And I -- I take it that OMERS
  8  -- or you would expect over time that a four-star hotel
  9  could be part of the city core?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  Now, sir, in answer to
 12  questions from Commission counsel, you indicated that you
 13  believed you knew about Mr. McCallion's involvement in
 14  the WCD transaction, I think you said from the very
 15  beginning, and I think you narrowed that down to
 16  somewhere between 2005 and 2006?
 17                 A:   I think it would have come to our
 18  attention in, you know, the latter half of 2005, the
 19  beginning of 2006.
 20                 Q:   And -- and you said to Mr. McDowell
 21  that you had no concerns about Mr. McCallion's
 22  involvement?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And you said you had no concerns, as
 25  I understood your evidence, because you reviewed his


  1  involvement and -- and as a result of that review you had
  2  no concerns.  Is that correct?
  3                 A:   That's correct.  I made reference to
  4  the executive committee meeting that we would have had on
  5  the 1st of May.
  6                 Q:   All right.  And -- and how did you or
  7  your group do that?  What review did you undertake?
  8                 A:   We would have taken a review of the
  9  entire agreement.  So you would have an executive
 10  committee made up of all of my direct reports.  They
 11  would have had a presentation.  In this case it would
 12  have been Ron Peddicord, who would have been responsible
 13  to make that presentation.  There would have been
 14  discussion about everything that was going on as it
 15  relates to the transaction.
 16                 Q:   And so you would have gotten your
 17  information about Mr. McCallion's involvement from Mr.
 18  Peddicord, primarily.  Is that fair?
 19                 A:   That is correct.
 20                 Q:   Okay.  And -- and also in answer to a
 21  question from Mr. McDowell, you said that if you knew Mr.
 22  McCallion was a shareholder, then you would have taken
 23  steps to make sure he was conducting himself accordingly?
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   I got that right.  I -- I didn't


  1  quite understand that answer.  What -- what do you mean
  2  by that, sir?
  3                 A:   I think that if -- if we understood
  4  him to be an agent, that's one (1) thing.  If we
  5  understand him to be a shareholder, that's something
  6  else.
  7                 Q:   And how would that have changed
  8  OMERS' conduct in this transaction?
  9                 A:   I think we just simply would have
 10  wanted absolute clarity on what his role was.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  And -- but ultimately, you
 12  were still concerned about making a deal that was
 13  beneficial for Oxford?
 14                 A:   At the end of the day I am
 15  responsible to make sure that we're doing something
 16  that's beneficial for us.
 17                 Q:   Right.  And so you weren't suggesting
 18  that you wouldn't have entered into a transaction if Mr.
 19  McCallion had a -- a different interest other than agents
 20  -- as an agent in the WCD?
 21                 A:   I did not say that.
 22                 Q:   Okay.  And certainly, if -- it
 23  wouldn't -- if Mr. McCallion's involvement was something
 24  different than agent, I -- I take it, it wouldn't alter
 25  the way OMERS or you interacted with the Mayor with


  1  respect to this transaction?
  2                 A:   You're asking me to look back in --
  3  in hindsight.  He was represented as an agent, and that's
  4  what we discussed.  That's how we viewed it.  So quite
  5  frankly I'm -- I'm, you know, a bit -- I'm not sure, you
  6  know, what I can offer on -- on -- that I haven't given
  7  you in an answer.
  8                 Q:   Okay.  Fair enough.  And if we could
  9  just turn very quickly to Exhibit 275, which you've
 10  already been taken to, I believe.
 11                 What tab is that?
 12                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   Tab 8.
 15                 Q:   Your Tab 8.
 16                 A:   Thank you. 
 17                 Q:   And this is a memo, sir, that you
 18  received from Mr. Filipetti, correct?
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And it's an update on the World Class
 21  Development transaction?
 22                 A:   Yes. 
 23                 Q:   And it sets out the fact that World
 24  Class Developments hadn't satisfied conditions that it
 25  was supposed to satisfy?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   Right.  And you already talked to Mr.
  3  McDowell about how it also sets out efforts to modify the
  4  deal, on page 2?
  5                 A:   It's actually covered in there, yes.
  6                 Q:   Yes.  And further down on page 2 it
  7  sets out how your co-vender, AIM, rejected these efforts
  8  to modify the deal?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  And one (1) of the reasons
 11  cited here, as expressed by Mr. Filipetti, and that's at
 12  -- it's the third bullet under the paragraph that starts,
 13  "AIM rejected these arguments."
 14                 In the second sentence in that third
 15  bullet:
 16                   "They are also uncomfortable with the
 17                   involvement of Peter McCallion as an
 18                   apparent principal of WCD."
 19                 A:   I see that.
 20                 Q:   Yeah.  And was that the first you
 21  heard of AIM's concern about Mr. McCallion's involvement?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   And, to your knowledge, did anyone
 24  share these concerns with World Class Development?
 25                 A:   I would be -- no, that would have


  1  been my management dealing with it, so I can't -- I can't
  2  provide a response to that.
  3                 Q:   Did you instruct your management to
  4  share those concerns with World Class Development?
  5                 A:   No.
  6                 Q:   And -- and, to your knowledge, sir,
  7  no one shared these concerns with Mr. McCallion directly?
  8                 A:   Not that I'm aware of.
  9                 Q:   Thank you, sir.  Those are my
 10  questions.  Thank you.
 11                 A:   Thank you.
 14                 Q:   Hello, Mr. Kitt (sic).  We intro -- I
 15  introduced myself to you.  I'm the lawyer for WCD and Mr.
 16  DeCicco.
 17                 If it -- if you would be good enough to
 18  look at Exhibit 282.  I'm not sure what tab number that
 19  is for you.  And it's the second page of that document.
 20  It's your memo of May 1st -- or the memo of the Executive
 21  Committee of May 1st, 2006.  Let me know when you've
 22  found that.
 23                 On the second page of that document, the
 24  fourth -- fifth bullet point:
 25                   "On March 1, 2006, we received from


  1                   Altus Helyar an appraisal of the land
  2                   parcels, supporting a value of nine
  3                   hundred thousand (900,000) to $1.1
  4                   million per acre."
  5                 I'm just curious whether you recall, Mr.
  6  Latimer, whether that appraisal considered whether the
  7  fact that the lands had prepaid parkland fees into
  8  account in doing that appraisal.  Do you remember
  9  anything about that?
 10                 A:   No, I don't.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  I took from your evidence thus
 12  far that Oxford's primary focus when disposing of lands
 13  like these is to ensure that the purchaser developed the
 14  lands in a manner which will increase value to Square One
 15  rather than diminish it.  Is that right?
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   And no question, everyone agrees,
 18  that hotel -- four-star hotel and high end condominiums,
 19  because obviously those things are material, definitely
 20  increase the value for your company and your co-vendor,
 21  correct?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   Okay.  And I understand the notion
 24  that a four-star hotel standing alone increases value.
 25  But in relative terms, do high end condos diminish the


  1  value as compared to a hotel?  I'm a bit confused about
  2  that.
  3                 A:   Are you talking a mixed use project?
  4  I mean, what are you trying to --
  5                 Q:   No, I'm saying if it wasn't mixed
  6  use, if it was all residential condominiums high end?
  7                 A:   End of the day, it wasn't part of the
  8  official plan.
  9                 Q:   Yeah, okay.  So that's -- but that's
 10  the point.  The point is it was part of the official
 11  plan, part of the City's thinking that there had to be a
 12  hotel there.  That's what's significant.  It wasn't a
 13  pure economic decision, is that right?
 14                 A:   Be part of the official plan?
 15  Correct.
 16                 Q:   Okay, got it.  I understand that
 17  Oxford didn't fully understand Mr. DeCicco's role.  I'm
 18  just wondering if you ever made any inquiries of him in
 19  that respect.
 20                 A:   I -- I did not directly.  I can't
 21  speak for my management team.
 22                 Q:   And you don't know of any?
 23                 A:   I'm not aware of any.
 24                 Q:   Okay.  You told Mr. McDowell that you
 25  were fine with the extensions that were granted to WCD


  1  until December of 2008.  Did I understand you correctly?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   Okay.  That was because you
  4  recognized it was a challenge to do this project from the
  5  outset?  That was something you recognized, sir?
  6                 A:   Multiple -- you know, multiple
  7  conditions.  We provided the extension.
  8                 Q:   Yeah.  It beca -- did it become a
  9  greater challenge to do this project with the credit
 10  crisis?  No question.
 11                 A:   Everything became a greater --
 12                 Q:   Okay.
 13                 A:   -- a greater challenge. 
 14                 Q:   And so, to a point, you were
 15  satisfied in your role that WCD had good reason to ask
 16  for more time to put this deal together?
 17                 A:   They asked.
 18                 Q:   And you thought they had good reason,
 19  and you were prepared to go along with it?
 20                 A:   We provided it.
 21                 Q:   Okay.  I'm curious about Exhibit 275,
 22  which I believe is your tab 7.  You've been asked about
 23  this.  I'm going to take you to one  different bullet
 24  point if I may, sir, on page 2.
 25                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   Tab 8.


  2                 Q:   Oh, sorry, I thought it was your tab
  3  7.  Under "Efforts to Modify the Deal":
  4                   "Collateral benefits for Square One, in
  5                   the spirit of increased cooperation
  6                   between Square One and the City,
  7                   matters such as future road conveyances
  8                   and construction and outstanding
  9                   development charge claims dating from
 10                   1997 to be resolved in our favour."
 11                 Development charges are of some interest
 12  to this Inquiry, Mr. Latimer.
 13                 I'm wondering, whether in your experience
 14  as a developer, it's not infrequent for developers to
 15  have disputes with the City about what development
 16  charges are owing at a particular time.
 17                 A:   We have disputes with the City on
 18  many issues.
 19                 Q:   Okay.  Development charges would be
 20  one?
 21                 A:   Sure.
 22                 Q:   And you wouldn't be the only
 23  developer in that category?
 24                 A:   Wouldn't expect so.
 25                 Q:   Okay.  And it's sometimes a dispute


  1  about amount?  Yes?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   And sometimes it's a dispute about
  4  timing?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   Okay.  And until those disputes are
  7  resolved, the charges remain outstanding?  It's an
  8  obvious point.
  9                 A:   Well, let's just say yes.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  Thanks.  And then my last
 11  point, sir, is just about your views as a businessperson
 12  about this settlement.
 13                 I understood you to tell Mr. McDowell that
 14  there were a variety of business reasons which, in your
 15  mind, made this settlement appropriate.  I think you
 16  talked about there being some potential risk in the
 17  litigation, yes?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   Okay.  In assessing that risk -- I
 20  realize that businesspeople don't always care about this.
 21                 I'm curious whether you, sir, in assessing
 22  that risk, read the court applications and counter
 23  applications to come to your own conclusions about how
 24  the claims, the respective claims, of the parties were
 25  being articulated for a court.


  1                 Is that something you did?
  2                 A:   I would have had it represented to me
  3  through our management team.
  4                 Q:   So that was something that you took
  5  into account?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   Thank you.  Those
  8  are all my questions.  Thank you very much, Commissioner.
 10  Jack...?
 11                 MR. DON JACK:   Thank you.
 14                 Q:   Mr. Latimer, I'm Don Jack; I
 15  represent 156.
 16                 If I could direct you, please, to Exhibit
 17  258, which is at your tab 1, I believe, which is your
 18  email, I believe it was, to Mr. Haggis, October 4, 2005;
 19  do you have that?
 20                 A:   I see it on the screen, sir.
 21                 Q:   Yes.  And I'm going to direct you to
 22  a portion which is close to the portion that Mr. McDowell
 23  directed you to:
 24                   "Our decisions may not always be
 25                   popular and may not fit a third-party


  1                   agenda, but they are based upon what is
  2                   best for us."
  3                 That being OMERS.  Do you see that
  4  portion?
  5                 A:   I do.
  6                 Q:   And then what I wish to direct you to
  7  is just below that:
  8                   "Independent of OMERS, Alberta Revenue
  9                   [now AIMCo] our co-owner in the Square
 10                   -- in Square One, is entitled to ensure
 11                   their investment decisions are in their
 12                   best interest."
 13                 Correct?
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   And that, of course, was a true
 16  statement.  And the fact is that OMERS, through Oxford,
 17  had feet on the ground at Square One?
 18                 A:   As it relates to the property
 19  management?
 20                 Q:   Yes.
 21                 A:   Yes, we did.
 22                 Q:   Yes, indeed.  And indeed conducted
 23  the day-to-day management that's -- was the nature of the
 24  arrangement?
 25                 A:   Yes, sir.


  1                 Q:   Yes.  But OMERS/Oxford, by agreement
  2  -- I don't think we have to turn to it because I'm sure
  3  you're familiar with it -- were to consult 156 and AIMCo,
  4  as they now are, on significant matters, correct?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   And decisions on significant matters
  7  were to be jointly made, that was the arrangement?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   Yes.  And indeed, keeping 156 and
 10  AIMCo informed on significant matters was necessary, you
 11  would agree, surely, in order for them -- and I'm now
 12  quoting from your -- your email:
 13                   "...to ensure their investment
 14                   decisions are in their best interest."
 15                 Correct?
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   In other words, it's difficult to
 18  make those decisions without adequate information,
 19  correct?
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   Right.  And you were aware that Mr.
 22  Nobrega -- I believe you were aware that Mr. Nobrega
 23  asked Mr. O'Brien to try to settle the WCD litigation?
 24                 A:   I was aware of that, as I referenced
 25  on September the 8th, yes.


  1                 Q:   Yes.  And that's the process that
  2  lead to the $4 million settlement that we've heard of,
  3  perhaps?
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   And neither you, nor anyone else at
  6  OMERS/Oxford consulted 156 or AIMCo regarding that
  7  settlement, did you?
  8                 A:   I'll speak for myself that, no, I was
  9  not in contact with AIMCo.
 10                 Q:   And do you know -- you're not
 11  suggesting that somebody else was; you simply don't know.
 12                 A:   You'd have to look, and -- and I
 13  believe Mr. Nobrega was, at some point, in discussion
 14  with -- with AIMCo.
 15                 Q:   Fine.  Would you accept my suggestion
 16  that that discussion occurred after the fact, after the
 17  settlement had already been done?
 18                 A:   You'll -- I'm not sure I -- I could
 19  concur with that statement, sir.
 20                 Q:   All right.  Do you know -- did you --
 21  did you look into it at the time, or not?
 22                 A:   No.
 23                 Q:   You did not.  Now, that settlement
 24  was concluded on or about September 11, 2009, was it not?
 25                 A:   I believe it was on or around that


  1  date, yes.
  2                 Q:   Around that time.  And about two (2)
  3  months earlier -- and we've seen this document; it's
  4  OMR001002295.  I don't know the exhibit number, but if we
  5  could have that, please.
  6                 There had been -- and perhaps we could
  7  just scroll down so the Witness could see this.
  8                 There had been an offer, and I believe you
  9  have referred to this in your testimony, from WCD to
 10  settle for a lesser amount, $3.8 million, correct?
 11                 A:   A lesser amount compared to?
 12                 Q:   The settlement that actually was
 13  subsequently concluded a couple of months later.
 14                 A:   Well, three point eight (3.8) is
 15  different from four (4), but I wouldn't call it material.
 16                 Q:   All right.  But in any event, my
 17  point is this, you would agree with me that 156 and AIMCo
 18  did not want to settle for the $3.8 million.  That's a
 19  fact, is it not?
 20                 A:   I -- I won't speak for AIM -- for
 21  AIMCo, sir.
 22                 Q:   Well --
 23                 A:   Let AIMCo speak to it.
 24                 Q:   -- well, fine.  They were consulted,
 25  pursuant to the arrangements you've agreed were in place,


  1  and they -- surely you know this -- rejected that
  2  settlement amount.
  3                 A:   Being the -- the document that we're
  4  -- we're currently looking at, sir?
  5                 Q:   Yes.
  6                 A:   Yes, that -- that was never settled.
  7                 Q:   Yes.  And when the $4 million
  8  settlement was concluded, and my clients were eventually
  9  told of it, you'll agree with me that they were unwilling
 10  to contribute anything more than letting the deposits,
 11  which were at McCarthy Tetrault, go over to WCD.  We're
 12  agreed on that?
 13                 A:   Well, I would have seen that in
 14  hindsight, sir, yes.
 15                 Q:   Yes.  And indeed, those deposits --
 16  now this may not be a precise figure -- those deposits
 17  were either 1.4 or 1.5 million, roughly?
 18                 A:   Sounds correct.
 19                 Q:   Yes.  And the balance of the $4
 20  million settlement, which would be either 2.6 or 2.5
 21  million, was funded entirely by OMERS, correct?
 22                 A:   Correct.
 23                 Q:   Not by 156 or AIMCo.
 24                 A:   By OMERS.
 25                 Q:   Yes.  Now, OMERS/Oxford was aware


  1  that 156 and AIMCo were concerned about the involvement,
  2  or possible unclear involvement, of Mr. McCallion in the
  3  transaction.  You would agree with that?
  4                 A:   Our management was made aware of
  5  that, yes.
  6                 Q:   Yes.  And indeed, we don't have to
  7  turn to it, but that was referred to specifically in the
  8  document which is your tab 8, the memorandum of December
  9  15 that we have referred to.  I think it's in the portion
 10  regarding AIMCo rejecting what had been proposed at that
 11  time.
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   Yes.  And would you agree with me
 14  that what my clients were concerned about is that he
 15  might have an interest in WCD itself?
 16                 A:   Again, sir, I can't speak to your --
 17  to your client.  I wasn't dealing with them directly.
 18                 Q:   But you don't dispute what I'm
 19  suggesting, do you?
 20                 A:   I'm -- I'm not responding to it.  I -
 21  - I can't offer a comment on it.
 22                 Q:   Now, could we have Exhibit 144,
 23  please, which is OMR002002757?  That would be, if I've
 24  got my notations correct, Exhibit 144.  And it is an
 25  email from Mr. Kitt to Mr. Nobrega, of December 14, 2008.


  1                 A:   I see that in front of me.
  2                 Q:   Now, just so that we understand, your
  3  organization -- Mr. Kitt reported to you in your capacity
  4  as head of OMERS, correct?  I shouldn't say head of
  5  OMERS; I should say head of OMERS's real estate arm,
  6  Oxford.
  7                 A:   Yes, Michael Kitt reported to me as
  8  the President and CEO of Oxford.  That's correct. 
  9                 Q:   Yes.  And here he was sending an
 10  epail -- email to Mr. Nobrega, who, of course, is CEO of
 11  OMERS itself, correct?
 12                 A:   Yes. 
 13                 Q:   And I'll give you a moment to read
 14  it, but it began -- the portion I'm interested in begins
 15  with:
 16                   "I have -- I had -- have lunch
 17                   scheduled with Hazel tomorrow."
 18                 So that would be the 15th:
 19                   "The important thing is to maintain a
 20                   relationship with the City, and we have
 21                   done this to date."
 22                 And then this, which I'm going to direct
 23  you to:
 24                   "I don't trust the buyer, and there is
 25                   no doubt that they are using Hazel in


  1                   this process.  But it is difficult to
  2                   tell her that, especially with her son
  3                   involved."
  4                 Now, are you prepared to accept that, for
  5  the purposes of this Inquiry, that that summarized
  6  OMERS/Oxford's position on this issue?
  7                 A:   Yeah, I think it summarizes Michael's
  8  position.  He's the one that's originating the -- the
  9  email.
 10                 Q:   Do you disagree with that statement,
 11  or do you accept it yourself?
 12                 A:   Well, I guess -- I guess my comment
 13  to you, sir, it that it's been originated by -- by
 14  Michael.  He's taking a specific view.  And so are you
 15  asking me to comment in -- in hindsight at this juncture,
 16  or what -- what would you like me to do?
 17                 Q:   I want you to -- I want you to state
 18  what your position is for this Inquiry.  Do you accept
 19  that or not?
 20                 A:   I -- I'll accept it.
 21                 Q:   Now, are you aware that on December
 22  16, 2008, in a teleconference, my clients were told that
 23  Peter McCallion was off the file?  Are you aware of that?
 24                 A:   No, I'm not, sir.
 25                 Q:   Could we have Exhibit 141, please.


  1  Now, these are notes, I should advise you, of Mr. Hansen,
  2  who is with AIMCo.  And you will see that on the call --
  3  just bear with me, because we have to read the notes, Mr.
  4  Kitt and Mr. Filipetti are there.  "  THE COURT: ," I
  5  understand, stands for Mr. Coleman.  You know who he is.
  6  "MDB," Mr.  Michael Dal Bello, you know who he is.  "DH"
  7  is Dean Hanson.  And "GC" is Grant Charles.  And you will
  8  see that Mr. Costin is also there.  And then if you look
  9  at the note it says, "Kitt," and then a dash, Peter,
 10  quote, "off the file".
 11                 Do you accept that that is what my clients
 12  were told by Mr. Kitt in that teleconference?
 13                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   I just wonder, Mr.
 14  Commissioner, Mr. Latimer wasn't at this meeting.  You --
 15  you've heard Mr. Costin, and you're going to hear from
 16  the other attendees.  I just wonder what the value is of
 17  asking him, Do you accept?  And accept is a fair
 18  question, but were you told -- oh, sorry.
 19                 Sorry.  I -- I just wondered what the
 20  value is in asking Mr. Latimer these series of questions
 21  of does he accept a position.
 22                 I -- I fully appreciate it's a fair
 23  question to ask him, Were you told or did you know at the
 24  time, that sort of thing.  But when he's being put the
 25  question of, Do you accept --


  1                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Well, I
  2  recognize that it's a difficult question for Mr. Latimer
  3  to answer.
  4                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   Right.
  5                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   And I'm
  6  not sure that it's an entirely fair question.  So I think
  7  I'd reframe the question, Mr. --
  8                 MR. DON JACK:  I shall, sir.
  9                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   -- Mr.
 10  Jack.
 13                 Q:   Are you aware that that statement was
 14  made by Mr. Kitt?
 15                 A:   No.
 16                 Q:   You weren't aware at the time, and
 17  you're not aware now?
 18                 A:   You're asking me at the time.  I've
 19  now seen it in front of me, sir, so I'd say I'd be aware
 20  of it now.
 21                 Q:   You're aware of it now, but this is
 22  the first that you had heard of it, is that -- is that
 23  what you're telling me?
 24                 A:   Yes, sir.
 25                 Q:   Thank you.


  1                      (BRIEF PAUSE)
  3                 MR. DON JACK:   I understand from what Mr.
  4  Barrack had said that we are going to hear from the other
  5  witnesses, which I presume will include Mr. Kitt, and in
  6  those circumstances, I don't have any further questions
  7  of this Witness.
  9  right.  We've already heard from Mr. Costin.  I think
 10  that's correct, is it, Mr. Barrack?
 11                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   Yes, and I think
 12  you're going to hear from Mr. Filipetti too --
 14  right.
 15                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   --  who was there,
 16  as well.
 17                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 18  you.
 19                 MR. DON JACK:   Thank you, sir.
 20                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   That's
 21  fine.
 22                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   I think your
 23  counsel's calling him.
 24                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Anyone
 25  else?  Anything, Mr. McDowell?


  3                 Q:    Obvious question, but in relation to
  4  the que -- the matter of development, you comply with
  5  whatever the law requires you to comply at the time?
  6                 A:   Yes, we do.
  7                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   All right.  Thank
  8  you.
  9                 That's it for today, sir.
 11  right, thank you very much, Mr. Latimer.
 12                 THE WITNESS:   Thank you --
 14  appreciate your help.  Ten o'clock.
 15                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 16  please.
 18  just before we go, Mr. McDowell, what -- what do we have
 19  in store tomorrow --
 20                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   We have Mr.
 21  Hansen.
 22                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   -- and
 23  what is our timing?
 24                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   We have Mr. Hansen
 25  and we have Mr. Dal Bello.  And so I would hope that we


  1  can get through that by mid-afternoon if that --
  2                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  3  you.
  4                 THE COURT CLERK:   All rise, please.  This
  5  This Inquiry stands recessed until tomorrow morning at
  6  10:00 a.m.
  8  --- Upon adjourning at 5:14 p.m.
 12  Certified Correct,
 16  ________________
 17  Sue Kranz, Ms.

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Transcript – July 27, 2010 (Peter McCallion Day 1 testimony)

July 31st, 2010  

Source: The Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website:

July 27, 2010 Hearing transcript (Peter McCallion Day 1 testimony) at: http://mail.tscript.com/trans/mississauga/jul_27_10/index.htm


  9  Before:        Associate Chief Mr. Justice J. Douglas
 10                 Cunningham
 19  HELD AT:
 20                    Provincial Offence Court
 21                       Mississauga, Ontario
 22                          July 27, 2010
 24                       Pages 1784 to 2004


  1                        APPEARANCES
  2  William McDowell                  )Commission Counsel
  3  Naomi Loewith                     )
  4  Yashada Ranganathan               )
  6  Freya Kristjanson  (np)           )For Mayor Hazel McCallion
  7  Elizabeth McIntrye                )
  8  Adrianne Telford   (np)           )
  9  Pavle Masic                      )
 11  Brian Gover                      ) For Peter McCallion
 12  Luisa Ritacca                    )
 14  Clifford Lax, Q.C.                )For City of Mississauga
 15  Tracy Wynne                       )
 16  James Renihan                    )
 17  David Schwartz    (np)           )
 19  Michael Barrack                  )For OMERS
 20  John Finnigan                    )
 21  Kim Ferreira     (np)            )
 22  James Roks        (np)            )
 23  Alana Shepherd    (np)            )
 24  Deborah Palter    (np)            )
 25  Ronald Podolny    (np)            )


  1                   APPEARANCES (Cont'd)
  2  Alan Mark          (np)          )For Enersource
  3  Kelly Friedman    (np)           )
  5  Don Jack                          ) For 156 Square One
  6  Adam Goodman                      )
  8  Gerarda Mazza     (np)           ) For Mr. Leo Couprie
 10  Michael Cohen     (np)           ) For Mr. Murray Cook
 12  Jean-Claude Killey (np)           ) For Mr. Tony DeCicco
 13  Linda Rothstein                   )
 15  Patrick Eighenberg (np)           ) For Mr. Jonathan Toll
 17  Peter Cavanagh    (np)           ) For Mr. William Houston


  1                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  2                                                       Page No.
  3  Exhibit List                                             1788
  6   Examination-in-chief by Mr. Brian Gover                 1792
  7   Cross-examination by Mr. Don Jack                       1875
  8   Cross-examination by Mr. Michael Barrack                1881
  9   Cross-examination by Ms. Linda Rothstein                1884
 10   Cross-examination by Mr. William McDowell               1889
 11   Cross-examination by Mr. Clifford Lax                   1973
 13  Certificate of transcript                                2004


  1                     LIST OF EXHIBITS
  2  EXHIBIT NO.      DESCRIPTION                        PAGE NO.
  3  187            COM001002761 Form 1CIA Initial Return/
  4                 Notice of Change, confirmation of
  5                 filing dated August 9, 2006
  6  189            COM001002004 W.C.D. Loan Agreement
  7                 between Leo Couprie and World Class
  8                 Developments Limited dated January 29, 2007
  9  190            COM001002778 Declaration of Trust
 10  192            COM001002781 World Class purchase from
 11                 OMERS dated February 2nd, 2007
 12  193            COM001002019 Shareholders Agreement
 13                 dated January 28, 2007
 14  194            COM001002005 Termination of Put and
 15                 Call Agreement dated October 19, 2007
 16  195            COM001002001 Financial document dated
 17                 January 1, 2000
 18  196            COM001002820 Promissory note dated
 19                 July 27, 2007
 20  197            COM001002023 Declaration of Trust and
 21                 Shareholders Agreement dated August 1,
 22                 2007
 23  206            MIS002003162 Affidavit of Peter
 24                 McCallion dated September 11, 2009


  1                 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd)
  2  Exhibit No.      Description                        Page No.
  3  207            MIS002003175 Affidavit of Peter
  4                 McCallion dated September 15, 2009
  5  212            MIS00101004 - legal document -
  6                 MIS.001.010.144 (page 141
  7  215            MIS020004150 - notes - conversation
  8                 re WCD settlement
  9  234            MIS078001001 - Chronology
 10  236            MIS079001009 - telephone records
 11                 dated November 5, 2007
 12  238            MIS079001014 - telephone records
 13                 dated December 21, 2007
 14  242            MIS079001041 - telephone records
 15                 dated October 9, 2008
 16  247            OMR002002852 - email - re: WCD Request
 17                 to drop hotel conditions
 18  249            OMR002002899 - email - fw: World Class
 19                 Developments - block 29, plan 43M-1010
 20                 Mississauga
 21  257            WCD001002880 - email - WCD discussion
 22                 with Marilyn Ball dated February 25,
 23                 2008
 24  258            OMR002002891 - email re: Hazel and
 25                 Oxford dated October 4, 2005


  1                   LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd)
  2  Exhibit No.      Description                        Page No.
  3  261            OMR001002340 - email - re Hazel and
  4                 Oxford dated October 4, 2005
  5  262            OMR001002335 - email - WCD request to
  6                 drop hotel conditions dated October
  7                 24, 2008
  8  265            OMR002002871 - email re: WCD - update
  9  269            WCD001001260 - email attachment World
 10                 Class.pdf dated June 09, 2010
 11  272            MIS079001007 - telephone records dated
 12                 October 26, 2007
 13  273            OMR001002322 - email - Re: WCD - Tony
 14                 Dicico call back dated December 2, 2008
 15  275            OMR002002558 - memorandum - WCD - update
 16                 on sale of blocks 9 and 29 at Square One
 17                 dated December 15, 2008                   1955


  1  --- Upon commencing at 10:05 a.m.
  3                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
  4  please. This Inquiry is now in session.  Please be
  5  seated.
  7  morning.  Mr. McDowell...?
  8                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Yes.  By agreement
  9  with counsel for Mr. McCallion, Mr. McCallion will be
 10  examined by Mr. Gover.
 11                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Okay.
 12                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   And then I think
 13  we'll have a bit of a discussion as to who gets the pole
 14  position after that, but let's get the examination-in-
 15  chief done.
 17  right.  Mr. Gover...?
 18                 THE COURT CLERK:  Do you wish to be sworn
 19  or?  Do you wish to be sworn?
 20                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Has the
 21  witness been sworn?
 22                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   Not yet, sir.
 23                 THE COURT CLERK:   Do you wish to be sworn
 24  on the Bible or make an affirmation?
 25                 MR. PETER MCCALLION:  No, on the Bible.


  1                 THE COURT CLERK:   The Bible.  State your
  2  name in full.
  3                 MR. PETER MCCALLION:   Peter McCallion.
  4                 THE COURT CLERK:   Spell your last name
  5  for the record.
  6                 MR. PETER MCCALLION:   M-C-C-A-L-L-I-O-N.
  8                  PETER MCCALLION, Sworn
 11                 Q:   Good morning, Mr. McCallion.
 12                 A:   Good morning, Mr. Gover.
 13                 Q:   Now I understand, sir, that you're
 14  fifty-seven (57) years old; is that correct?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   You are divorced?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   You have one (1) daughter who's
 19  twenty-one (21) years old; is that right?
 20                 A:   Twenty-one (21), yeah.
 21                 Q:   Now by way of education, I
 22  understand, sir, that you completed grade twelve (12); is
 23  that right, sir?
 24                 A:   That is correct.
 25                 Q:   Currently, you are employed selling


  1  new homes for De Zen Construction in Mississauga; is that
  2  correct?
  3                 A:   Mississauga, and we've sold some in
  4  Brampton.
  5                 Q:   And can you help me with this, Mr.
  6  McCallion?  Do you require a real estate licence in order
  7  to sell new homes?
  8                 A:   No, you do not.
  9                 Q:   I understand, however, that you are
 10  currently registered as a real estate agent; is that
 11  correct?
 12                 A:   Correct, yes.
 13                 Q:   And you have held a -- a real estate
 14  licence since the mid-1980s; is that correct, sir?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   I understand that there have been a
 17  couple of occasions when your real estate licence has
 18  been suspended for one (1) reason or another, is that
 19  correct?
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   And I understand that one (1) of
 22  those occasions was in January 2007?
 23                 A:   Yeah, based on continuing education.
 24                 Q:   And -- and based on continuing
 25  education; what do you mean by that Mr. McCallion?


  1                 A:   Well, every two (2) years you have to
  2  complete twenty-four (24) credits.
  3                 Q:   And I take it you'd failed to meet
  4  all of those obligations, is that right, sir?
  5                 A:   Yes.  Yes.
  6                 Q:   And more recently your licence was
  7  suspended for a period of time for non-payment of some
  8  sort of fees or insurance, is that right, sir?
  9                 A:   Insurance, yes.
 10                 Q:   And you've said insurance?
 11                 A:   Insurance, yes.
 12                 Q:   Now, in your experience then for
 13  approximately twenty-five (25) years in real estate, what
 14  type of real estate have you sold?
 15                 A:   Well, in the beginning I sold homes,
 16  then I moved into commercial in terms of land, buildings,
 17  et cetera.
 18                 Q:   I take it you've acted for purchasers
 19  as well?
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   Has your work in the real estate
 22  field been focussed in a particular geographical area?
 23                 A:   Not specifically, no.  In the GTA.
 24                 Q:   In the Greater Toronto Area, then?
 25                 A:   Correct.


  1                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, you live here in
  2  Mississauga, is that right?
  3                 A:   Yes.  I grew up here.
  4                 Q:   You've lived here all your life?
  5                 A:   All my life.  Streetsville.
  6                 Q:   And I understand, Mr. McCallion, that
  7  your parents had a printing and newspaper business in
  8  Streetsville; is that correct?
  9                 A:   Yes.  I worked there quite a bit.
 10                 Q:   Your father died in 1997?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   I understand that he'd been ill for
 13  some five (5) years, is that right, sir?
 14                 A:   Yeah, with Alzheimer's.
 15                 Q:   Now, we -- we've heard a rumour that
 16  your mother is the mayor of Mississauga, Mr. McCallion.
 17                 A:   I've heard the same rumour.
 18                 Q:   I understand that your mother has
 19  been involved in municipal politics since you were a
 20  teenager.
 21                 A:   Yeah, since high school, that I
 22  recall.
 23                 Q:   And that her involvement in municipal
 24  politics predates the creation of Mississauga itself; is
 25  that right, sir?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   Now, you've told us that you've been
  3  involved in real estate for some twenty-five (25) years
  4  or so; do you have a perception as to whether your
  5  mother's role as mayor for some thirty (30) years or
  6  more, thirty-two (23) I suppose, by my arithmetic, has
  7  been a benefit or a detriment to you in your work?
  8                 A:   More so a detriment than a benefit.
  9                 Q:   What do you mean by that, Mr.
 10  McCallion?
 11                 A:   Some people don't want to deal with
 12  me because of the perception of conflict.
 13                 Q:   Do you perceive -- now, you say,
 14  "more so a detriment than a benefit."
 15                 A:   Definitely.
 16                 Q:   What benefit do you see?
 17                 A:   I get to meet a lot of people.
 18                 Q:   I'd like to turn now to land in the
 19  city centre of Mississauga, and in particular land in the
 20  vicinity of the Square One Shopping Mall and the Living
 21  Arts Centre.
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   And I understand that you became
 24  aware of parcels of land that you understood were owned
 25  by OMERS, or -- or through a subsidiary perhaps.


  1                 Is that right, sir?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   And in connection with that land, you
  4  understood it was owned by OMERS; do you now, or did you
  5  -- you learned along the way that there was a co-owner
  6  involved?
  7                 A:   Correct.  Afterwards, yes.
  8                 Q:   What was that co-owner, according to
  9  your understanding?
 10                 A:   It was a numbered company at the
 11  time.
 12                 Q:   Now, returning to Square One Shopping
 13  Mall and the Living Arts Centre in what we call downtown
 14  Mississauga, were you aware of any initiative, any drive
 15  toward a particular type of construction project in that
 16  area?
 17                 A:   Well, it was well known -- publically
 18  known that the City would like to have a hotel next to
 19  the Living Arts Centre.
 20                 Q:   And do you have any understanding as
 21  to whether official plans or other plans published by the
 22  City of Mississauga envisioned a convention centre and a
 23  hotel in that area?
 24                 A:   I believe it was in the official
 25  plan.


  1                 Q:   Now, when we talk about the City
  2  Centre and the concept of a hotel being built there,
  3  first of all, we're talking about two (2) parcels that
  4  you understood at the time were owned by OMERS.
  5                 Had you previously had any interest in
  6  developing land in that vicinity for the purposes of
  7  building a hotel?
  8                 A:   Not prior to 2002, no.
  9                 Q:   Under --
 10                 A:   I was aware of the land from previous
 11  years before, I believe, when the ownership was under
 12  Hammerson.  And I believe that there were some prepaid
 13  levies on the land.
 14                 Q:   Right.  Now, had you had listings for
 15  other land in the vicinity in previous years?
 16                 A:   Yes, I had a listing for Johnny
 17  Lombardy's 29 acres on the -- in -- inside the City core.
 18                 Q:   And what distance would that have
 19  been from the two (2) parcels that we're concerned with
 20  now --
 21                 A:   A couple thousand feet.
 22                 Q:   -- near the Living Arts Centre?
 23                 A:   A couple thousand feet.
 25  does that mean, 2,000 feet away?


  1                 THE WITNESS:   Roughly, yes.  That's a
  2  guesstimate.
  5                 Q:   All right.  And how much land did Mr.
  6  Lombardy own?
  7                 A:   I think it was 29.5 acres, actually.
  8                 Q:   And --
  9                 A:   Fronting on Burnhamthorpe up to
 10  Rathburn.
 11                 Q:   Can you tell us what your involvement
 12  was there?
 13                 A:   Well, I had it actively for sale for
 14  quite some time.  I also represented Mr. Lombardy on the
 15  City Centre Marketing Alliance, which was put together by
 16  the City of Mississauga to promote the City core.
 17                 Q:   What period are we speaking of now,
 18  when you had this listing of land in that vicinity for
 19  Mr. Lombardy and you represented him on the Alliance?
 20                 A:   It'd be the early '90s, late '80s,
 21  early '90s.
 22                 Q:   What did you understand to be the
 23  benefits, if any, of having a hotel and convention centre
 24  in the -- the City core?
 25                 A:   Well, it's instrumental to helping


  1  with the Living Arts Centre and vice versa.  It works
  2  both ways, for the hotel, as well as the Living Arts
  3  Centre.
  4                 Q:   Now, Mr. McCallion, the Inquiry has
  5  already heard of a corporation referred to as World Class
  6  Developments.
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   And we understand you had a role in
  9  incorporating that company.
 10                 A:   Yes, I did.
 11                 Q:   Now, before we go there, let's deal
 12  with some background.  You've told us that you were aware
 13  of this land that you understood was owned by OMERS.
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   And that you were aware of the -- the
 16  City's plan, if I can call it that, for construction of a
 17  hotel and convention centre in the area; is that right,
 18  sir?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   Now, apart from what you've told us
 21  about a previous listing that you had for Mr. Lombardy,
 22  how did you become involved in the concept of building a
 23  hotel and convention centre in the City Centre -- in --
 24  on the OMERS land?
 25                 A:   On that land --


  1                 Q:   We'll start at the beginning, if we
  2  can.
  3                 A:   Yes.  Well, a Chinese businessman,
  4  Mr. Lee Shim, came to me and said he was interested in
  5  building a hotel with condos --
  6                 Q:   Let's stop --
  7                 A:   -- in the City core.
  8                 Q:   Thank you.  Let's stop there.  When
  9  was that, sir?
 10                 A:   That would be 2002.
 11                 Q:   Now, Mr. Shim, you've told us, was
 12  interested in building a hotel and convention centre in
 13  the City Centre; is that right?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   Did you understand that Mr. Shim
 16  intended to do this alone or with others?
 17                 A:   No, he had business partners in
 18  China.
 19                 Q:   Did you take any steps in light of
 20  this expression of interest by Mr. Shim?
 21                 A:   I put a little bit of a presentation
 22  together and flew over with him to China to meet his
 23  partners.
 24                 Q:   And did that meeting take place?
 25                 A:   Yes.  It lasted about five (5)


  1  minutes.
  2                 Q:   Do you remember how many of the
  3  people you met with there?
  4                 A:   I don't remember all their names, but
  5  there was probably four (4) or five (5).  There was one
  6  (1) specific man that I did meet several times, called
  7  the Marble King.
  8                 Q:    Well, I take it that was a nickname?
  9                 A:    Yeah.
 10                 Q:    And maybe you could tell us how he
 11  acquired that nickname.
 12                 A:    Well, I believe that he owned at the
 13  time about 80 percent of the marble market in China.
 14  He's passed away since.
 15                 Q:    So, Mr. McCallion, you made this
 16  presentation in China to these would be investors; did
 17  anything come of that, sir?
 18                 A:    No, nothing came of it.
 19                 Q:    By the way, you said you were
 20  approached by Mr. Shim in 2002; when did the presentation
 21  take place?
 22                 A:    It was in December of 2002.
 23                 Q:    Now, after December 2002, what was
 24  the next step in your involvement in this concept of
 25  building a hotel and convention centre on the OMERS'


  1  land?
  2                 A:    Well, nothing happened for at least
  3  two (2) years, to four (4) yea -- two (2) to -- two (2)
  4  to three (3) years nothing happened.
  5                 Q:    Right.  And at the end of that two
  6  (2) to three (3) years, what happened then, Mr.
  7  McCallion?
  8                 A:   Well, I was approached by someone
  9  else who knew some Korean investors looking to invest in
 10  Canada: a Mr. Gary Acheson.
 11                 Q:   So then Mr. Acheson approached you?
 12                 A:   Yes, I knew him from a friend.
 13                 Q:   And was it explained to you who these
 14  investors were?
 15                 A:   They were from Korea, fairly wealthy.
 16  He did give me the name; I've since forgotten it.  And
 17  they wanted to invest in Canada.
 18                 Q:   Now you told us you made a
 19  presentation to Mr. Shim two (2) or three (3) years
 20  earlier; did you make a presentation to this group?
 21                 A:   Not specifically.  I took it to a
 22  couple of developers, hoping that they would be able to
 23  put something together.  Only one (1) of them did: Mr.
 24  Moldenhauer.
 25                 Q:   And that's M-O-L-D-E-N-H-A-U-E-R, is


  1  that correct?
  2                 A:   No.  I've forgotten how to spell it
  3  right now.
  4                 Q:   Fair enough.
  5                 A:   And he put a package together, but,
  6  you know, two (2) pages, and we sent it off.  They were
  7  not impressed and they came back to me and said, You put
  8  a development team together and we'll finance it.
  9                 Q:   Now, first of all, you mentioned you
 10  -- you approached two (2) developers, one (1) of whom was
 11  Mr. Moldenhauer?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   What's his first name, sir?
 14                 A:   Michael.
 15                 Q:   And had Mr. Moldenhauer had any
 16  experience in development in Mississauga?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   How much experience?
 19                 A:   He has a few projects.
 20                 Q:   So the word came back that they
 21  proposal wasn't acceptable to this group; is that
 22  correct?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And then that you should put together
 25  your own group, is that right?


  1                 A:   Correct.  Or a development team.
  2                 Q:   Was there any indication as to how
  3  this would be financed?
  4                 A:   With their money.
  5                 Q:   And we know from the time of
  6  incorporation of World Class Development, which was
  7  February 22nd, 2005, according to Exhibit 187, that it's
  8  right in that period when World Class Developments was
  9  incorporated?
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   Now, what role did you have in the
 12  incorporation of the company?
 13                 A:   I just called the lawyers and had
 14  them incorporate it.
 15                 Q:   Now, by this time, did you have an
 16  understanding that any other company, or anyone else had
 17  an interest in the OMERS land?
 18                 A:    I don't believe anybody had an
 19  interest.
 20                 Q:    So then there was a -- a name change
 21  in World Class Developments.  I understand it began as
 22  World Class Developments Inc., and there was a name
 23  change to World Class Developments Limited in August
 24  2006.
 25                 A:    Yeah, that was based on a printing


  1  error.
  2                 Q:    What kind of printing error?
  3                 A:    Well, letterhead and business cards
  4  had World Class Developments Limited on it instead of
  5  Inc., so we had to change it.
  6                 Q:    Right.  So it was cheaper to change
  7  --
  8                 A:    It's cheaper to -- 
  9                 Q:    -- the name of the company than
 10  change the --
 11                 A:   Printing.
 12                 Q:   -- stationery.  Fair enough.
 13                 Now, then in putting together a team, what
 14  type of people, what types of expertise, were you looking
 15  for?
 16                 A:   Well, first, I was looking for
 17  someone that had done some development, hotel, potential
 18  development as well, and financial.  And Leo Couprie was
 19  financial, and I chose Murray Cook because of his
 20  experience in hotel and development, high-rise as well.
 21                 Q:   And we're going to come back to those
 22  individuals in a few moments.  And what experience did
 23  you bring to World Class Developments, Mr. McCallion?
 24                 A:   I was strictly a real estate agent.
 25                 Q:   What did you expect to gain in


  1  putting World Class Developments together and finalizing
  2  a deal in relation to this land?
  3                 A:   Potentially in the long-term, the
  4  sale of the condos, because there -- there was twenty-
  5  five hundred (2500) condos.  Initially, it was hoping to
  6  get a commission on the sale of the land, but in the end
  7  it was apparent OMERS was not willing to pay.
  8                 Q:   And as we'll see in the course of
  9  your evidence today, you appear to have put some of your
 10  own funds into World Class Developments; is that right,
 11  sir?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   And why did you -- we'll come to this
 14  in greater detail, but why --
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   -- did you do that if you were --
 17                 A:   Well --
 18                 Q:   -- a real estate agent hoping to
 19  realize income on commissions?
 20                 A:   -- at the point where I did put it
 21  in, it was -- the company was running out of money and
 22  had obligations that it had to meet.  And in order to
 23  keep the deal alive, I saw fit that I had to put some
 24  money in to keep it alive until we found a financier.
 25                 Q:   Have you ever done that before in a


  1  real estate deal?
  2                 A:   I have loaned some money for deposit
  3  money before, yes.
  4                 Q:   Now, let's return now, then, to those
  5  who you involved in WCD, or World Class Developments.
  6  And first of all I'll ask you about Leo Couprie.
  7                 How do you know Mr. Couprie?
  8                 A:   I actually met him on that trip to
  9  China.  He was a friend of Mr. Shim.
 10                 Q:   So you're talking about the trip to
 11  China in 2002?
 12                 A:   In 2002, and we became friends.
 13                 Q:   What business was Mr. Couprie in,
 14  let's say, in 2005 and 2006?
 15                 A:   He's in the import/export of seafood
 16  as well as, you know, meat; import/export of food for
 17  restaurants and whatnot.
 18                 Q:   Do you have some understanding as to
 19  what resources he has at his disposal?
 20                 A:   He's comfortably well off and has
 21  some spare cash, to my understanding.
 22                 Q:   So you approached him to invest in
 23  the project; is --
 24                 A:   Yes --
 25                 Q:   -- that right?


  1                 A:   -- I did.
  2                 Q:   And did he agree to do that?
  3                 A:   Yes, he did.
  4                 Q:   And specifically, what was he
  5  providing?  What was the purpose --
  6                 A:   He was --
  7                 Q:   -- of his investment?
  8                 A:   -- primarily providing deposit money.
  9                 Q:   Can you explain that?  Deposit money
 10  for what?
 11                 A:   Oh, for the purchase of the land,
 12  seven hundred and fifty thousand (750,000).
 13                 Q:   Perhaps we could go to Exhibit 189
 14  now, please.  And I'm showing you this document, it's
 15  Exhibit 189 in these proceedings.
 16                 And it's a WCD -- World Class Developments
 17  Limited Loan Agreement between Leo Couprie and World
 18  Class Developments Limited.  It's dated January 29, 2007.
 19  Do you see that, sir?
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   And it appears to bear your signature
 22  as guarantor; is that right?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And on -- for the borrower, whose
 25  signature is that?  Do you recognize that, sir?


  1                 A:   I don't recognize it, but it could be
  2  either Murray Cook or -- or Leo.
  3                 Q:   And who signed as the witness, sir?
  4                 A:   My mother.
  5                 Q:   Now, by its terms, this loan
  6  agreement indicates that in exchange for lending WCD a
  7  total of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars
  8  ($750,000) for the down payment, Mr. Couprie would
  9  receive a return of his principal investment, plus an
 10  additional seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars
 11  ($750,000) once the development deal was completed; is
 12  that correct, sir?
 13                 A:   Correct, yes.
 14                 Q:   Now, at that time, how were the
 15  shares in WCD held?
 16                 A:   Leo owned 100 percent.
 17                 Q:   And why was Mr. Couprie given all of
 18  the shares at that stage?
 19                 A:   He had all the money.
 20                 Q:   And at that stage, had anyone else
 21  invested in the company?
 22                 A:   No.  
 23                 Q:   Have you, yourself, ever been an
 24  officer or director of WCD?
 25                 A:   Never.


  1                 Q:   If I could turn you now, sir, to
  2  another document, Exhibit 190.  And this is a declaration
  3  of trust.  It doesn't appear to bear a date.
  4                 Do you recognize this document, Mr.
  5  McCallion?
  6                 A:   Yes, I do.
  7                 Q:   Can you describe the circumstances
  8  surrounding the --
  9                 A:   Well --
 10                 Q:   -- signing of this document?
 11                 A:   Mr. Couprie and I were travelling
 12  shortly after, away, and we decided to do a trust
 13  agreement just in case something happened to us on the
 14  plane and -- so that my family might get some benefit out
 15  of this.
 16                 Q:   And if we could scroll down to the
 17  bottom, please, of the document.  We see here your
 18  signature, is that right, sir?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   As the beneficiary.
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   And we see another signature above
 23  the line, an indication, "Leo Couprie, the trustee," is
 24  that right, sir?
 25                 A:   Correct.


  1                 Q:   And we see a signature to the left.
  2                 A:   That's my mother.
  3                 Q:   Now, you've told me that this was
  4  signed to offer some protection, is that right, sir?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   Why did you and Mr. Couprie decide on
  7  that particular occasion to enter into this trust
  8  agreement?
  9                 A:   Just because we were travelling.  We
 10  left -- I believe we travelled on January the 30th.
 11                 Q:   Right.  And you were travelling for
 12  ten (10) days, is that right?
 13                 A:   Approximately, yes.
 14                 Q:   I think I know the answer to this
 15  question, Mr. McCallion, but did either you or Mr.
 16  Couprie have any assistance from a lawyer before signing
 17  this document?
 18                 A:   No, none.
 19                 Q:   In fact, do you have any
 20  understanding as to how the document was drafted?
 21                 A:   I believe Leo Googled it on the
 22  computer, and it came up with trust agreement.
 23                 Q:   He Googled "trust agreement" or
 24  "trust declaration" and --
 25                 A:   That's what came up.


  1                 Q:   Now, you told us your mother
  2  witnessed it, is that right?
  3                 A:   Yes, that is.
  4                 Q:   And, first of all, sir, where was
  5  this signed?
  6                 A:   Well, I believe we were at dinner at
  7  Pier 4 with Leo and his wife and me and my mother.
  8                 Q:   And Pier 4 is --
  9                 A:   And I don't remember who else.
 10                 Q:   -- is what, sir?
 11                 A:   It's a restaurant in Toronto.
 12                 Q:   So you were there at dinner, and --
 13                 A:   I believe we were travelling the next
 14  day or a couple of days from that.
 15                 Q:   Right, and hence your concern about
 16  protecting your interest, is that right?
 17                 A:   Correct.
 18                 Q:   Did you review the document with your
 19  mother?
 20                 A:   No, I did not.
 21                 Q:   Did she sign it in your presence?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   From the best of your recollection
 24  and observation, did she appear to read it before signing
 25  it?


  1                 A:   No, she was strictly acting as a
  2  witness.
  3                 Q:   Did you discuss this document in her
  4  presence?
  5                 A:   No.  Leo and I had discussed it prior
  6  to.
  7                 Q:   Now, let's scroll up a bit so we can
  8  see more of this document, Mr. McCallion.  It indicates
  9  that:
 10                   "The trustee solemnly declares that he
 11                   holds 80 percent of the shares of World
 12                   Class Developments, Limited [and then
 13                   in parentheses] (the property) in trust
 14                   solely for the benefit of the
 15                   beneficiary.  The trustee further
 16                   promises the beneficiary..."
 17                 And then we've got (a) and:
 18                   "(a) Not to deal with the property in
 19                   any way except to transfer it to the
 20                   beneficiary without the instructions
 21                   and consent of the beneficiary; (b) to
 22                   account to the beneficiary for any
 23                   money received by the trustee in
 24                   connection with holding the property;
 25                   (c) beneficiary to pay the trustee


  1                   double the amount of money advanced by
  2                   World Class Developments Limited to
  3                   McCarthy Tetrault for deposits
  4                   regarding purchase of property from
  5                   OMERS Realty Management Corporation and
  6                   1331430 Ontario, Inc., as per attached
  7                   agreement of purchase and sale."
  8                 Have I read that correctly, sir?
  9                 A:   Yes, you have.
 10                 Q:   Now, did you understand at the time
 11  that the term "beneficial ownership" meant that you
 12  yourself owned the shares of WCD, and not Mr. Couprie?
 13                 A:   No, I did not.  They were still in
 14  his possession.
 15                 Q:   Now, I phrased that question in terms
 16  of your understanding at the time --
 17                 A:   Yeah, at the time.
 18                 Q:   -- which you told us was January
 19  2007.  What do you understand it to mean today, as we
 20  stand here, July 27th, 2010?
 21                 A:   Today, it would mean I own the
 22  company.
 23                 Q:   Now, after this agreement, or this
 24  trust declaration was executed, and you've told us this
 25  was January 2007, did you believe that you were a


  1  beneficial owner of World Class Developments?
  2                 A:   No, I did not.
  3                 Q:   Did you change the way you operated
  4  in relation to World Class Developments in any way?
  5                 A:   No, I did not.
  6                 Q:   Did you believe, and we've just read
  7  the terms together, did you believe that Mr. Couprie had
  8  to deal with the shares of WCD in a manner that was
  9  beneficial to you?
 10                 A:   No, I did not.
 11                 Q:   Do you recall how many copies of this
 12  trust declaration were signed?
 13                 A:   I thought there was just two (2).
 14                 Q:   And what became of those copies after
 15  they were signed in January 2007?
 16                 A:   Well, I took mine home.  I don't know
 17  what Leo did with his.  After we returned from the trip,
 18  I didn't feel we needed it any more so I discarded mine.
 19                 Q:   Right.  Now, we've covered whether
 20  you changed the manner in which you operated in relation
 21  to the company, whether you believed you were a
 22  beneficial owner, and also whether you understood that
 23  Mr. Couprie had to deal with the shares in a manner that
 24  was beneficial to you.
 25                 Let me take you now to Exhibit 197.  And I


  1  appreciate that we don't see the whole document at once,
  2  Mr. McCallion, but you'll see that, from the top of the
  3  first page of this document, this is a Declaration of
  4  Trust and Shareholders' Agreement dated August 1st, 2007,
  5  between Landplex Inc., an Ontario corporation, and Leo
  6  Couprie.
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   From -- from what you can see of that
  9  document, sir, can you tell me whether you had seen this
 10  Declaration of Trust and Shareholders' Agreement before?
 11                 A:   I have seen it, but I have not read
 12  it.
 13                 Q:   All right.  Did you understand that
 14  subsequently Mr. -- this is subsequent to entering into
 15  the Declaration of Trust in January 2007, that Mr.
 16  Couprie gave 80 percent of his interest to Landplex, a
 17  company apparently owned by Tony DeCicco?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   Were you aware of this at the time,
 20  that's as of August 1st, 2007?
 21                 A:   I was aware of it.  I didn't know the
 22  details though.
 23                 Q:   Did you have any say in Mr. Couprie's
 24  decision to do that?
 25                 A:   No, but I thought it was best for the


  1  company.
  2                 Q:   And did you think that this line
  3  here, which we can see on the screen, "whereas Leo is the
  4  beneficial owner of eighty (80) common shares, the shares
  5  in the capital stock of World Class Developments
  6  Limited," did you think that that accurately reflected
  7  Mr. Couprie's interest in World Class Developments?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   By the way, at that time, who held
 10  the -- the other 20 percent of the shares in World Class
 11  Developments?
 12                 A:   That was Murray Cook.
 13                 Q:   Now you told me that you believe
 14  there were two (2) copies of that declaration of trust
 15  that we've seen previously, which was Exhibit 190.  When
 16  you returned from your trip with Mr. Couprie in February
 17  2007, what did you do with your copy?
 18                 A:   I discarded it, because the trip was
 19  over.  It was for the purpose of the trip only.
 20                 Q:   And we've canvassed another issue,
 21  and that had to do with Mr. Couprie's investment in the
 22  company for the deposit or down payment of seven hundred
 23  and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000).
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   After he invested that money, what


  1  was Mr. Couprie's role in the day-to-day operation of
  2  World Class Developments?
  3                 A:   Basically, I represented his
  4  interest, because he was not interested in going to
  5  meetings and -- development meetings and whatnot.  So I
  6  represented him.  That was my role.
  7                 Q:   Now, in representing him, was it your
  8  job then to pass information onto him, pertaining to the
  9  company?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   Now, Murray Cook's name has come up
 12  as well.  And in the early stages of World Class
 13  Development, you recruited him; is that right, sir?
 14                 A:   Correct, yes.
 15                 Q:   And you touched on this briefly.  You
 16  -- you said he'd been a developer, but how did you know
 17  Mr. Cook?
 18                 A:   He grew up in Streetsville , as well
 19  as I did.  He was a little bit older than me, but we went
 20  to the same high school, but not together.
 21                 Q:   And why in particular did you recruit
 22  Mr. Cook, as opposed to someone else with development
 23  experience?
 24                 A:   Well, he has a lot of experience, and
 25  I know him.  He's a family friend.  He's been president


  1  of Deerhurst.  He was president of BC Place, I believe,
  2  for ten (10) years.  And he also was president of Emar
  3  Developments in Dubai.
  4                 Q:   Did you say, BC Place?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   Or BCE Place?
  7                 A:   No, BC Place.
  8                 Q:   BC Place.
  9                 A:   Vancouver.
 10                 Q:   And in terms of negotiation with
 11  vendors, who did you think would be dealing with the --
 12  the sellers of the property among your group?
 13                 A:   Well, Murray would be the best for
 14  that.
 15                 Q:   And when we look at Exhibit 192,
 16  which is the Agreement of Purchase and Sale -- I'll just
 17  stop there.  You'll see that this was sent to Mr. Cook by
 18  way of covering letter dated February 2nd, 2007.
 19                 And first of all, sir, where were you on
 20  February 2nd, 2007?
 21                 A:   I believe I was in Vietnam.
 22                 Q:   Where was Mr. Couprie on February
 23  2nd, 2007, to the best of your recollection?
 24                 A:   In Vietnam too.
 25                 Q:   And in relation to this Agreement of


  1  Purchase and Sale negotiated with the vendors, we see
  2  that it was sent to Mr. Cook.
  3                 And you've told us that you expected he
  4  would take the lead in negotiation in any event; is that
  5  right?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   Now, you've told us that Mr. Cook
  8  came to have 20 percent of the shares in World Class
  9  Developments; is that right?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   Did he invest money?
 12                 A:   Not that I was aware of, no.
 13                 Q:   How was it, then, that -- that Mr.
 14  Couprie, who had held all of the shares in WCD, came to
 15  part with some of them?
 16                 A:   Well, Mr. Cook needed some benefit
 17  for negotiating the deal and -- and lending his
 18  credibility to the project.
 19                 Q:   If we could turn to Exhibit 193,
 20  please.
 21                 And what we have here is a Shareholders'
 22  Agreement, dated February 28th, 2007, between World Class
 23  Developments Limited, Murray Cook, and Leo Couprie; is
 24  that right, Mr. McCallion?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, first of all, were you
  2  aware of Mr. Couprie's decision -- before I get there, do
  3  you understand that this agreement reflects, in the
  4  second paragraph, that Mr. Cook is the holder of 20
  5  percent of the common shares of the Corporation?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   And Mr. Couprie, the holder of 80
  8  percent of the common shares of the Corporation; is that
  9  right, sir?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   And were you aware of Mr. Couprie's
 12  decision to transfer shares to Mr. Cook?
 13                 A:   I was aware of it.
 14                 Q:   Now, were you made aware of this
 15  agreement at the time?
 16                 A:   I believe I saw it afterwards.
 17                 Q:   Did you have any role in the
 18  negotiation of that agreement as between Mr. Cook and Mr.
 19  Couprie?
 20                 A:   No, I did not.
 21                 Q:   Now, you've told me that Mr. Cook
 22  provided, if I can boil it down, expertise and
 23  credibility to the project; is that right?
 24                 A:   Very -- yes.
 25                 Q:   Can you tell us about what Mr. Cook


  1  did then on behalf of World Class Developments, apart
  2  from negotiating the Agreement of Purchase and Sale that
  3  we've already seen?
  4                 A:   Well, he knows a lot of the
  5  consultants in Toronto, in terms of architects, hotel
  6  consultants, planners that you all need. 
  7                 Q:   And if we speak of particular
  8  consultants, Mr. McCallion --
  9                 A:   Yeah.
 10                 Q:   -- the documents that the Commission
 11  has obtained refer to Page + Steele --
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   -- for example.
 14                 A:   Architects.
 15                 Q:   And who involved Page + Steele, then
 16  --
 17                 A:   Murray may --
 18                 Q:   -- on behalf of World Class
 19  Developments?
 20                 A:   Murray did.  He knew them.
 21                 Q:   The documents also refer to Barry
 22  Lyon.
 23                 A:   Yes, he was -- he had worked with
 24  Barry Lyon in the past.
 25                 Q:   And Mr. Lyon and his firm are


  1  consultants in what field, Mr. McCallion?
  2                 A:   Planning.
  3                 Q:   The documents also refer to Horwath
  4  Horizon Consultants.
  5                 A:   Yes, they're hotel consultants.
  6                 Q:   And did you have any understanding
  7  about why hotel consultants were necessary?
  8                 A:   Because the project called for a
  9  hotel.
 10                 Q:   If we could turn, please, to Exhibit
 11  136, I'm going to show you a letter on the letterhead of
 12  Marriott Hotels of Canada, dated February 23rd, 2006,
 13  addressed to Mr. Murray Cook, World Class Developments,
 14  400 Brunel Road, Mississauga, Ontario.  And I'll give you
 15  a moment to review that, sir.
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   Were you aware of this letter at the
 18  time?
 19                 A:   I knew that Murray had acquired a
 20  letter, yes.  I had not seen it though.  
 21                 Q:   You had not seen it at the time?
 22                 A:   At the time, no.
 23                 Q:   And in the second paragraph, I note
 24  that it says:
 25                   "We are very aware of Mayor McCallion's


  1                   desire to entertain a four-star
  2                   property close to the Living Arts
  3                   Centre and believe that the City needs
  4                   this hub to consolidate its profile and
  5                   positioning in the Province."
  6                 Let me stop there.  I've asked you
  7  previously about the City's interest in developing a
  8  hotel in the City Centre.
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   Does this fairly represent what you
 11  understood to be your mother's interest in developing a
 12  hotel in the City Centre?
 13                 A:   I believe there was a lot of people
 14  that wanted a hotel next to the Living Arts Centre,
 15  including her.
 16                 Q:   Okay.  So what we have here is a
 17  letter expressing interest in participating in the
 18  project, and this from the Marriott Hotel chain, is that
 19  right, sir?
 20                 A:   Correct, yes.
 21                 Q:   Now, I've taken you previously to the
 22  Agreement of Purchase and Sale, which was Exhibit 192,
 23  and it's dated January 31st, 2007.  And you've told me
 24  that you expected Mr. Cook to play the leading role in
 25  negotiating that on behalf of World Class Developments.


  1                 What was your involvement, if any, in the
  2  negotiations and eventual signing of the Agreement of
  3  Purchase and Sale?
  4                 A:   I was not involved in negotiations at
  5  all.  I did converse with Murray on a regular basis, but
  6  I was not involved in negotiations whatsoever.
  7                 Q:   Once the agreement of purchase and
  8  sale was signed, did you obtain a copy?
  9                 A:   Yes, when I came back from our trip.
 10                 Q:   Who gave --
 11                 A:   I don't know immediately, but --
 12                 Q:   Okay.
 13                 A:   -- shortly thereafter.
 14                 Q:   Sorry for cutting you off, which I
 15  did twice in the course of that answer.
 16                 Who gave you a copy of the executed
 17  Agreement of Purchase and Sale?
 18                 A:   It would have been Murray Cook.
 19                 Q:   And, Mr. McCallion, did you think
 20  that building a hotel and convention centre in the City
 21  Centre was economically viable?
 22                 A:   I believed it would have been
 23  difficult, but not impossible, in terms of economics.
 24                 Q:   Based on your experience in
 25  development and real estate, how did you think -- or did


  1  you have any understanding as to how the -- the
  2  construction of the hotel would be financed?
  3                 A:   Well, the purpose of having condos on
  4  the surrounding land would help finance the hotel,
  5  meaning that a hotel by itself would probably not --
  6  completely by itself would probably not be economically
  7  feasible.
  8                 Q:   And with funding from the condo
  9  development, did anyone tell you that a four-star hotel
 10  was not economically viable, in any event?
 11                 A:   The consultants, I believe, did say
 12  it was difficult, but it could eventually happen over a
 13  period of time.  You build a hotel to four-star
 14  standards, but you only get three-star service, because
 15  the difference between the stars is usually service.
 16                 Q:   And, Mr. McCallion, we've heard the
 17  evidence from Mr. Costin about the negotiation of the
 18  Agreement of Purchase and Sale.  And you've told us that
 19  -- that you were informed about the negotiation of it
 20  from time to time.
 21                 During that process, did you ever talk to
 22  your mother about the transaction?
 23                 A:   Not that I recall, no.
 24                 Q:   Is there a reason why you didn't do
 25  that, sir?


  1                 A:   We had nothing to talk about.
  2                 Q:   Why not?
  3                 A:   It was taking a long time.  I do
  4  recall that.  I believe we were negotiating for almost
  5  two (2) years.  But I don't recall if I -- if I did
  6  mention anything, it would have been, it's taking a long
  7  time.
  8                 Q:   And, by the way, where do you live in
  9  relation to where your mother lives?  How far apart are
 10  you?
 11                 A:   Oh, two (2) minutes away, five (5)
 12  minutes by walking.
 13                 Q:   All right.  And I understand that
 14  it's a close family, is that right, sir?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   How many times would you see your
 17  mother in the average week?
 18                 A:   Oh, five (5), six (6) times.
 19                 Q:   And are there days when you might see
 20  her more than once?
 21                 A:   Yes, usually on weekends, more so
 22  than during the week.  But I used to drive her a lot to
 23  functions and whatnot.
 24                 Q:   Are there chores that you --
 25                 A:   Well --


  1                 Q:   -- take on for her?
  2                 A:   -- yeah, we have a pool -- or sorry,
  3  a pond.  We have a pool, too, but the pond is kind of a
  4  maintenance nightmare.
  5                 Q:   I'll keep that in mind.
  6                 A:   Yeah.
  7                 Q:   Now, in terms of Murray Cook, you
  8  told me how you know Murray Cook.  Are you aware of
  9  whether your mother knows Murray Cook?
 10                 A:   Oh, yes.  Murray -- yes, my mother
 11  knows Murray well.
 12                 Q:   Did you understand at the time
 13  whether Mr. Cook was speaking to your mother about the
 14  project?
 15                 A:   I probably would say -- suspect that
 16  he would, yes.
 17                 Q:   When I speak of "the time," I refer
 18  to the time when the Agreement of Purchase and Sale was
 19  being negotiated.
 20                 A:   Yes, yes.
 21                 Q:   Now more generally, do you talk to
 22  your mother about your business affairs?
 23                 A:   I let her know what I'm working on,
 24  basically, just as a past tense.  She usually says, you
 25  know, Are you working; get to work.


  1                 Q:   A mother's concern.
  2                 A:   Yes, exactly.
  3                 Q:   And -- and how often during this
  4  period, sir, would you have discussed your business
  5  affairs with your mother, say in the year leading up to
  6  the Agreement of Purchase and Sale being executed?
  7                 A:   How many times would I have discussed
  8  this specific project?  I don't know, five (5), six (6)
  9  times.
 10                 Q:   Yeah, but how many times would you --
 11  how often would you discuss your business affairs with
 12  your mother, in a more general way.
 13                 A:   Oh, in a more general -- almost every
 14  time I'd see her.  She'd go, Oh, what are you working on,
 15  what are you doing.  Not specifically telling her exactly
 16  what I'm doing, but...
 17                 Q:   All right.  Let's turn to another
 18  individual whom you involved in World Class Developments,
 19  and that's Tony DeCicco.
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   We understand from other evidence
 22  that you brought Tony DeCicco into World Class
 23  Developments in the summer of 2007.
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   How did you know Mr. DeCicco?


  1                 A:   I had met him on a property that I
  2  had listed, and he was the purchaser.
  3                 Q:   How long ago was that, or how many
  4  year -- how long prior to 2007 was that, to be more
  5  precise?
  6                 A:   I'm guessing ten (10) or more years.
  7                 Q:   And from that time to 2007, had you
  8  had any other contact with Mr. DeCicco?
  9                 A:   Oh, yes.  We actually became friends.
 10                 Q:   And in your work as a real estate
 11  agent after that initial time --
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   -- did you -- did you work with Mr.
 14  DeCicco?
 15                 A:   Yes, I had some listings that he had
 16  for lease and whatnot.
 17                 Q:   Now, why did you ask Mr. DeCicco to
 18  become involved?
 19                 A:   I believed he had the experience to
 20  bring the project to fruition.  He's -- he's built homes.
 21  He's got commercial developments.  And I believed he had
 22  the financial resources.
 23                 Q:   Now, that's why to involve Mr.
 24  DeCicco, but why involve him at that point?  Why involve
 25  him in the summer of 2007?


  1                 A:   At that point the bills, were not
  2  being paid, so we needed some financing right away.
  3                 Q:   So when you refer to the bills not
  4  being paid --
  5                 A:   Consultants, Page + Steele, Horvat,
  6  et cetera.
  7                 Q:   Was there another reason for
  8  involving Mr. Co -- Mr. DeCicco in the project, apart
  9  from the fact that you were concerned about failure to
 10  meet financial obligations?
 11                 A:   Yes.  Well, at that time, it was
 12  becoming apparent that Mr. Cook was looking to squeeze
 13  Leo out of the company because of the lack of bills being
 14  paid.
 15                 Q:   Why was this a concern to you about
 16  Mr. Couprie being squeezed out of the company by Mr.
 17  Cook?
 18                 A:   Well, I believed that I would not be
 19  involved at that point if he got squeezed out, and I
 20  would not be the agent for selling the condominiums in
 21  the end, because Mr. Cou -- Mr. Cooper's -- sorry, Mr.
 22  Cook's partners, or I believed to be potential partners,
 23  had their own in-house sales staff.
 24                 Q:   Now, to be precise about it, what did
 25  you ask Mr. DeCicco to do by way of involvement in WCD?


  1                 A:   Well, basically, take over the lead
  2  and -- and manage and put it together; deal with the
  3  vendors, deal with the consultants, and deal with the
  4  City.
  5                 Q:   Now, you've touched on how you -- how
  6  you knew him, and you've touched on his experience.  Were
  7  you aware of any particular developments that he was
  8  involved in?
  9                 A:   Well, he was building houses up in
 10  Kleinburg, I know that.  He had a plaza in Windsor.  He
 11  has some older developments in Mississauga.  So he's --
 12  he's all over the place.
 13                 Q:   This might be a time to return to
 14  Exhibit 197, which is the August 1st, 2000, Declaration
 15  of Trust and Shareholders' Agreement between Landplex and
 16  Leo Couprie.  We've already touched on this previously,
 17  Mr. McCallion; you -- I won't ask you to repeat your
 18  evidence in relation to this.
 19                 Did you have any concerns about this
 20  agreement?
 21                 A:   Well, I did not read it, so I didn't
 22  have any concerns.
 23                 Q:   Was it explained to you by anyone?
 24                 A:   Well, Leo understood he was keeping
 25  20 percent of 80 percent.


  1                 Q:   What did you understand it to mean,
  2  in terms of your interest in WCD?
  3                 A:   In my interest?
  4                 Q:   Right.
  5                 A:   Well, Leo was still part of the
  6  company, and I believe he would ensure that somewhere
  7  down the road, I would get the ability to sell the
  8  condos.  I trusted Mr. Couprie.
  9                 Q:   To be clear about this, did you think
 10  you had any other interest in WCD?
 11                 A:   At that time, no.
 12                 Q:   Now, you've told us that Mr. DeCicco
 13  took over the day-to-day work in relation to WCD; is that
 14  right?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   And we've heard of -- of discussions
 17  with the Easton's Group and a Mr. Steve Gupta.
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   Who involved Mr. Gupta?
 20                 A:   That would be Tony DeCicco.
 21                 Q:   And in fact, did you take part of a
 22  tour of a -- of a hotel that is operated by Mr. Gupta?
 23                 A:   Yes, I did.
 24                 Q:   Can you tell us about that, please?
 25                 A:   Well, that was a tour to see his


  1  Marriott Residence Inn on -- I don't remember what
  2  street, but -- and --
  3                 Q:   In what city?  And whereabouts?
  4                 A:   Well, it's in Toronto.  And so we
  5  went on the tour.
  6                 Q:   And when we say "we," sir, who are we
  7  including in --
  8                 A:   I believe it --
  9                 Q:   -- this?
 10                 A:   -- would be Tony, Steve Gupta, Ed
 11  Sajecki, myself, my mother, and there might have been
 12  another person, but I can't remember who they would have
 13  been.
 14                 Q:   Do you recall when this was?
 15                 A:   I don't recall the date specifically.
 16                 Q:   A month and a year, sir?
 17                 A:   I don't remember the date.
 18                 Q:   All right.  So this group went on the
 19  tour.  And what was the outcome of the tour?
 20                 A:   Well, I was not very impressed with
 21  the style of hotel that he was proposing.  Across the
 22  street is the SoHo Hotel, so I do know that Mr. Sajecki
 23  and I went over there.  And I said, This is what I was
 24  kind of envisioning for the City Centre, as opposed to
 25  the Marriott.


  1                 Q:   And do you recall what your mother's
  2  reaction was?
  3                 A:   I don't recall.  She stayed back.
  4                 Q:   Now, we've mentioned Ed Sajecki.
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   And how long have you known Ed
  7  Sajecki?
  8                 A:   I've known Ed since he came to the
  9  City.  I'd meet him a lot of functions and kind of became
 10  friends; but you know, not a friend that I go to his
 11  house, but I see him at a lot of functions.  We talk a
 12  lot, talk about his farm up in Collingwood.
 13                 Q:   The Commission's exhibits include a
 14  number of appointment slips or Outlook calendar
 15  appointment records relating to lunch --
 16                 A:   Oh, yeah.
 17                 Q:   -- that you had with Ed Sajecki.
 18                 A:   Oh, we would have lunch the odd time,
 19  a couple, maybe three times a year.  We'd just talk about
 20  everything.  Sometimes he would pay.  Sometimes I would
 21  pay.  He always offered though.
 22                 Q:   And when you say, We'd talk about
 23  everything, can -- can you --
 24                 A:   Well --
 25                 Q:   -- can you narrow that down a bit for


  1  us?
  2                 A:   I may have mentioned about World
  3  Class, but we would have talked about other items as
  4  well, not specifically World Class.
  5                 Q:   And what was your purpose in having
  6  lunch with Ed Sajecki on those occasions?
  7                 A:   A friend.  
  8                 Q:   Also included in the documents that
  9  the Commission has obtained are a number of voice mail
 10  messages to your mother from Tony DeCicco.
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   Were you aware that Tony DeCicco
 13  contacted your mother from time to time once he became
 14  involved in World Class Development?
 15                 A:   Well, I was aware he did contact her
 16  sometimes.  How many?  I probably was not aware.  
 17                 Q:   And were you aware of this at the
 18  time he was doing it?
 19                 A:   Not specifically.  
 20                 Q:   Did you and your mother ever discuss
 21  Mr. DeCicco contacting her?
 22                 A:   No.
 23                 Q:   Now, it appears that one of the
 24  issues Mr. DeCicco contacted your mother about was
 25  litigation between Murray Cook and Leo Couprie.


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   Were you aware of Mr. DeCicco doing
  3  that?
  4                 A:   Yes, I am.  He called her because my
  5  mother knows Mr. Cook very well, family friend, and was
  6  hoping that my mother could resolve their differences.
  7                 Q:   And, in fact, did you ever attend a
  8  meeting --
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   -- that your mother also attended --
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   -- in relation to that dispute?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   Who else was there?
 15                 A:   Nobody, that I'm aware of, other than
 16  Tony, Murray, my mother, and myself; and it was not
 17  resolved.
 18                 Q:   Where did that meeting take place?
 19                 A:   I believe at her house.
 20                 Q:   Do recall your mother's role in the
 21  meeting?
 22                 A:   Keep the peace.
 23                 Q:   Now, more generally, in your
 24  experience, is it usual or unusual for developers and
 25  business people to contact your mother?


  1                 A:   Oh, no, it happens every day.
  2                 Q:   And --
  3                 A:   I'm not aware of it, of course, but I
  4  -- I know they all call her.
  5                 Q:   Do you have an understanding as to
  6  what they typically ask for?
  7                 A:   They have a problem with something,
  8  either with the City, with another developer, et cetera,
  9  et cetera.
 10                 Q:   Now, Mr. McCallion, we're going to
 11  turn to something we briefly touched on earlier, and
 12  that's your loans to World Class Developments, which take
 13  place in 2007, as we look at this chronology.
 14                 Now, you mentioned that a reason for
 15  involving Mr. DeCicco was that World Class Developments,
 16  as being run by Mr. Cook, wasn't meeting its financial
 17  obligations, is that right, sir?
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   Now, at some point, did you become
 20  concerned to the extent that you advanced money yourself?
 21                 A:   Yes, well, I advanced money in order
 22  to keep the deal alive until we could find a -- a
 23  suitable financier and developer.  And in order to keep
 24  it alive -- if the deal fell apart at that point, all my
 25  efforts for the last four (4) years or five (5) years


  1  have gone down the drain, which is not uncommon for a
  2  real estate agent.
  3                 Q:   Could we see Exhibit 195 please?
  5                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  7                 Q:   Have you ever seen this document
  8  before?
  9                 A:   Yes, after the inquiry started.
 10                 Q:   All right.  All right.  You
 11  understand this to be a financial record of WCD?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   And in particular, I'm going to refer
 14  you to March 7.  And this is apparently 2007, because
 15  it's immediately after an entry for March 1, '07.  We
 16  have a credit of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000),
 17  details, "PJMC deposit."
 18                 Do you see that sir?
 19                 A:   Yes, I do.
 20                 Q:   And although you've only seen this
 21  after the Inquiry was created by Municipal resolution,
 22  can you tell us what that -- first of all, who is PJMC?
 23                 A:   Well, that's myself.
 24                 Q:   Peter J. McCallion?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   And the thirty thousand dollars
  2  ($30,000), sir, can you tell us what that was about?
  3                 A:   Well, we had some bills coming due.
  4  Horvath is one specifically that I'm aware of that needed
  5  -- needed to be paid.  And the other one underneath, &
  6  Co., a consulting company.
  7                 Q:   So you're referring to a -- an entry
  8  for March 19th and another entry for March 23rd --
  9                 A:   March 23rd --
 10                 Q:   Is that correct?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   And then as we look down to May 24th,
 13  we see another credit of seventy-three thousand five
 14  hundred dollars ($73,500), and again, "PJMC deposit."  Is
 15  that correct, sir?
 16                 A:   Correct.  
 17                 Q:   And that's another instance in which
 18  you loan money to the company, is that right, sir?
 19                 A:   Correct, yes.
 20                 Q:   Did you ask Mr. Couprie or Mr. Cook
 21  to pay the money to meet these obligations before loaning
 22  the money yourself?
 23                 A:   I probably did.  I -- I do know Mr.
 24  Couprie wasn't putting any more money in.  And Mr. Cook,
 25  I believe at the time, didn't have any money to put in.


  1                 Q:   When we look at these amounts --
  2  thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) and seventy-three
  3  thousand five hundred dollars ($73,500) -- where did you
  4  get that money, Mr. McCallion?
  5                 A:   That was commissions owed to me from
  6  De Zen Homes.  
  7                 Q:   Now, if we go to the next page, and
  8  in particular to an entry for July 30th, we see a --
  9  another credit in the amount of fifty thousand dollars
 10  ($50,000).
 11                 Is that correct, sir?
 12                 A:   Yes.  
 13                 Q:   And again, in terms of details, in
 14  that column we see "PJMC deposit."  Is that right?
 15                 A:   Correct, yes.
 16                 Q:   Now, where did you get that money,
 17  sir?
 18                 A:   I didn't have any more resources of
 19  my own, so I had to borrow that.  I borrowed it from TACC
 20  Construction.
 21                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Sorry,
 22  from who?
 23                 THE WITNESS:   TACC.  T-A-C-C.


  1                 Q:   Sorry, did you say you borrowed that
  2  money from TACC?
  3                 A:   I borrowed that money from TACC, yes.
  4                 Q:   Why did you need to borrow money from
  5  TACC?  I -- we realize you didn't have money yourself,
  6  but why did you need to put money into WCD, these
  7  borrowed funds of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), in
  8  July 2007?
  9                 A:   We had an obligation for a site plan
 10  application fee was due, I see, August the 2nd.  I
 11  thought it was July 31st.  
 12                 Q:   There are some entries on this
 13  document, Mr. McCallion.  For example, we see on the
 14  first page, April 5th, we see money going out, two
 15  thousand three hundred and ten dollars and thirty cents
 16  ($2,310.30).  Details column says, "L. Couprie, PJMC
 17  expense."
 18                 A:   Yes.  
 19                 Q:   June 28, we see six thousand dollars
 20  ($6,000), "PJMC Consulting."  By the way, we see "PJMC
 21  Consulting" on March 16th, as well, for a thousand
 22  dollars ($1,000).  And on August 3rd, on the second page,
 23  we see seven hundred and seventy dollars ($770), and it
 24  says, "L. Couprie, PJMC expense."
 25                 A:   Yes.  


  1                 Q:   Now, do you recall receiving money
  2  from World Class Developments during this period?
  3                 A:   Yes.  I needed to live.  I needed
  4  some money to pay my own expenses.  
  5                 Q:   Now you mentioned the loan from TACC.
  6  If we could look at Exhibit 196, please.
  8                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 10                 Q:   Actually, we don't need to go back to
 11  the document, but there appear to be other entries where
 12  you were receiving money -- expense money --
 13                 A:   Yes.  
 14                 Q:   -- from World Class Developments that
 15  I didn't take you to.
 16                 A:   Oh, okay.  
 17                 Q:   Is it fair that there may have been
 18  other payments made to you in order to pay your expenses,
 19  sir?
 20                 A:   Other than what was on that sheet, I
 21  believe not.  
 22                 Q:   Well, let's go back to it then, just
 23  to be clear.  Exhibit 195.
 24                 So just so that we're clear about this, in
 25  terms of payments out to you, we have March 16th, one


  1  thousand dollars ($1,000).
  2                 A:   Yeah.  
  3                 Q:   We have March 30th, one thousand
  4  dollars  ($1,000).
  5                 A:   Yes.  
  6                 Q:   We have June 28th, six thousand
  7  dollars ($6,000).
  8                 A:   Yes.  
  9                 Q:   We have August 3, seven hundred and
 10  seventy dollars ($770).
 11                 A:   Yes.  
 12                 Q:   Oh, April 5, back on the first page,
 13  two thousand three hundred and ten dollars and thirty
 14  cents ($2,310.30), and that's "L. Couprie, PJMC expense."
 16                 A:   Yes.  
 17                 Q:   You see that as well?
 18                 A:   Yeah.  
 19                 Q:   And we've -- we've discussed, have
 20  we, the reasons that you were obtaining money?  Were
 21  there any other reasons you were obtaining money from
 22  World Class Developments at that time?
 23                 A:   Well, the twenty-three ten (2310) for
 24  April the 5th was for a trip -- for one of our trips.  So
 25  it went to Leo, because he put it on his credit card.  


  1                 Q:   What was the purpose of the trip?
  2                 A:   For his for business, and I do
  3  photography when I'm there.  
  4                 Q:   Okay, let's go back to Exhibit 196
  5  then.
  7                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  9                 Q:   So this is a promissory note in the
 10  amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), due November
 11  1st, 2007.
 12                 If we could scroll down to the signature
 13  on this, we see, sir, there are two (2) signatures.  We
 14  see that, first of all, on behalf of World Class
 15  Developments Limited, we have a signature.
 16                 Whose signature is that?
 17                 A:   That's mine.  
 18                 Q:   Per Peter McCallion, ASO.  Is that
 19  correct, sir?
 20                 A:   Correct.  
 21                 Q:   Now, you apparently signed this on
 22  July 27th, 2007?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   At the time, did you understand what
 25  ASO meant?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   What did you understand it to mean?
  3                 A:   As signing officer.
  4                 Q:   To the right of that we see co-
  5  signer.  We see your signature, or what appears to be
  6  your signature again; is that correct, sir?
  7                 A:   Correct, yes.
  8                 Q:   You signed that as well?
  9                 A:   Yes, I did.
 10                 Q:   Now, why did you sign on behalf of
 11  World Class Developments as -- as a signing officer?
 12                 A:   We needed the money fairly quickly
 13  for the July 31st deadline.
 14                 Q:   In fact, did you have authority to
 15  sign on behalf of World Class Developments?
 16                 A:   No, I did not.
 17                 Q:   Now, at that point, July 27th, 2007,
 18  was Mr. DeCicco involved in the -- the project?
 19                 A:   I believe he was in discussions with
 20  Mr. Couprie at the time.
 21                 Q:   So the answer is -- is --
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   -- yes or no?
 24                 A:   I would say yes, in terms of
 25  directions.


  1                 Q:   Now, had your loans to World Class
  2  Developments, or the TACC loan, which you obtained
  3  apparently on behalf of World Class Developments, and
  4  which you co-signed for here, have they been repaid by
  5  World Class Developments?
  6                 A:   No, they have not.
  7                 Q:   Do you expect those loans to be
  8  repaid?
  9                 A:   I'm hoping they are, yes.
 10                 Q:   By the way, who are the -- who is, or
 11  who are the principal or principals behind TACC?
 12                 A:   Well, Silvio de Gasperis and his
 13  family.
 14                 Q:   Silvio de Gasperis --
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   -- and his family, is that correct?
 17                 A:   Yes. 
 18                 Q:   I'm going to turn to another area
 19  now, and that's amendments to the Agreement of Purchase
 20  and Sale, which we understand take place in the spring
 21  and summer of 2008.
 22                 MR. BRIAN GROVER:   And Mr. McDowell has
 23  made a sensible suggestion, and that's that this might be
 24  an appropriate time to take the morning recess.


  1  right.  We'll take fifteen (15) minutes.
  2                 MR. BRIAN GROVER:   Thank you.
  3                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise
  4  please.  Court stands recessed fifteen (15) minutes.
  6  --- Upon recessing at 11:25 a.m.
  7  --- Upon resuming at 11:40 a.m.
  9                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 10  please. The court's reconvened.  Please be seated.
 11                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:    Thank you, Mr.
 12  Commissioner.
 15                 Q:   If I could ask you to turn your mind
 16  to the spring and summer of 2008.  And as I mentioned
 17  just before the recess, we're aware that there were
 18  amendments made to the agreement of purchase and sale.
 19                 A:   Yes.  
 20                 Q:   Now, at some point in 2008, did you
 21  become concerned about the development project?
 22                 A:   Yes, for a couple of reasons.  1) The
 23  timing of the hotel and the timeframe that it had to be
 24  started and majorly completed; as well as the economy in
 25  the US that had started to tank.  So it was -- and the


  1  first thing to go are hotels and airlines in a bad
  2  economy.  So I was concerned that the hotel was gonna be
  3  a problem in terms of financial as well as timing.
  4                 Q:   Right.  Now, despite the recession
  5  which was then taking root, were you confident, Mr.
  6  McCallion, that the project would eventually get done?
  7                 A:   Yes, very confident.
  8                 Q:   Why so?
  9                 A:   The City is a growing city.  It's
 10  probably one -- the number 1 city in Canada in terms of
 11  development, and it was the best location for it.
 12                 Q:   But you had those concerns about the
 13  -- the economy and the timing for construction, is that
 14  right, sir?
 15                 A:   Correct, yes.
 16                 Q:   Did others at World Class
 17  Developments share those concerns?
 18                 A:   Tony did.
 19                 Q:   Was Mr. DeCicco doing anything about
 20  that concern on this part?
 21                 A:   Well, he was trying to extend the
 22  time of the construction of the hotel and whatnot, in
 23  terms of finishing.  
 24                 Q:   Who was he dealing with in that
 25  regard, do you know?


  1                 A:   I believe he was dealing with OMERS.  
  2                 Q:   Now, in and around that time, did you
  3  have a discussion with anyone from OMERS?
  4                 A:   I believe I did have a short
  5  discussion with Michael Kitt, saying that we needed more
  6  time.  
  7                 Q:   Do you remember any of the -- the
  8  details surrounding that conversation?
  9                 A:   No.  That's -- I don't remember that
 10  one specifically.  No. 
 11                 Q:   Was that a -- an in-person meeting,
 12  or was it over the telephone?
 13                 A:   I believe it was in person, no. 
 14                 Q:   Now, ultimately we know that World
 15  Class Development and OMERS did enter into an amending
 16  agreement. And in that respect, we have Exhibit 105,
 17  which I'll ask to be displayed now.
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21                 Q:   Now, first of all, sir, have you seen
 22  this amending agreement before?
 23                 A:   Well, during the Inquiry, yes.  I
 24  don't believe it saw it when it was accomplished.
 25                 Q:   It's dated July 31st, 2008?


  1                 A:   Yes. 
  2                 Q:   Did you play any role in negotiating
  3  the terms of this amending agreement?
  4                 A:   No, I did not. 
  5                 Q:   How would you describe your
  6  involvement in World Class Developments between July and
  7  the fall of 2008?
  8                 A:   Nothing had changed in my involvement
  9  that I was aware of.  
 10                 Q:   During that period, did you tell Mr.
 11  DeCicco that you wanted out of the deal?
 12                 A:   I don't recall that. 
 13                 Q:   Did you ever tell him that?
 14                 A:   I don't recall that. 
 15                 Q:   Did you ever tell anyone else that
 16  you wanted out of the deal?
 17                 A:   No. 
 18                 Q:   Now, in the fall of 2008, I
 19  understand that you met with two (2) representatives of
 20  OMERS, is that right, sir?
 21                 A:   Correct, yes.
 22                 Q:   Who were they?
 23                 A:   Michael Kitt and John Filipetti.  
 24                 Q:   Why did you meet with them in the
 25  fall of 2008?


  1                 A:   Because of the economy at the time
  2  and the timing of the hotel, it was apparent that we
  3  needed a lot more time to accomplish the hotel part of
  4  the project, strictly rated -- related to the economy.  
  5                 Q:   Did you ask them for anything in
  6  particular?
  7                 A:   Well, I asked them for more time on
  8  the hotel.  I wasn't asking them for -- delete the hotel,
  9  just more time to complete the project.
 10                 Q:   When you say you weren't asking them
 11  to "delete" the hotel, what do you mean by that?
 12                 A:   Well, I guess if you deleted the
 13  hotel, it'd be all condos.
 14                 Q:   Deleting the condition in the
 15  Agreement of Purchase and Sale that required construction
 16  of a hotel?
 17                 A:   Correct, yes. 
 18                 Q:   And so that I'm clear about that, was
 19  World Class Developments backing away from building the
 20  hotel at all --
 21                 A:   No. 
 22                 Q:   -- to your understanding?
 23                 A:   Not to my understanding, no.  We --
 24  they weren't backing away at all.  Just the timing of the
 25  hotel.


  1                 Q:   Do you recall any response to your
  2  request by Mr. Kit of Mr. Filipetti?
  3                 A:   Yes.  Specifically, Mr. Kitt
  4  suggested that if we increase the purchase price by 2 1/2
  5  million, he doesn't care if we ever build a hotel.  
  6                 Q:   During this same time, were you aware
  7  of mother's involvements in any discussions with OMERS
  8  about the project and the deal?
  9                 A:   No, I was not.  
 10                 Q:   During this same time, did you ever
 11  tell anyone that you were off the project or off the
 12  file?
 13                 A:   Not that I recall, no. 
 14                 Q:   During the fall of 2008, did you have
 15  conversations with your mother about World Class
 16  Developments --
 17                 A:   When?
 18                 Q:   -- that you recall now?
 19                 A:   That I recall now?  Other than -- I
 20  don't recall really having a specific conversation, other
 21  than the timing of the hotel.  But I don't recall having
 22  a conversation with her on that. 
 23                 Q:   Now, Mr. McCallion, I'm going to turn
 24  to another area, and that is the litigation between OMERS
 25  and World Class Developments.  And of course, there's a


  1  matter of some affidavits that we need to discuss.
  2                 Before I do that, let's turn to Exhibit
  3  117.
  5                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  7                 Q:   You'll see that Exhibit 117 is a
  8  letter dated January 9th, 2009?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   And it's addressed to Mr. Rosenblatt
 11  and Ms. Bianchini at Minden Gross; is that correct, sir?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   And they were the lawyers for World
 14  Class Developments at the time; is that right, sir?
 15                 A:   Yes, as well as Emilio Bisceglia.
 16                 Q:   You understand that this exhibit
 17  constitutes the written notice from the vendors that they
 18  were terminating the Agreement of Purchase and Sale?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   Now, sir, did you see a copy of that
 21  letter at the time?
 22                 A:   No, I did not. 
 23                 Q:   But I take it you became aware that
 24  the document had been delivered; is that right, sir?
 25                 A:   Yes.  Tony informed me at some point.


  1                 Q:   You understand, Mr. McCallion, that
  2  ultimately there was litigation commenced by OMERS
  3  against World Class Developments?
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   And you understand that OMERS
  6  commenced an application for a determination that the
  7  Agreement of Purchase and Sale was terminated and that
  8  World Class Developments had no right or claim to the
  9  OMERS's land?
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   Now, sir, were you a named party in
 12  that litigation, to the best of your --
 13                 A:   Not that I was --
 14                 Q:   -- recollection?
 15                 A:   -- aware of, no.
 16                 Q:   I understand, though, that you became
 17  involved in the litigation; is that right, sir?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   How did you become involved in the
 20  litigation?
 21                 A:   Tony and Emilio wanted me to sign an
 22  affidavit in regards to the litigation. 
 23                 Q:   Now, I understand that you attended a
 24  meeting in early August 2009; is that correct, sir?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   Do you recall where that meeting was?
  2                 A:   That was Emilio's office.
  3                 Q:   Do you recall how long the meeting
  4  lasted?
  5                 A:   An hour or so.
  6                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Would
  7  that be Minden Gross?
  8                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   No, it's --
  9                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Who's
 10  Emilio?
 11                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Emilio Bisceglia.  B-I-
 12  S-C-E-G-L-I-A.  And his office is --
 13                 THE WITNESS:   7940 Jane --
 14                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   It's in --
 15                 THE WITNESS:   -- Street?
 16                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   -- Vaughan, I
 17  understand.  Is that fair?
 18                 THE WITNESS:   Yeah, seventy (70) --
 19                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Thank you.
 20                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 21  you.
 22                 THE WITNESS:   It's 7941, something like
 23  that.


  1                 Q:   In fact, Mr. Bisceglia's firm is
  2  Bisceglia and Associates Professional Corporation, Suite
  3  200, 7941 Jane Street, Concord, Ontario.  Just to take
  4  some of the guesswork out of it, Mr. McCallion.
  5                 So you had this meeting, and I understand
  6  that you were asked to swear an affidavit in relation to
  7  the litigation; is that right?
  8                 A:   Correct, yes.
  9                 Q:   Who asked you to do that?
 10                 A:   I believe it was Tony and Emilio.
 11                 Q:   And so that we're clear about what
 12  you understood Mr. Bisceglia's role to be, what was that?
 13                 A:   I believed he to be the lawyer for
 14  World Class Developments.
 15                 Q:   Now, we know, Mr. McCallion, that you
 16  agreed to swear an affidavit in relation to the
 17  litigation, is that correct, sir?
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   Could we see Exhibit 212, please?
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 23                 Q:   Sir, do you see that on the screen
 24  now?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   So here we see the first page of this
  2  exhibit.  And it appears to be an affidavit of Peter
  3  McCallion, sworn August 24, 2009, is that correct?
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   This then is your affidavit?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   And if we go to the final page of the
  8  main part of the affidavit at page 18, below paragraph
  9  76, we see a signature on the signature line, below which
 10  is the name Peter McCallion, is that correct, sir?
 11                 A:   Correct.
 12                 Q:   Whose signature is that?
 13                 A:   On the -- 
 14                 Q:   The --
 15                 A:   That's my signature.
 16                 Q:   Right, on the right-hand side.  And
 17  who commissioned this affidavit, do you recall?
 18                 A:   That would have Emilio.
 19                 Q:   And it was apparently, as it recites
 20  on the front page, sworn on August 24th, 2009, is that
 21  right, sir?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   Now, in terms of preparation of this
 24  affidavit, Mr. McCallion, who prepared the affidavit?
 25                 A:   I believe Emilio prepared the


  1  affidavit.
  2                 Q:   When did that take place, to the best
  3  of your knowledge?
  4                 A:   Between August the 6th and the 24th.  
  5                 Q:   You've told us about going to a
  6  meeting in early August.  Is that the meeting of August
  7  6th?
  8                 A:   Yes, with Paliare Royale. 
  9                 Q:   Paliare Roland.
 10                 A:   Oh, sorry.  
 11                 Q:   And that's a law firm in Toronto, is
 12  that correct, sir?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   Now, you -- you obviously swore this
 15  in Mississauga on August 24th.  Were there any meetings
 16  between August 6th and August 24th?
 17                 A:   None.
 18                 Q:   Were you given a draft of the
 19  affidavit to review?
 20                 A:   Yes, I was.
 21                 Q:   How many drafts of the affidavit did
 22  you see?
 23                 A:   At least two (2) that I'm aware of.
 24                 Q:   Who provided the drafts to you?
 25                 A:   Emilio provided them by email, I


  1  believe.
  2                 Q:   And did you in fact review the
  3  drafts?
  4                 A:   Yes, I did.
  5                 Q:   Do you recall making any revisions?
  6                 A:   I made quite a few revisions.  I
  7  don't recall what they were at this point.
  8                 Q:   Did you retain copies of any of the
  9  drafts --
 10                 A:   No, I --
 11                 Q:   -- either of the drafts?
 12                 A:   No, I did not.
 13                 Q:   Prior to signing the affidavit on
 14  August 24th, 2009, did you ever sit down and discuss this
 15  affidavit with anyone?
 16                 A:   I didn't sit down and discuss it with
 17  anybody.
 18                 Q:   Now, if we go back to the first page
 19  of this affidavit, Mr. McCallion, and in particular,
 20  we'll focus on paragraph 1, we see that it says this:
 21                   "I am a registered real estate agent by
 22                   profession and have worked in that
 23                   capacity in the City of Mississauga,
 24                   the City, for over twenty-five (25)
 25                   years.


  1                   I am one of the principals of World
  2                   Class Developments Limited, WCD."
  3                 Have I read that correctly, Mr. McCallion?
  4                 A:   Correct.
  5                 Q:   Now, this term, "principal," is that
  6  a term that you use, sir, in your ordinary language?
  7                 A:   No, it's not.
  8                 Q:   Now, you've told me that you didn't
  9  sit down and discuss the affidavit with anyone prior to
 10  signing it.  After signing it, did you discuss this
 11  affidavit with anyone?
 12                 A:   After signing it?
 13                 Q:   Yes.
 14                 A:   No.
 15                 Q:   All right.  I'm not talking about
 16  August 24th.  Subsequently, did someone come -- did --
 17  did -- did concerns come to your attention about this
 18  affidavit?
 19                 A:   Yes.  My mother phoned me one day and
 20  said -- says, You're a principal.  I says, Where?  She
 21  said, On the front page.
 22                 Q:   Right.  So we'll come back to that in
 23  a moment.  Had you previously let your mother know that
 24  you were being asked to provide an affidavit?
 25                 A:   I mentioned it on the phone to her


  1  once that I -- they asked me to provide an affidavit, and
  2  I did mention that there were a lot of changes to it that
  3  I had to make.  I didn't mention what they were.
  4                 Q:   And to be specific about it, prior to
  5  signing the affidavit on August 24th, when you were still
  6  dealing with revisions, did you discuss the contents of
  7  the affidavit with your mother?
  8                 A:   No, I did not.
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12                 Q:   When you swore this affidavit on
 13  August 24th, who was present when you did that?
 14                 A:   Emilio and myself, and I think Tony
 15  was there.
 16                 Q:   And, Mr. McCallion, as of August
 17  24th, 2009, did you understand you were a principal of
 18  World Class Developments?
 19                 A:   No, I did not.
 20                 Q:   How do you account for the fact that
 21  paragraph 1 of this affidavit contains the statement:
 22                   "I am one (1) of the principals of
 23                   World Class Developments Limited."
 24                 I simply missed it.  I corrected the first
 25  half of the sentence, because I believe Emilio had me in


  1  there for thirty-five (35) years as a real estate agent.
  2  So I corrected that, and then I stopped reading, and I
  3  went to page 2.
  4                 Q:   Prior to signing the affidavit on
  5  August 24th, did you discuss the meaning of the word
  6  "principal" with Mr. Bisceglia or anyone else?
  7                 A:   I didn't discuss it with anybody.
  8                 Q:   Now, you've told me that your mother
  9  contacted you afterwards, after August 24th, apparently,
 10  and said, Well, it -- you're a principal, or something to
 11  that effect; is that right?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   Do you know how your mother became
 14  aware of what this affidavit said?
 15                 A:   I'm not exactly sure.  It could have
 16  been somebody at the City.  I'm -- I can speculate.
 17                 Q:   I won't ask you to speculate, Mr.
 18  McCallion.  Thank you.
 19                 Now, when your mother raised the word
 20  "principal" with you, did you have any understanding --
 21  you've told me it's not a word you use in everyday
 22  conversation.
 23                 A:   No.
 24                 Q:   But, did you have an understanding as
 25  to what "principal" meant?


  1                 A:   To me it meant an ownership.
  2                 Q:   At the time, did you think you were
  3  an owner?
  4                 A:   No, I did not.
  5                 Q:   What did you do after this
  6  conversation with your mother?
  7                 A:   I phoned Emilio and said, We need to
  8  correct the affidavit, because it says I am a principal,
  9  where I am not.
 10                 Q:   Did Mr. Bisceglia do anything in
 11  response to that request?
 12                 A:   He was downtown at the time, so he
 13  instructed his office to type it up, which he did.
 14                 Q:   Can we go to Exhibit 206, please.
 15  What I show you now, Mr. McCallion, is Exhibit 206, which
 16  appears to be an affidavit sworn by you.
 17                 And if we look at the second page, we see
 18  that it was apparently on September 11th, 2009, is that
 19  correct, sir?
 20                 A:   That is correct.
 21                 Q:   Now, you told me that Mr. Bisceglia
 22  had prepared this but that he was downtown, is that
 23  correct?
 24                 A:   In discoveries over something else,
 25  so he was unable to commission it. 


  1                 Q:   Pardon me.  He asked -- Mr. Bisceglia
  2  asked his staff to prepare it, might be the --
  3                 A:   Correct. 
  4                 Q:   -- correct --
  5                 A:   Correct, yes. 
  6                 Q:   -- way to put that.  So we don't know
  7  who at Mr. Bisceglia's office prepared this --
  8                 A:   Oh, we -- I don't know that. 
  9                 Q:   -- affidavit, is that correct?
 10                 A:   No. 
 11                 Q:   Thank you.  I may have -- I may have
 12  misled you in trying to summarize your testimony.
 13                 So we see that this affidavit then was
 14  commissioned by someone at another law firm, Danson
 15  Schwarz Recht, is that correct, sir?
 16                 A:   Correct, yes. 
 17                 Q:   And why did you have your affidavit
 18  commissioned there?
 19                 A:   I know them very well.  
 20                 Q:   Now, before you swore this affidavit
 21  on September 11th, did Mr. Bisceglia ever suggest to you
 22  that he had documents or that he believed you were indeed
 23  a -- a principal or owner of WCD?
 24                 A:   No. 
 25                 Q:   Did Mr. Bisceglia ever express any


  1  concern about you wanting to swear a revised affidavit?
  2                 A:   Not that he told me. 
  3                 Q:   I understand that you signed a
  4  further affidavit on September 15th, 2009, is that
  5  correct, Mr. McCallion?
  6                 A:   Correct, yes. 
  7                 Q:   And in that respect, I show you
  8  Exhibit 207.  And if we go to the second page, we'll see
  9  that this was apparently signed by you on September 15th,
 10  2009, is that correct, sir?
 11                 A:   Correct. 
 12                 Q:   Where did you have this affidavit
 13  commissioned?
 14                 A:   At the same place in Brampton. 
 15                 Q:   And we can now actually read the
 16  stamp.  It says:
 17                   "Heather Welner --"
 18                 A:   Welner. 
 19                 Q:
 20                   "-- a commissioner, Province of
 21                   Ontario, for Danson Schwarz Recht,
 22                   LLP."
 23                 Is that correct, sir?
 24                 A:   Correct. 
 25                 Q:   Now, Mr. McCallion, why did you find


  1  it necessary to swear a -- a further affidavit?
  2                 A:   I believed it wasn't clear, the first
  3  one, that the September 11th affidavit was not clear and
  4  specific.  So I wanted to be a little more specific, as I
  5  am not a principal of WCD. 
  6                 Q:   So what you're referring to is the
  7  statement:
  8                   "I am preparing this affidavit to amend
  9                   paragraph 1 of my affidavit sworn on
 10                   August 24, 2009.  The second sentence
 11                   of paragraph 1 of this affidavit, which
 12                   reads, quote: 'I am one of the
 13                   principals of World Class Developments
 14                   Limited (WCD),' should be deleted, as
 15                   it is not true."
 16                 Pardon me, I should have said "end quote"
 17  after "World Class Developments, WCD":
 18                   "...is not true.  I am not a principal
 19                   of WCD."
 20                 A:   Correct. 
 21                 Q:   Did anyone speak to you about the
 22  need for that clarification that you apparently felt was
 23  necessary?
 24                 A:   I believe my mother told me that it
 25  needed to be more clarified.


  1                 Q:   Did she say why?
  2                 A:   No, just more clarified. 
  3                 Q:   And to be clear about this, at the
  4  time  -- and now we're speaking of times; we're speaking
  5  of August 24th, September 11th, and September 15th.
  6                 Did you believe you were a principal of
  7  WCD on any of those occasions?
  8                 A:   No, I did not. 
  9                 Q:   How would you have described yourself
 10  at the time, in terms of your relationship with World
 11  Class Developments?
 12                 A:   At the time, I was basically acting
 13  as real estate agent and the promoter of the development,
 14  visionary.
 15                 Q:   Let me ask you this directly, Mr.
 16  McCallion.  Did you swear the September affidavits in an
 17  attempt to minimize your role within World Class
 18  Developments at your mother's request?
 19                 A:   No.
 20                 Q:   In fact, did you swear the September
 21  affidavits because you wanted to minimize your interest
 22  in WCD at all?
 23                 A:   No, I did not.
 24                 Q:   Now in retrospect, today, as we're
 25  here on July 27th, 2010, knowing what you know now, what


  1  is your view of the accuracy of the first affidavit, the
  2  August 24th affidavit?
  3                 A:   Based on what I know today, I was a
  4  principal.
  5                 Q:   Why do you say that, sir?
  6                 A:   By way of the trust declaration.
  7                 Q:   I'm turning now to the final area
  8  that we'll cover today, Mr. McCallion, and that is the
  9  settlement of the OMERS and World Class Developments
 10  litigation.
 11                 Did you play any role in facilitating that
 12  settlement, sir?
 13                 A:   I arranged a meeting between Tony
 14  DeCicco and Dave O'Brien.
 15                 Q:   Can you tell me how that came about,
 16  please?
 17                 A:   Well, it was at a TACC golf dinner at
 18  TACC, and Dave O'Brien was there.  And he came to me and
 19  said, I hear you're having difficulties with OMERS; can I
 20  help.
 21                 Q:   Pardon me, did you tell me when this
 22  was?
 23                 A:   It'd be in July, but I don't have a
 24  date.
 25                 Q:   In July of 2009 though?


  1                 A:   2009, yes.
  2                 Q:   Right.
  3                 A:   Or June.  It could have been the end
  4  of June.  I don't remember when the date of the golf
  5  tournament was.
  6                 Q:   Fair enough.  Now, I'd interrupted
  7  you.  You were saying that Mr. O'Brien approached you at
  8  this charity golf tournament.
  9                 A:   Correct.  And he said if he could
 10  help to settle the differences.  I says, Okay, I will
 11  arrange a meeting with Tony and yourself and see if
 12  something can be settled.
 13                 Q:   Did you attend that meeting?
 14                 A:   Yes, I did.  It was a breakfast
 15  meeting.
 16                 Q:   Where did it take place?
 17                 A:   Sunset Grill in Mississauga.
 18                 Q:   Was there a further meeting?
 19                 A:   Yes, there was.
 20                 Q:   Where --
 21                 A:   There was no resolution in the first
 22  meeting.
 23                 Q:   Fair enough.  And then there was a
 24  further meeting, and where was it?
 25                 A:   That was at the Delta Hotel in


  1  September.  I don't have the exact date.
  2                 Q:   Now, you attended that meeting as
  3  well?
  4                 A:   Yes, I did.
  5                 Q:   So you've told me your role was
  6  facilitating settlement by arranging meetings, is that
  7  right?
  8                 A:   That's correct.
  9                 Q:   Did you play any other role at the
 10  meetings themselves?
 11                 A:   No, I did not.
 12                 Q:   From your observations, how close
 13  were the parties in their positions?
 14                 A:   They weren't close at the first --
 15                 Q:   Can you elaborate on that?
 16                 A:   -- at the first or the second
 17  meeting.  Tony was, I believe, eight (8) or 10 million,
 18  and I think David had maybe mentioned 2 million or
 19  something.  I don't really -- exact -- know the number.
 20                 Q:   Did Mr. DeCicco talk to you about the
 21  final settlement terms?
 22                 A:   No, he didn't.
 23                 Q:   Did Mr. Bisceglia?
 24                 A:   No, he did not.
 25                 Q:   Did Mr. O'Brien?


  1                 A:   No, he did not.
  2                 Q:   Did you expect to be consulted about
  3  the final settlement terms?
  4                 A:   No, I did not.
  5                 Q:   Did you sign any of the settlement
  6  documents?
  7                 A:   No, I did not.
  8                 Q:   Were you asked to sign anything?
  9                 A:   No, I wasn't.
 10                 Q:   Now, in September, we -- we know that
 11  this actually settled, I believe, September 11th, 2009.
 12                 When this matter settled, did you expect
 13  to receive a part of the proceeds of the settlement?
 14                 A:   No, I expected to receive the money
 15  that I had put in, though, and the loan to TACC to be
 16  paid.
 17                 Q:   When you refer to the money that
 18  you'd put in, I take it you're referring to the -- the --
 19  the three (3) loans, the -- the TACC loan and the two (2)
 20  other loans --
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q. -- is that right?
 23                 A:   Yes. 
 24                 Q:   That we've cover --
 25                 A:   Minus whatever I took out already.


  1                 Q:   And we've covered those in the course
  2  of --
  3                 A:   Yes. 
  4                 Q:   -- my questions of you this morning,
  5  is that fair?
  6                 A:   Correct, yes.
  7                 Q:   And that was your expectation in
  8  September of 2009 in relation to payments from World
  9  Class Developments.
 10                 Today, July 27th, 2010, do you expect to
 11  receive any payment from World Class Developments, Mr.
 12  McCallion?
 13                 A:   No, I do not.
 14                 Q:   Any payment apart from, perhaps,
 15  repayment of the loan?
 16                 A:   Oh, repayment of the loans for sure.
 17  Anything above that, I'm not expecting anything. 
 18                 Q:   Thank you very much, Mr. McCallion.
 19  Those are my questions.
 21                      (BRIEF PAUSE)
 24  McDowell?
 25                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   There's been some


  1  discussion among counsel as to the order.  I wonder if it
  2  might make sense to have some of the questioners who've
  3  indicated they're going to be fairly brief go now.
  4                 Messrs. Jack and Barrack, I gather, have a
  5  few questions.
  6                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Sure.
  7                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   And perhaps Ms.
  8  Rothstein, if we get there.
  9                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   Yes, Your Honour.
 10  I only have a few questions, but I'd actually like a
 11  brief opportunity just to speak to someone before I ask
 12  those questions.
 14  right.  Well, why don't we -- Mr. Jack or Mr. Barrack, if
 15  they're ready to proceed, why don't we do that.
 16                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Sure.
 17                 MR. DON JACK:   Thank you.
 18                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 19  you, Mr. Jack.
 20                 MR. DON JACK:   Thank you.
 23                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, my name is Don Jack,
 24  and I represent 156 Square One Limited.
 25                 A:   Oh, yes. 


  1                 Q:   Thank you.  Now, you have been active
  2  as a registered real estate agent in the Mississauga area
  3  for many years?
  4                 A:   Yes. 
  5                 Q:   And active, particularly in more
  6  recent years, as a commercial real estate agent?
  7                 A:   Correct.   
  8                 Q:   And well known in that capacity?
  9                 A:   As well known as you can be.  
 10                 Q:   Yes.  And there was no secret, of
 11  course, about your role as agent on the WCD transaction,
 12  correct?
 13                 A:   Yes. 
 14                 Q:   You were not, of course, being paid
 15  by my client or any of the vendors?
 16                 A:   Correct.   
 17                 Q:   And there was never any question of
 18  that, was there?
 19                 A:   In the beginning, I was hoping that,
 20  yes; but in the end, they didn't want to.
 21                 Q:   Yes.  Mr. Lusk made it clear that you
 22  would not be paid --
 23                 A:   Yes. 
 24                 Q:   -- by my clients, correct?
 25                 A:   Correct.   


  1                 Q:   Yes.  And as the agent on the
  2  transaction, you were to be paid only if the transaction
  3  closed, correct?
  4                 A:   If there was commission on the
  5  transaction, yes. 
  6                 Q:  Yes.  And for that to happen, the
  7  transaction actually had to proceed to a closing, would
  8  it not?
  9                 A:   Correct.   
 10                 Q:   Yes.  And you were to be paid, in
 11  that event, the usual agent's fee, correct?
 12                 A:   (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE)  
 13                 Q:   You have --
 14                 A:   Correct.   
 15                 Q:   -- to give me verbal answer.
 16                 A:   Yes, yes.  Correct.   
 17                 Q:   Thank you.  And that would be quite
 18  different, would it not, from sharing in the ultimate
 19  profits of the development, were it to be a success,
 20  correct?
 21                 A:   Correct.   
 22                 Q:   Those profits, if the venture were to
 23  be a success, would very likely exceed the normal agent's
 24  fee that you might get?
 25                 A:   I would believe that to be true.


  1                 Q:   Yes.  In addition to that, unless you
  2  were to disclose any proprietary interest you had, that
  3  interest would remain unknown, wouldn't it?  You would
  4  simply be known as the agent on the deal?
  5                 A:   Well, if there was no payment on
  6  commission, there is no agent then.
  7                 Q:   No.  But if we were to suppose for a
  8  moment, just for the purposes of these questions, that
  9  you had an interest beyond merely being the agent, as
 10  you've described --
 11                 A:   Correct.   
 12                 Q:   -- unless that were specifically
 13  disclosed, it would not be known, correct?
 14                 A:   I believe that to be true.
 15                 Q:   Yes.  And you disclosed no such
 16  interest, if you had one, to my clients particularly, did
 17  you?
 18                 A:   No, I did not. 
 19                 Q:   In fact, with the exception of
 20  attending meetings at Page & Steele -- those were the
 21  architects which we've heard about from Mr. Lusk, which
 22  was relatively early in the process -- you never actually
 23  met with any representatives of my clients, did you?
 24                 A:   Prior -- well, at what stage are we
 25  at now?


  1                 Q:   Well, Mr. Lusk, as you may know, is a
  2  real estate consultant.
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   The evidence has been that he was
  5  acting for my clients.  And the evidence has been that
  6  you were at a Page + Steele meeting, or meetings,
  7  relatively early in the process.
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   Yes.  Aside from that occasion, I'm
 10  suggesting to you that you never actually attended any
 11  meetings with anybody who could be said to be a
 12  representative --
 13                 A:   No, I --
 14                 Q:   -- of my clients.
 15                 A:   You're right.  
 16                 Q:   You --
 17                 A:   No, I did not.
 18                 Q:   You agree with that.
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   You never sent my clients anything,
 21  did you?
 22                 A:   No.
 23                 Q:   No.  And it seems -- correct me if
 24  I'm wrong about this, but it seemed, in answer to
 25  questions from Mr. Gover, that you didn't actually know


  1  about the existence of my clients for quite some time as
  2  this matter progressed.
  3                 A:   Correct.
  4                 Q:   And as far as you are aware, sir, my
  5  clients would have had no reason to think of you as
  6  anything other than a normal real estate agent in this
  7  transaction.  Would you agree --
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   -- with that?  Now, one thing I want
 10  to make clear, because it's going to be important as we
 11  proceed, is it your position that you never told OMERS,
 12  or Oxford, or any person representing them, that you were
 13  off the file?
 14                 A:   I don't recall that, no.
 15                 Q:   Is it your position that, as far as
 16  you know, you did not convey any such statement to the
 17  Mayor herself?
 18                 A:   I don't recall that, no.
 19                 Q:   And as far as you know, she did not
 20  convey any such information to OMERS/Oxford.
 21                 A:   I do not know that.
 22                 Q:   You know of no occasion when she did
 23  that.
 24                 A:   I know of no occasion of her
 25  conveying that to anybody.


  1                 Q:   Yes.  And do you have any
  2  observations at all as to why OMERS/Oxford would have
  3  conveyed to my clients that you were off the file on
  4  December 16, 2008?
  5                 A:   No, I do not.
  6                 Q:   Thank you.  No further questions.
  8                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 11                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, my name's Michael
 12  Barrack, and I act for OMERS.
 13                 A:   Oh, thank you.  
 14                 Q:   Now, the answers that you just gave
 15  with respect to AIM, I take it you never told anyone at
 16  OMERS you were anything other than a broker.
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   You say, "Yes."  You -- you didn't --
 19                 A:   I --
 20                 Q:   -- tell anybody.
 21                 A:   I didn't tell anybody.
 22                 Q:   And throughout the piece, the only
 23  time you've told us that you had a meeting of any
 24  substance was this meeting on October 23, 2008.
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   And other than that, you never came
  2  close to negotiating anything --
  3                 A:   No, I didn't.
  4                 Q:   -- with OMERS or Oxford.
  5                 A:   No, I did not.
  6                 Q:   And in fact, at that meeting, you
  7  delivered a letter, and it was a letter from Mr. DeCicco.
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   And -- and, in fact, Mr. DeCicco was
 10  the person at that point that was negotiating principally
 11  on behalf of WCD.
 12                 A:   That's correct, yes.
 13                 Q:   And earlier, in the striking of the
 14  Agreement of Purchase and Sale, Mr. Cook was the person
 15  who negotiated on behalf of WCD.
 16                 A:   Yes, completely.
 17                 Q:   And in terms of the amendments to the
 18  Agreement of Purchase and Sale, that was Mr. DeCicco?
 19                 A:   I believe so, yes.
 20                 Q:   Right.  And on the termination of the
 21  Agreement of Purchase and Sale, that was Mr. DeCicco.
 22                 A:   Correct.
 23                 Q:   And similarly, with respect to the
 24  settlement of the lawsuit, that was you.  You spoke to
 25  Mr. O'Brien about arranging some meetings, but you did


  1  not do the negotiating.
  2                 A:   I did not, no.
  3                 Q:   And that was Mr. DeCicco that did the
  4  negotiating regarding the settlement of the lawsuit.
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   So that from the OMERS or Oxford
  7  perspective throughout, they would -- if -- if they
  8  concluded that you were in fact the broker on the deal,
  9  that would have been consistent with your view of your
 10  role on the deal at that point in time.
 11                 A:   Correct.
 12                 Q:   Thank you.  Those are my questions.
 14                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 17                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   I wonder if we
 18  could break now, because that will allow Mr. Rothstein to
 19  consult with the person she needs to consult with?
 21  need some time to speak to someone?
 22                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   I would appreciate
 23  it if we could --
 24                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Sure.
 25  Why don't we break now and come back at two o'clock.


  1                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Thank you.
  2                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thanks.
  3                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
  4  please.  The Inquiry stands recessed till two o'clock.
  6  --- Upon recessing at 12:23 p.m.
  7  --- Upon resuming at 2:09 p.m.
  9                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 10  please.  The Inquiry's reconvened.  Please be seated.
 11                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   Good afternoon,
 12  Commissioner.
 14  afternoon.
 17                 Q:   Good after, Mr. McCallion.  I'm Linda
 18  Rothstein.  We met this morning.
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   I think you know I act for World
 21  Class Developments and Mr. DeCicco.  And I think you know
 22  that my firm is Paliare Roland.  I know it's hard to say.
 23  And I think that you met two (2) of my colleagues last
 24  summer, Ms. Margaret Waddell and Mr. Jean-Claude Killey;
 25  is that right?


  1                 A:   Correct.
  2                 Q:   Okay.  And indeed, am I correct that
  3  you met them when you first discussed WCD's litigation
  4  with OMERS at Mr. Bisceglia's office last August, is that
  5  right?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   Do you know the date of that meeting,
  8  Mr. McCallion?
  9                 A:   I -- I do now, but I didn't remember
 10  it.  I believe it's August the 6th.
 11                 Q:   Right.  And am I right as well that
 12  my colleagues, Ms. Waddell and Mr. Killey, were in
 13  attendance at that meeting with you --
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   -- Mr. DeCicco, and Mr. Bisceglia?
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   And as between Mr. Bisceglia and my
 18  firm, I take it you don't really know who had the greater
 19  role in the preparation of your affidavit or any of the
 20  affidavit materials that were --
 21                 A:   No.
 22                 Q:   -- filed on behalf of WCD, is that
 23  fair?
 24                 A:   That is fair.
 25                 Q:   All right.  So when you say that you


  1  believe that Mr. Bisceglia prepared it, is that really
  2  more in the way of an assumption than actually...
  3                 A:   I had no knowledge.
  4                 Q:   Okay.  Now, dealing with the events
  5  that followed your swearing of your affidavit on August
  6  24th, 2009 -- because we know that's the date that it was
  7  ultimately sworn -- you've told your counsel, Mr. Gover,
  8  that sometime after that, it was brought to your
  9  attention by your mother that the word "principal" had
 10  been used to describe your role in WCD.  You told us
 11  about that this morning.
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   Okay.  And as a result of that
 14  conversation, you saw fit to make a change to your
 15  affidavit, right?
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   All right.  And in order to do that,
 18  you attended at Mr. Bisceglia's office.
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And am I correct, sir, that you
 21  attended at Mr. Bisceglia's office on September the 11th
 22  of 2009?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   All right.  Am I correct, sir, that
 25  Mr. Bisceglia himself was not in the office; he was


  1  downtown doing an examination for discovery?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   All right.  And so you spoke to his
  4  staff, a member or two (2) of his staff.
  5                 A:   I spoke to Emilio.
  6                 Q:   All right, you first spoke to Emilio.
  7                 A:   And then he said, Go to the office,
  8  and they will prepare it for you.
  9                 Q:   Okay.  So -- but he didn't know at
 10  the time what you were contemplating doing.  He simply
 11  knew that you wanted to make a change.  Am I correct
 12  about that?
 13                 A:   I believe I explained it to him.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  I anticipate, sir, that Mr.
 15  Bisceglia will be filing an affidavit in this
 16  proceedings.  And his evidence is that he didn't in fact
 17  know what you were contemplating, but he said, Go speak
 18  to my staff, and if they can assist you, by all means.
 19                 Does that accord with your recollection?
 20                 A:   Not completely.
 21                 Q:   All right.  In any event, you went to
 22  his office.  You instructed his staff to make a change to
 23  the affidavit by deleting the word "principal" and saying
 24  that that should be deleted from your affidavit, is that
 25  right?


  1                 A:   It was deleted, yes.
  2                 Q:   And then am I correct that in the --
  3  in the end result, after having instructed his staff to
  4  do that, his staff told you that they would not
  5  commission your affidavit?
  6                 A:   I didn't ask the staff to.  I assumed
  7  Emilio was not there, so I had to find someone else.
  8                 Q:   All right.  So you don't know
  9  anything about whether Mr. Bisceglia in fact instructed
 10  his staff not to commission your proposed affidavit.
 11                 A:   No, I do not know that.
 12                 Q:   All right.  And you then took the
 13  affidavit, and you didn't expect it to be commissioned in
 14  Mr. Bisceglia's office.
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 Q:   All right.  And then you told your
 17  counsel that you then went to another lawyer's office and
 18  had it commissioned.
 19                 A:   Correct.  
 20                 Q:   Right.  Okay, those are all my
 21  questions for you, sir.
 22                 A:   Thank you.  
 23                 Q:   Thank you very much.
 24                 A:   Thank you.


  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  4                 Q:   So, Mr. McCallion, as you know, I'm
  5  Will McDowell.  I'm Commission counsel.
  6                 A:   Yes.  
  7                 Q:   And we've met a number of times.
  8                 A:   Yes, quite a few.  
  9                 Q:   It's the nature of these things, I
 10  guess.  You're in -- I took from your evidence that
 11  you're in very close contact with your mother, the Mayor.
 13                 A:   Quite often, until the Inquiry, of
 14  course.
 15                 Q:   So if you go back to 2007, 2008,
 16  2009, at that point, you were driving her to various
 17  functions?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   You accompanied her at functions?
 20                 A:   At some of them, yes; not all.  
 21                 Q:   And you do various things around the
 22  house for her, cleaning the -- the pond --
 23                 A:   Yes.  
 24                 Q:   -- and cleaning the pool, I take it.
 25                 A:   Sometimes.  The pond takes more work.


  1                 Q:   Right, but you're in -- you're in
  2  touch with her -- you were in touch with her daily, I
  3  take it.
  4                 A:   Daily almost, yes.  
  5                 Q:   And you're still in touch with her a
  6  lot now, I hope.
  7                 A:   Well, a lot, yeah.  
  8                 Q:   But back then you were in touch every
  9  -- every day with her.
 10                 A:   Nearly.  
 11                 Q:   And recapitulating your evidence from
 12  this morning, as I made a note of it, it's your evidence
 13  that as far as you know, you did not realize that -- that
 14  she did not realize that you were anything but a real
 15  estate agent in this deal.
 16                 A:   Correct.  
 17                 Q:   Until relatively recently.
 18                 A:   Until relatively recently.  
 19                 Q:   And just -- we'll -- we'll go back
 20  over this, but again, taking your evidence from this
 21  morning, your evidence is that today you understand that
 22  you are a principal of WCD.
 23                 A:   Correct.  
 24                 Q:   In fact, you're the beneficial owner
 25  of shares of WCD.


  1                 A:   Yes.  
  2                 Q:   But that you didn't realize that
  3  through 2007 and 2008.
  4                 A:   That is right.  
  5                 Q:   Right, and that that was the case,
  6  notwithstanding, that you had invested thirty thousand
  7  (30,000) plus seventy-three thousand (73,000) plus fifty
  8  thousand (50,000) in the company.
  9                 A:   Correct.  
 10                 Q:   So a hundred and fifty three thousand
 11  five hundred (153,500).
 12                 A:   I didn't invest it.  I loaned it.  
 13                 Q:   You loaned it.  Fair enough.  You had
 14  signed a promissory note wherein you represented that you
 15  had authority as a signing officer.
 16                 A:   Correct.  
 17                 Q:   Right.  You had received living
 18  expenses from the company.
 19                 A:   Well, from the money I put in, I
 20  wanted some of it out to pay for living expenses, right.  
 21                 Q:   You put -- you put money in, you got
 22  money out of the company.  Last week, I believe we showed
 23  you a document which appears to indicate that your
 24  colleagues at WCD were, in fact, marketing the company on
 25  the basis that you were a part owner.


  1                 A:   I didn't know that.  
  2                 Q:   You didn't know that at the time, but
  3  that -- it appears that that's what they were doing.
  4                 A:   It appears that way, yes.  
  5                 Q:   Right.  And, sir, I -- I believe that
  6  Mr. Cook will come here and say that he thought that you
  7  were his partner.
  8                 A:   I can't answer that.  
  9                 Q:   Similarly, Mr. Couprie, you don't --
 10                 A:   Mr. Couprie was his partner, in my
 11  opinion, at the time.  
 12                 Q:   Right, and as we now know, you were
 13  in an ownership position of the company, as was Mr.
 14  Couprie at that period of time.
 15                 A:   Yes.  
 16                 Q:   Now, if we could turn up Affi --
 17  sorry -- Exhibit 212, which is your August 24th
 18  affidavit.  So just scrolling down and going to paragraph
 19  4.
 20                 So on paragraph 4, you say that in
 21  2004/2005 you became interested in developing Blocks 9
 22  and 29.
 23                 A:   Yes.  
 24                 Q:   Nine (9) being the south block,
 25  twenty-nine (29) the north block.


  1                 A:   Yes.  
  2                 Q:   On behalf of one of my clients, you
  3  say, Leo Couprie?
  4                 A:   Yes.  
  5                 Q:   In fact -- well, I appreciate that
  6  this affidavit was sworn for a particular purpose.
  7  Taking from your evidence this morning, your involvement
  8  with this piece of land goes back to 2002.
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   Right.  And in 2002, you were put in
 11  contact with some Chinese investors.
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   And this was a Mr. Shim?
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   And then you travelled to China.  Was
 16  it for the sole purpose of -- of having a meeting about
 17  these lands?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   And you met with a number of
 20  investors, including the Marble King.
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   Right.  And it's my understanding
 23  that you also met the Tin King on this voyage.
 24                 A:   Not on that specific trip.  That was
 25  another trip.


  1                 Q:   Another trip.  But these -- these
  2  were obviously men of considerable means.
  3                 A:   Oh, yes.
  4                 Q:   Right.  Who were -- the hope was that
  5  they were going to develop a hotel and condo development
  6  on these lands --
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   -- nine (9) and twenty-nine (29)?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   Nine (9) and twenty-nine (29) have
 11  been described to us as the last best piece of land in --
 12  in downtown Mississauga.
 13                 A:   I would have said the same.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  And in addition to that, in
 15  2004 you met a group of Korean investors, is that --
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   -- true?  And you made a proposal
 18  with Mr. Moldenhauer?
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And that took some time to work its
 21  way through, but in the end that -- that was not
 22  successful.
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   So in 2004/2005, you're continuing
 25  what is by now about a three (3) year project to try and


  1  do something on these lands.
  2                 A:   Well, prior to -- well, the time
  3  between Mr. Shim and the Koreans, there was nothing being
  4  done.
  5                 Q:   Fair, but -- but this is something
  6  that you began in 2002, and you're continuing in
  7  2004/2005?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   And then carrying onto paragraph 5,
 10  you say that:
 11                   "I knew that the City had developed an
 12                   overall concept for how it wanted lands
 13                   in the City Centre to be developed to
 14                   make the City Centre more of a
 15                   destination location."
 16                 Nothing secret about that.  That was in
 17  official documents from the City going back to 1994.
 18                 A:   I don't know the dates, but, yes.
 19                 Q:   And this is something -- you carry on
 20  in that paragraph.  You say:
 21                   "I believe that incorporating a hotel
 22                   and convention centre into a
 23                   development designed for the lands
 24                   would be essential in order to get City
 25                   approval for any development in the


  1                   lands."
  2                 Right?
  3                 A:   That's what it says.
  4                 Q:   That's what it says.  In fact, that's
  5  what you believed.
  6                 A:   I believed you needed a hotel beside
  7  the Living Arts Centre.
  8                 Q:   Right.  Because this was an important
  9  public project for the City.
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   And it -- it had been identified in
 12  that way for some time.
 13                 A:   Yes.  It was well known.
 14                 Q:   Now, I take it, following on from
 15  that, that you aware that this was your mother's goal as
 16  well on behalf of the City.
 17                 A:   As well.
 18                 Q:   Right.  This was something that she
 19  had campaigned for for some time.
 20                 A:   Yes, but it wasn't her exclusive
 21  idea.
 22                 Q:   No.  I mean, the City -- City council
 23  had signed on, I gather, back in the '90s.
 24                 A:   I don't know when they signed on with
 25  it, but --


  1                 Q:   And it's my understanding --
  2                 A:   -- everybody --
  3                 Q:   -- that you -- you heard her at times
  4  give speeches on this issue, and --
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   -- and so this was something that
  7  wasn't particularly secret.  Now, your evidence from this
  8  morning was that you -- you have a close family.
  9                 You speak, as I gather, five (5) or six
 10  (6) times a week to your mother.
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   You said that you have to answer the
 13  question whether you're working or not at any given time.
 14                 A:   She likes --
 15                 Q:   Familiar maternal topic, I guess.
 16                 A:   She likes to drive you.
 17                 Q:   And you -- as I understood your
 18  evidence, you spoke about what you were up to, what you
 19  were working on, almost every time you saw her?
 20                 A:   Well, not specific, but in general.
 21                 Q:   In general.
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   What are you working on, that kind of
 24  thing.
 25                 A:   Yeah.


  1                 Q:   And so may I assume that when you
  2  went to China on this project, that's something that you
  3  would have mentioned to her.
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   Right.  And when you're in touch with
  6  the Korean investors, that's something that you would
  7  have mentioned to her.
  8                 A:   Probably.  More so the Chinese than
  9  the Koreans.
 10                 Q:   So when you get up to paragraph 6 in
 11  the affidavit, you say that you approached the applicants
 12  -- and I'm skipping some of the words -- who were the
 13  owners of the lands:
 14                   "...through their property manager
 15                   Oxford, namely Mr. Michael Nobrega,
 16                   with a rough proposal."
 17                 You're taking the idea which you have had
 18  in mind to put a hotel and conven -- and condos on this
 19  land, and you're taking that directly to Mr. Nobrega.
 20                 A:   No, I phoned Mr. Nobrega to find out
 21  who I would have to take it to at OMERS -- or Oxford,
 22  sorry.
 23                 Q:   All right.  But you started --
 24                 A:   Because I didn't know who to deal
 25  with there.


  1                 Q:   But the one (1) person that you knew
  2  there, fortuitously, was Mr. Nobrega.
  3                 A:   Correct.
  4                 Q:   And you knew him from functions, and
  5  I assume that you -- you have to say "yes" or "no" for
  6  the record.
  7                 A:   Yes.  Yes.
  8                 Q:   And I assume that you met him through
  9  your mother at one (1) of these functions?
 10                 A:   Oh, for sure.
 11                 Q:   Right.  And you took this idea of
 12  developing these lands, and -- and as I say, you started
 13  with him, and then he put you on to the right person at
 14  Oxford?
 15                 A:   He put me to the right person at
 16  Oxford.
 17                 Q:   Then at paragraph 7 you say that:
 18                   "OMERS was sufficiently interested in
 19                   my rough proposal, that I concluded
 20                   that a deal could likely be struck with
 21                   the vendors, so I began assembling a
 22                   development team, including architects,
 23                   planners, and hotel consultants. "
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   That's true?


  1                 A:   Basically.
  2                 Q:   Basically.  But it was you who was
  3  there first, and then you assembled the team?
  4                 A:   Yes.  
  5                 Q:   Yeah.
  6                 A:   Well, Mr. Couprie was already there
  7  because he had the money.
  8                 Q:   Well, let's just back up.  You had
  9  the idea, if I can put it that way --
 10                 A:   I had the idea.
 11                 Q:   Right.  And let me just finish this.
 12  You began in 2002 to promote the idea.  You went to one
 13  (1) group, and then in 2004/2005 to another group.
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   And then you went to the land owner?
 16                 A:   No, I went to Mr. Couprie first.
 17                 Q:   Okay.  Let's -- I wasn't clear about
 18  that.  So you went to Mr. Couprie -- is it Couprie or Co
 19  -- Couprie?
 20                 A:   Couprie.
 21                 Q:   All right.  So you went to Mr.
 22  Couprie, and you wanted to ensure that he would put
 23  something substantial under the project?
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   Right.  But again, this wasn't --


  1                 A:   As to him, I had nothing to go with.
  2                 Q:   Right.  But you were putting the
  3  project together?
  4                 A:   I was putting it together, but
  5  without him, I couldn't do it.
  6                 Q:   Fair enough.  But when you said in
  7  the affidavit that you were doing this on behalf of one
  8  (1) of your clients, this is paragraph 4, Leo Couprie, in
  9  fact, that's -- three (3), sorry -- that's not -- four
 10  (4).
 11                 In fact, that's not really what I've heard
 12  you describe today.  I'm not being critical, but what --
 13  what I'm hearing today is that you were the proponent of
 14  the proposal; he was going to invest in it.
 15                 A:   Well, you have to go back to the
 16  Koreans; they were going to finance it.  Then I needed --
 17  they wanted me to put a team together so that they could
 18  finance it.  So I needed financing and I needed someone
 19  to negotiate the agreement.
 20                 Q:   All right.  But Mr. Couprie, I
 21  gather, was going to be the investor?
 22                 A:   Correct.
 23                 Q:   Right.  And otherwise, this was your
 24  proposal; he is the investor, correct?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   And then WCD was incorporated, as I
  2  understand it.  If we then go back to your evidence from
  3  this morning, you then got Mr. Cook involved, because he
  4  had a lot of experience, and he knew how to negotiate
  5  with the City.
  6                 Is that right?
  7                 A:   No, with OMERS.
  8                 Q:   All right.  But, I mean, he knew how
  9  to negotiate just generally?
 10                 A:   Yes, right.
 11                 Q:   And you wanted him to deal with --
 12                 A:   But specifically with -- 
 13                 Q:   the vendor --
 14                 A:   -- OMERS.
 15                 Q:   All right.  But again, you were there
 16  first and then you got him involved?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   All right.  So let's look at Exhibit
 19  258.
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 23                 Q:   So this is written as of October 4th,
 24  2005.  Mr. Hagas (phonetic) and Mr. Latimer are emailing.
 25                   "We have been attempting to reach the


  1                   proposed purchaser development partner
  2                   today."
  3                 And then it carries on:
  4                   "If you feel you need to communicate
  5                   further with Hazel, then you can advise
  6                   her that we are attempting to contact
  7                   Mr. Cook."
  8                 And then it carries on.  So the contact
  9  with Mr. Cook is in relation to a proposal of which you
 10  are part?
 11                 A:   I helped create.
 12                 Q:   You're part of it?