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"

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.

Carmen Corbasson: Eulogy by Councillor Nando Iannicca. Trinity Anglican Church, Port Credit

March 18th, 2012  


‘Ike aku, ‘ike mai, kokua aku kokua mai; pela iho la ka nohana ‘ohana.
Translation: Recognize others, be recognized, help others, be helped; such is a family relationship.


And for the record, like Councillor Iannicca, Councillor Corbasson is Family to me.

This blog is dedicated to Councillor Carmen Corbasson. Special thanks to Councillor Nando Iannicca.

Note, this transcript contains numerous [inaudible] notations. I did this rather than guess at what Councillor Iannicca may have said.

Carmen Corbasson: Eulogy by Councillor Nando Iannicca. Trinity Anglican Church, Port Credit (9:00 min)

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


MISSISSAUGAWATCH parked opposite Trinity Anglican Church, Port Credit/Mississauga, March 16, 2012

It is Friday, March the 16th, 2012 and I’m parked here opposite Trinity Anglican Church in Port Credit.

And the services have been completed for Councillor Carmen Corbasson.

And I won’t give a complete run-down of everything that happened and everything that I witnessed. I think what I’d rather do at this point is just introduce the eulogy given by Councillor Corbasson’s close friend and colleague, Councillor Nando Iannicca.

Councillor Iannicca gave a superb, superb speech —and good-bye. And —beautifully summarized —just to perfection, what Councillor Corbasson represented.

He basically said it was just the best that we as citizens could hope for in someone who represents us.


Councillor Nando Iannicca about Carmen Corbasson, Trinity Anglican Church, Port Credit/Mississauga, March 16, 2012

—Judy, thank you.

My thanks also to Lisa, Julie, Sebastion and the family. And I’ve been given a handful of privileges in my life but none greater than the one I have now. [inaudible] all of my Council colleagues to express some thoughts about my friend, Carmen Corbasson.

Was Kind. Compassionate. Caring. Comforting. Consoling. Civil. Sympathetic.


Loyal. Selfless. Proper. Classy.

Dedicated. Hard-working. Committed. Respectful. Humble. Intelligent. Wise. Forgiving. Grateful.


Humane. Nurturing. Loving.

And if you’re like me, you’re going over the list that I missed! Because that described Carmen Corbasson. The Carmen that we all knew.

I remember first meeting Carmen in 1988 when I was elected a very, very young member of Council. And amongst the many blessings in my life two of them were my executive assistant Brenda Robertson and Carmen, who worked as executive assistants at the time. Carmen, of course, worked for Harold Kennedy.

And they were both caring, compassionate and they were the older sisters that I’ve never had.

They were a real tempering influence. And you need people like Carmen and her tempering influence when some of the other people around the table are [inaudible]. And she does that. She was our steady hand at Council.

I remember one of the endearing traits was any time you met Carmen her first question was, “How’s your family?” “How’s everybody doing?” And she meant it sincerely.

She took on a great fondness for my wife, Ann-Marie, who also loved her dearly, and would remark that I married very well in life. And I agree.

And it was interesting to me that Carmen had some of the attributes that my wife has as well. She also had some French descent in her. I don’t think you knew that. And she also had some Russian descent in her.

And she reminds me of another character that lived in my ward, the Grand Duchess Olga, who was part of the Russian royal family who lived in Ward 7 on Camilla Road.

And the reason she brings Carmen to mind is that she had that same noble pedigree, but a very humble demeanour.

[video-left: Councillor Corbasson at re-opening of Memorial Park, Port Credit September 16, 2006
video-right: Carmen Corbasson at October 4, 2006 Lakeview Ratepayers Association meeting]

And that was our Carmen.

I remember another day when we were sitting at Council Chamber, and much to a lot of people’s surprise —there in Council, any special announcements and Councillor Kennedy said “Yes, [inaudible] I will not be seeking public office again.”

When it concluded, I marched up the stairs and I went right to Carmen’s office. And I said, “Carmen [inaudible]. What a wonderful opportunity for you.”

She was befuddled! She was shocked!

As opposed to the politics that we’re used to today. “Where is Opportunity? What can I get out of this?”, she was “What can I possibly bring?”, “How can I serve?”, “Am I worthy?”

[video-left: March 28, 2007 video of Councillor Corbasson defending the Port Credit Library
video-right: Carmen Corbasson supporting the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, October 28, 2010]

And she carried it for all her years as a public official.

She really was in many ways an anomaly of public life because she is what people would hope politicians aspire to be [inaudible].

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Trinity Anglican Church, Port Credit/Mississauga, March 16, 2012

[whispering into audio recorder] Iannicca nailed that dead-on. He’s absolutely right.

[video-left: May8, 2007 video of Councillor Corbasson, Enersource debate
video-right: Carmen Corbasson supporting the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, October 28, 2010]

Councillor Nando Iannicca about Carmen Corbasson, Trinity Anglican Church, Port Credit/Mississauga, March 16, 2012

I think George Carlson said it very well when he said, “She was a dove in a sea of hawks.”

[inaudible] tell me if you can picture this. [inaudible] Councillor Carlson, but my view is that, regrettably at times, politics is a combative blood sport. She was our Florence Nightingale.

She was the kindest, most loving nurse you could hope for that said, “There may be a war, but can we have peace as well?” And it’s what she brought to the table more than anything.

In that regard I have another interesting anecdote for you.

It was remarkable to think that I was given the privilege to be a pall bearer. And as I was performing that service, [inaudible] in comes Brad Butt and ex-husband Bill. You know it’s remarkable, they say if you want to test the measure of a woman or a man upon their death, have their foes or their enemies speak to them. To their character.

We would but we can’t find any.

So it is that former political adversaries and an ex-husband are pall-bearers at your funeral. You don’t see that on Reality Television very much.

In terms of moving forward, the last thought that I’d leave with you —a couple of thoughts.

[video-left: May 8, 2007 video of Councillor Corbasson, Enersource debate
video-right: Carmen Corbasson debate regarding Integrity Commissioner, September, 2010]

I remember just before Christmas, Carmen and I were having lunch —amongst others, and she knew that this surgery was coming forward. Had been pending, let’s say, for a while.

And to Julie, to Lisa, to Sebastion —I’ve never told you this but I will share it with you now.

All she could think about was none of the surgery in and of itself as it related to her. It was “I hope it all works out. I hope I come out one hundred percent —for my girls. For Sebastion. For my grandchildren. Nando, that’s what I’m really concerned about.”

[video-left: May 23, 2007 video of Councillor Corbasson, Power Plants debate
video-right: Carmen Corbasson debate regarding Integrity Commissioner, September, 2010]

And of course, I answered, you will be fine.

And even in that moment, where most of us would be wondering what the operation looks like, and you have every right to be selfish, she was not. She thought of others.

My final words, I hope are some words of comfort to a dear friend.

You know it’s interesting [inaudible] that I [inaudible] Sebastion and Carmen longer than anybody here in the room. And in fact I’ll take some credit I think for having introduced them. Sebastion is one of my very dear friends along with Carlo who’s here today and [inaudible] who became known as The Three Amigos during her first election campaign.

And Carmen struck up quite a relationship. And Carmen, as you know Sebastion, was your soul-mate, was your partner.

In trying to comfort Sebastion, Ann-Marie and I had him over to the house with some of his friends. And you can appreciate the first thoughts are shock —that we all had.

Then we turned [inaudible] and Sebastion said something very interesting.

He said, “Wouldn’t the world be a better place if everybody had a little bit of Carmen in them?” [inaudible] question.

[inaudible] and say, “Why? Why does God take the Good?” [inaudible]

In looking back at that, the thought that I leave with you, Sebastion is I think —and this isn’t politics and it isn’t the rhetoric of a politician— the thought that I leave you with and all of you with is let’s take that point and say, “What a blessing that we had her.” Many others did not. And will never have a friend like that.

And to you, Sebastion, you are the man you are because of her.

To her daughters, the legacy that she leaves behind —the children.

So let’s rejoice in her life. God wants good people. He just took one. And let’s hope, and trust, that she quite deservedly rests in peace.


—Councillor Nando Iannicca
March 16, 2012

Councillor Carmen Corbasson, "She was a dove in a sea of hawks"


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!

What effect the “robocall”? Mississauga Ward 6 percentages showing support for Mayor Hazel McCallion, Carolyn Parrish and Ron Starr by polling stations

November 21st, 2010  

Over the last few days we’ve taken the City of Mississauga’s PDF file of the official election results and converted them into a spreadsheet. On November 17th we reported the most preliminary of preliminary findings in the Blog, “Mississauga News quotes Councillors: VOTERS’ LIST WAS A “MESS”. Why didn’t the City check its own Official Election Results?!” That Blog provided insight into how Hazel McCallion’s 107,643 votes were distributed both by ward and polling stations. These data however don’t necessarily show support for McCallion because it was possible for her to receive the highest number of votes in a polling station where she only got 40-50% of Mayor’s ballots cast—a plurality, in other words.

Our November 18th Blog, “Spreadsheet into percentage of Hazel McCallion’s votes by Mississauga polling stations provides unique insights” presented McCallion’s support by polling station based on the simple equation “Votes for Hazel McCallion” divided by “Total Ballots Cast for Mayor”.  Example. There are 10 ballets cast for Mayor. 8 were for Hazel McCallion. 8/10 or 80% support at that polling station.

Our November 19th Blog, “Mississauga Ward 5 percentages showing support for incumbents Mayor Hazel McCallion and Councillor Eve Adams by polling stations” focused only on Ward 5 polling station results showing the percentage support for both incumbents Mayor Hazel McCallion and Councillor Eve Adams. We decided to report on Ward 5 first because Malton Community Centre is one of our primary Roots of Youth Violence research sites.

While my inclination was to present Wards 8, 3 and 7 first and in that order, we know most people would be more interested in the Ward 6 Carolyn Parrish/Ron Starr breakdown.

For context we also did the breakdown for Advanced Polls versus Voting Day to see if  Hazel McCallion’s robocall had any effect.  The stats for Hazel McCallion? Advanced Polls had her vote percentages at 75.34% and 77.08% on Voting Day or a difference in support of 1.74%—roughly the same. (Hazel McCallion won overall with 76.40%)

Now for the Ward 6 councillor-data. At the Advanced Polls, Carolyn Parrish received 851 out of 1,918 ballots cast for councillor or 44.37%. At the Advanced Polls Ron Starr received 901 out of 1,918 ballots cast for councillor or 46.98%.

On Voting Day, Carolyn Parrish received 5,621 votes out of 14,200 ballots cast for councillor or 39.58%—a drop of 4.79% . On Voting Day, Ron Starr received 7,460 votes out of 14,200 ballots cast for councillor or 54.54% a gain of  7.56%

In the Advanced Polls, there’s no doubt that Ron Starr was ahead 46.98% to 44.37% for Parrish. There’s a temptation to suggest that the robocall did what it was intended to do. But before we can draw that conclusion, we’d need to examine the patterns of support for Advanced Polls versus Voting Day percentages for all wards.

So. Here’s the latest spreadsheet. Ward 6. Reminder, these data are preliminary and should readers find errors we ‘d appreciate being advised.

Voter Support for Hazel McCallion (“HM”), Carolyn Parrish (“CP”) and Ron Starr (“RS”) according to polling station
NOTE: For context Hazel McCallion won with
76.40%. Ron Starr won with 51.78%.

                                   Total  Votes Votes                 Total
 Polling Location                 Ballots  for   for  Carolyn  Ron   Votes for   % for   % for   % for
                                    Cast   HM   Mayor PARRISH STARR Councillor     HM      CP      RS

0108 6 McBride Ave Public School    1198    942  1176    526    535    1175      80.10%  44.77%  45.53%
0109 6 Springfield Public School    1241    865  1221    438    713    1178      70.84%  37.18%  60.53%
0110 6 Queenston Drive Pub School    866    668   841    316    489     843      79.43%  37.49%  58.01%
0111 6 StDavid of Wales School      1614   1229  1576    514    969    1579      77.98%  32.55%  61.37%
0112 6 Edenrose Public School       1154    906  1125    465    611    1131      80.53%  41.11%  54.02%
0113 6 StBernadette School          1493   1101  1456    648    674    1450      75.62%  44.69%  46.48%
0114 6 Fallingbrook Middle School    946    678   934    395    426     921      72.59%  42.89%  46.25%
0115 6 StHerbert Catholic School    1079    847  1068    455    504    1048      79.31%  43.42%  48.09%
0116 6 St.Dunstan Catholic School    915    743   906    256    600     901      82.01%  28.41%  66.59%
0117 6 River Grove C.C.             1465   1116  1453    514    822    1435      76.81%  35.82%  57.28%
0118 6 Whitehorn Public School      1258    992  1246    538    586    1235      79.61%  43.56%  47.45%
0119 6 St.Valentine Catholic School 1301    912  1280    543    510    1267      71.25%  42.86%  40.25%
0120 6 Yee Hong Centre                43     32    37     10     16      27      86.49%  37.04%  59.26%
0121 6 Leisureworld-Streetsville      29     28    29      3      5      10      96.55%  30.00%  50.00%
0122 6 Advance Poll Day 1            151    111   149     51     86     148      74.50%  34.46%  58.11%
0123 6 Advance Poll Day 2             98     85    97     34     55      98      87.63%  34.69%  56.12%
0124 6 McBride Avenue PS-Day3        433    290   414    193    178     427      70.05%  45.20%  41.69%
0125 6 McBride Avenue PS-Day4        390    275   379    189    159     380      72.56%  49.74%  41.84%
0126 6 River Grove CC - Day 3        405    317   401    182    194     398      79.05%  45.73%  48.74%
0127 6 River Grove CC - Day 4        475    361   470    202    229     467      76.81%  43.25%  49.04%

For the record we provide this video, uploaded to YouTube on June 21, 2007. We submit it contained Councillor Carolyn Parrish’s greatest mistake. OF COURSE, the City of Mississauga is a Secret Society!


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

Last, here’s the related article courtesy of the Mississauga News.

You can fight (at) city hall

Simmering tensions between Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion and newbie Councillor Carolyn Parrish erupted at council yesterday over who should maintain the city’s streetlights.

For 30 minutes, business ground to a halt and city staff appeared captivated by the exchange, sometimes dripping with sarcasm, that flew between the veteran politicians – one the longtime mayor of the GTA’s second-largest city, the other a former MP rumoured to have ambitions for her seat.

After a series of pointed questions by Parrish – on questions she’d submitted earlier that became the subject of a staff report – the mayor decided she’d had enough.

McCallion told Parrish that just wasn’t the way business was done at Mississauga City Hall, where tradition is that councillors ask staff questions about reports before council meetings, not during.

“Let me advise you, Councillor Parrish, there’s a process around here that we follow,” McCallion lectured, describing how at 8 a.m. that very morning she had met with senior staff about the report on the city’s hydro utility, Enersource.

“I got the answers, therefore I don’t have to ask them at council,” McCallion said.

Parrish responded that she wanted fellow councillors to understand the issues, which brought a retort that they could do their own homework.

That drew a muted response from Parrish at first, but 25 minutes later, after she’d had ample time to mull over the mayor’s rebuke, she let rip with her own.

“We represent the city, we don’t represent ourselves,” Parrish said.

“So if I ask questions in open session on (cable) television, I have a right to do so,” she said, noting that having worked at various levels of government, she was used to asking questions in various forums.

“And if I don’t like the answers (given privately), I will ask them again in public. Even if I do like the answers, I will ask them again in public. This isn’t a secret society.”

That ratcheted things up a notch. McCallion suggested Parrish was trying to take credit for a proposed review of Enersource when it was actually a staff idea, and accused her of grandstanding.

“If you agree with the answers (in private), let’s not go through an exercise of making you look good in the eyes of the public because you ask questions and you got the right answer from staff,” McCallion said.

She told Parrish she should only question staff in council about issues she disagreed with.

“Madam Mayor, I thank you very much for the civics lesson,” Parrish responded. “I have been in government for 20 years at various levels. I always asked questions and I will continue to ask questions.

“If we have a system around here whereby I have to check with you before I ask questions, I will do that quite delightfully,” said Parrish.

And so it went for seven more minutes before another councillor finally piped up, saying: “Let’s move on.”

That was when the vote asking staff to begin the process of getting multiple bids for the streetlight maintenance contract was called.

The motion passed unanimously.

E MALAMA KAKOU. To care for All.


Hazel McCallion. Michael Nobrega. WCD. WHO wanted the court file SEALED? “–the Mayor did have a much tighter relationship with the Oxford group than they did with us.”

August 12th, 2010  

We’ve got a unique one for you today!

Video combining August 11, 2010 Inquiry testimony by Craig Coleman, former president of 156 Square One and Hawthorne Realty Advisors (AIMCo rep), with video from the January 22, 2009 meticulousy-orchestrated Enersource public information meeting.

So how meticulously-orchestrated was it?

It was so meticulously-orchestrated that Hazel McCallion did not invite former city manager (and key negotiator) Dave O’Brien to the meeting.

Truer words were never spoken than Mr. Coleman’s August 11th comment about Hazel McCallion, Michael Nobrega/Dave O’Brien OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees’ Retirement System):

— the Mayor did have a much tighter relationship with the Oxford group than they did with us.

Here’s video confirming AIMCo’s terrific instincts!

And the court transcript!

Video: Hazel McCallion. Michael Nobrega. WCD. WHO wanted the court file SEALED? (4:04 min)

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

“Q” is William McDowell, “A” is Craig Coleman

 16                 Q:   Now, let's look at Exhibit 380.  So
 17  this is September 11th, 2009.  There's an offer to settle
 18  that's been received by Mr. Smart, and he's emailed you.
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   When did you learn that the
 21  litigation had in fact been settled?
 22                 A:   It would have been later that day.  I
 23  was out of the office and actually not receiving phone
 24  calls or emails.  And it would have been around four
 25  o'clock that evening that I had -- when I -- when I kind


  1  of got in an area where my Blackberry was working, all of
  2  sudden a number of emails and phone messages popped up,
  3  and we had learned that Oxford wanted to settle.
  4                 Q:   Okay.  Let's look at Exhibit 382.
  5  This is the offer that Mr. Smart's referring to, I take
  6  it?
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   Let's scroll down.  So the number
  9  we've heard in other evidence is $4 million.  And then if
 10  you look at the third paragraph there:
 11                   "The parties will consent to an order
 12                   to remove all the application and
 13                   counter-application materials from the
 14                   court file or to seal the court file."
 15                 Was the genesis of that notion of sealing
 16  the file WCD?
 17                 A:   I -- I don't know.
 18                 Q:   You don't know.  Then let's look at
 19  Exhibit 383.  So Mr. Charles reporting to you, John, and
 20  Gawain -- Mr. Filipetti and Mr. Smart, I take it?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:
 23                   "They have been instructed to accept
 24                   the settlement offer from WCD at the
 25                   cost of 4.0 million.  They indicated


  1                   that due to a larger OMERS relationship
  2                   with the City of Mississauga, they are
  3                   willing to accept the settlement."
  4                 This, I gather, didn't sit well with --
  5  with your clients, AIMCo?
  6                 A:   We weren't consulted --
  7                 Q:   Right.
  8                 A:   -- with respect to the settlement.
  9  We weren't aware that people were even negotiating a
 10  settlement.
 11                 Q:   M-hm.
 12                 A:   We were comfortable with our position
 13  with respect to the litigation.
 14                 Q:   M-hm.
 15                 A:   So this come -- this really -- this
 16  settlement came out of the blue.
 17                 Q:   Did you understand that you had an
 18  opportunity to veto the settlement?
 19                 A:   From our perspective at this point in
 20  time, we believed it was a done -- it was effectively a
 21  done deal.
 22                 Q:   Right.  So that --
 23                 A:   It's been done.  Our understanding is
 24  it's been done at a higher level.  And quite frankly,
 25  Oxford's there to get it papered and get it done.


  1                 Q:   Did you speak to Mr. Smart about the
  2  settlement personally?
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   Tell us about that discussion.
  5                 A:   Well, again, we weren't happy.  We
  6  were trying to understand why.  We were con -- we were
  7  concerned about -- we were concerned in that we -- we
  8  don't know why this settlement happened; we don't know
  9  the details of the settlement; we don't know what the
 10  impetus to the settlement was; and I relayed all that
 11  Gawain, and quite frankly, was concerned that -- we were
 12  concerned with our position.
 13                 Q:   Did you appreciate that -- that he
 14  had been out of the loop in the settlement discussions as
 15  well?
 16                 A:   It seemed to maybe catch him a bit
 17  off guard as well.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH alternate logo. "We don't call it MYTHissauga for nothing!"

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY: April 30, 2010 –a motion filed by The Mississauga News calling for Peter McCallion’s affidavit, etc (in its entirety 85:21 min)

May 4th, 2010  

Video: MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY: April 30, 2010 (in its entirety  85:21 min)

Click here to go directly to the clip on MISSISSAUGAWATCH Vimeo


Click here to go directly to the court transcript a the City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website.

The following is cut-and-pasted from the City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website. The video may differ slightly from the court transcript.

Last, I feel silly mentioning this but must. As the videographer, please note that I am only one of two mayoral candidates challenging Hazel McCallion in the 2010 Mississauga municipal election and we are both considered fringe candidates.

  9  Before:        Associate Chief Mr. Justice J. Douglas
 10                 Cunningham
 19  HELD AT:
 20                    Provincial Offence Court
 21                       Mississauga, Ontario
 22                         April 30, 2010
 24                          Pages 1 to 65


  1                        APPEARANCES
  2  William McDowell                  )Commission Counsel
  3  Naomi Loewith                     )
  5  Freya Kristjanson  (np)           )For Mayor Hazel McCallion
  6  Elizabeth McIntyre                )
  8  Brian Gover                       ) For Peter McCallion
  9  Lusia Ritacca                     )
 11  Clifford Lax, Q.C. (np)           )For City of Mississauga
 12  Tracy Wynne      (np)            )
 13  James Renihan                     )
 15  Michael Barrack                  )For OMERS
 16  John Finnigan  (np)               )
 17  James Roks     (np)               )
 19  Alan Mark (np)                    )For Enersource
 20  Kelly Friedman   (np)            )
 22  Don Jack         (np)            ) For 156 Square One
 23  Adam Goodman     (np)            )
 25  Ryder Gilliland                   ) Mississauga News


  1                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  2                                                       Page No.
  3  Submissions by Mr. Ryder Gilliland                          4
  4  Submissions by Mr. Bryan Gover                             25
  5  Submissions by Mr. William McDowell                        34
  6  Reply by Mr. Ryder Gilliland                               37
  8  Discussion                                                 41
 10  Submissions by Ms. Elizabeth McIntyre                      50
 11  Submissions by Mr. William McDowell                        59
 12  Reply by Ms. Elizabeth McIntyre                            62
 14  Certificate of transcript                                 65


  2  --- Upon commencing at 10:06 a.m.
  4                 THE COURT CLERK:   All rise.  Please be
  5  seated.
  7  morning.  We have a number of issues to deal with this
  8  morning, but I think, in order to, perhaps, to
  9  convenience counsel, what we might do is deal with the
 10  motion being brought by the Mississauga News, counsel are
 11  here on that matter.  Good morning.
 14                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   Good morning,
 15  Commissioner.  I see we've all rather unhelpfully used
 16  white covers for our materials.  Helpfully, I'm only
 17  going to refer, I think, to two (2) -- two (2)
 18  authorities, our book of authorities, which has a white
 19  cover --
 21  have it.
 22                 MR. RYDER GILLIHAND:   -- and says
 23  "Mississauga News" on it, and the book of authorities of
 24  Peter McCallion.


  1  right.
  2                 MR. RYDER GILLIHAND:   And I don't -- I
  3  don't intend to make any reference to the -- the fact
  4  that are -- although, as you know, there's factum filed
  5  by my client, Mr. McCallion, and, of course, Commission
  6  counsel.
  7                 I wanted to deal as a pre -- I'll present
  8  it as a preliminary matter, and -- and I'm -- I'm in your
  9  hands as to -- as to how we proceed.  But My Friends have
 10  raised a question as to whether -- as to whether or not
 11  you should -- I don't know if hear this is too strong,
 12  but revisit your decision, given that you already made a
 13  ruling on -- on March 4th.  And that's undoubtedly so.
 14  There's no question that you did make a ruling on March
 15  4th on this -- on -- that's germane to this issue.
 16                 I've reviewed the transcript, however, and
 17  it -- it's clear to me that you weren't presented with
 18  any submissions with respect to open courts,
 19  Dagenais/Mentuck test, which I understand Commission
 20  counsel agrees is the co -- controlling test here.  Not
 21  all counsel agree, but Commission couns --
 22                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Not all
 23  counsel.
 24                 MR. RYDER GILLIHAND:   -- Commission
 25  counsel agrees, was not presented to you.  And, in my


  1  submission, it's entirely proper and, indeed, we would go
  2  further and say required that you reconsider your ruling
  3  in light of Charter principles that were not presented to
  4  you the first time -- the first time around.
  5                 And I should add that those arguments, of
  6  course, would have been raised if -- if the media had
  7  been given notice of -- of what was intended.  The
  8  practice since Dagenais, as -- as you will know, is to
  9  give notice to the media whenever there's an order sought
 10  that -- that impacts on Section 2(b) rights.
 11                 And My Friend for Mr. McCallion indicates
 12  that there was notice given, and he makes reference to
 13  paragraph 33 of his submissions on the motion in which he
 14  raised as an alternative ground, that -- that there might
 15  be a confidentiality order.  In my submission, that's a
 16  far cry from the kind of notice that would, for example,
 17  allow us to have -- to have been here before you in
 18  advance of the March 4th ruling.
 19                 So, in short, you didn't hear argument on
 20  what submit is a very important point; we think you
 21  should have.  We now want to present those arguments, and
 22  we are firm of the view that if you hear the argument and
 23  you're persuaded that there are Charter principles that -
 24  - that you should have considered and didn't and that
 25  impact upon your ruling, you -- you should revisit that


  1  ruling.
  2                 So I raise that as a preliminary issue.
  3  And if My Friends want to address it now, or -- or if you
  4  want My Friends to address it now, I'm -- I'm happy that
  5  we proceed in that fashion.  If not, I would just get
  6  straight into --
  7                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   I think
  8  we'll just do that.
  9                 MR. RYDER GILLIHAND:   Okay.  So my -- my
 10  two (2) primary submissions, you won't be surprised, are
 11  -- are first, that the Dagenais/Mentuck test, which I've
 12  just mentioned, a) wasn't considered, but b) couldn't
 13  have been met on -- on the -- the evidence before you.
 14  And on that basis alone, there should -- there should not
 15  be a conf -- a confidentiality order.
 16                 And the second part of our submission, it
 17  -- it relates to the public interest.  Even if you were
 18  to find that the first branch of the -- of the
 19  Dagenais/Mentuck test, the necessity test, were met,
 20  there's -- there's no need for confidentiality in the
 21  present case because the public interest and openness
 22  overrides the need for confidentiality.
 23                 You -- you commented that not all counsel
 24  agree that -- that the Dagenais/Mentuck test applies, and
 25  -- and as -- as is clear, counsel for Mr. McCallion takes


  1  the -- takes the position it -- it doesn't.  I think that
  2  the -- a complete answer to this is found in -- in the
  3  Toronto Star case, which -- which is cited in our factum,
  4  but which I will ask you to turn up.  And that's at Tab
  5  12 of our book of authorities with the white cover.
  6                 The -- the context of this case, which --
  7  which obviously went up to the Supreme Court of Canada,
  8  was the Crown was -- was submitting that the
  9  Dagenais/Mentuck test, by this time well established,
 10  should not have applied when -- to -- to informations to
 11  obtain, and -- and rulings on -- on search warrants;
 12  effectively saying this is an investigative stage, the --
 13  the test that you apply at the trial stage should not
 14  apply at this very -- very premature stage.
 15                 And the answer to that came from Justice
 16  Fish in paragraph 7, where he stated that -- as follows:
 17                   "I would dismiss the appeal.  In my
 18                   view, the Dagenais/Mentuck test applies
 19                   to all discretionary court orders that
 20                   limit freedom of expression and freedom
 21                   -- freedom of the press in relation to
 22                   legal proceedings.
 23                   Any other conclusion appears to be
 24                   inconsistent with an unbroken line of
 25                   authority in this court over the past


  1                   two (2) decades, and it would tend to
  2                   undermine the open court principle
  3                   inextricably incorporated into the core
  4                   values of Section 2(b) of the Charter."
  5                 You have been asked to exercise your --
  6  your discretion to make -- to make a recommendation.  You
  7  have been presented with evidence.  In my submission, you
  8  are going to make a discretionary decision in this
  9  regard.  And on that basis and on -- on the basis of this
 10  ca -- case, you clearly are required to apply the
 11  Dagenais/Mentuck test.
 12                 And there's further support for that in
 13  the Episcopal case, which -- which I don't need you to
 14  turn up, at least now, but it will be of interest to you
 15  because it is an appeal from a commission of inquiry, and
 16  that's at -- at tab 10 of -- of my authorities.
 17                 And Commission counsel has pointed out the
 18  statement there, that there's discretion and -- and
 19  deference to the discretion, and I -- and I don't
 20  disagree with that.  I can't disagree with it, it's the
 21  Court of Appeal saying so, but the Court of Appeal
 22  indicated that the test must be applied and, in fact,
 23  highlighted that the test had been applied by the inquiry
 24  below.
 25                 I also don't need to dwell on the


  1  importance of -- of openness in the context of this
  2  Public Inquiry and court proceedings generally.  I know
  3  you, Commissioner, have already cited some of the law on
  4  that in -- in your earlier ruling, which I also have in
  5  my authorities --
  6                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Right.
  7                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   -- at tab 8.  In
  8  fact, the first paragraph of that ruling summarizes, to a
  9  large extent, what -- what would have been my submission
 10  in that regard.
 11                 In passing, I don't think that ruling
 12  could possibly have been dated April 26th.  I wanted to
 13  refer to it by the date, but it's -- it says at the back,
 14  April 26th, 2010.
 15                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   That's the date it
 16  was signed.
 17                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   Oh, I see.  But --
 18  so that was -- when it -- it was released earlier.
 19                 So based on -- on your authority and based
 20  on these authorities, in my submission, the principle of
 21  openness is alive and well in this proceeding, and the
 22  test that's to apply -- to be applied when there's a
 23  limit on openness is the Dagenais/Mentuck test.
 24                 The test itself is found at -- in -- in
 25  many places, but in the Sierra Club decision, which is at


  1  tab 11 of my authorities, and Sierra Club starting from
  2  paragraph 40 forward takes you through the -- the genesis
  3  of this test in the -- in the Dagenais case, and also
  4  mentions -- so that's at paragraph 40.  And in paragraph
  5  43 you see reference to the Mentuck case, so obviously
  6  the two (2) leading cases in relation to this test.
  7                 And if -- if I can ask you to turn the
  8  page and look at paragraph 46.  This is after the court
  9  had slightly reformulated the Dagenais test in -- in
 10  Mentuck.  And in paragraph 46, the court states that the
 11  court had emphasized that under the first branch of the
 12  test the three (3) important elements were un -- were
 13  subsumed under the necessity branch.
 14                 I just add in passing that -- that
 15  necessary in the original Dagenais case, which isn't
 16  before you, was italicised, so it -- it's emphasis on --
 17  on the -- the need.
 18                 First, the risk in question must be a
 19  serious risk well grounded in the evidence.  And, in my
 20  submission, I'll come back to it but, in my submission,
 21  that's where -- that's where the failure is here because
 22  there is no evidence of the harm or the risk.
 23                 The second point is -- is less relevant
 24  here.  It talks about the administration of justice.  And
 25  then third, the test requires the judge ordering the ban


  1  to consider not only whether reasonably alternatives are
  2  available, but also to restrict the ban as far as
  3  possible.
  4                 And then, this is Justice Iacobucci at
  5  paragraph 48 states, first, that Mentuck illustrates the
  6  flexibility of the approach and then, secondly, the
  7  Dagenais model can and should be adapted to a situation
  8  in the case at bar where the central issue is where the
  9  discretion should be exercised so as to exclude
 10  confidential information from a public proceeding.
 11                 So Dagenais was to protect fair trial
 12  rights.  Mentuck was to protect the administration of
 13  justice, and Sierra Club was designed to protect
 14  confidential information, where necessary.  And for that
 15  reason it's -- it's the most germane case for you -- for
 16  -- for today's purposes.
 17                 The test itself is -- is set out at
 18  paragraph 53.  The first requirement is the:
 19                   "...order is necessary [again] to
 20                   prevent a...risk to an important
 21                   interest, including a commercial
 22                   interest, in the context of litigation
 23                   because reasonably alternative measures
 24                   will not prevent the risk; and..."
 25                 And I emphasize that it's a conjunctive


  1  test, because you could find that it was necessary, and
  2  still find in favour of my client's position on the basis
  3  of the second branch:
  4                   "...the salutary effects of the
  5                   confidential -- confidentiality order,
  6                   including the effects on the right of
  7                   civil litigants to a fair trial,
  8                   outweigh its deleterious effects,
  9                   including the effects on the right of
 10                   free expression, which in this context
 11                   includes the public interest in open
 12                   and accessible court proceedings."
 13                 And then Justice Iacobucci, who had
 14  written Mentuck, as well, emphasizes again that the risk
 15  has to be well grounded in the ev -- in the evidence.
 16  That's at paragraph 54.
 17                 And then, at paragraph 55, he draws out a
 18  point that it actually is unique to this setting.  In a
 19  -- and I'm reading from paragraph 55:
 20                   "In addition, the phrase 'important
 21                   commercial interest' is in need of some
 22                   clarification.  In order to qualify as
 23                   an 'important commercial interest', the
 24                   interest in question cannot merely be
 25                   specific to the party requesting the


  1                   order.  The interest must be one (1)
  2                   which can be expressed in terms of a
  3                   public interest in confidentiality."
  4                 Gives the example, saying the private
  5  company can't claim that a particular contract should be
  6  kept confidential, because it would cause the company to
  7  lose business, or harm its commercial interest.  That's
  8  not enough, in this example.
  9                   "However, if...[the] information would
 10                   cause a breach of a confidentiality
 11                   agreement, then the commercial interest
 12                   affected can be characterized more
 13                   broadly as the general commercial
 14                   interest of preserving confidential
 15                   information.  Simply put, if there is
 16                   no general principle at stake, there
 17                   can be no 'important commercial
 18                   interest' for the purposes of this
 19                   test."
 20                 And then he adds, in paragraph 56, a
 21  further caution that:
 22                   "It must be remembered that a
 23                   confidentiality order involves an
 24                   infringement on freedom of
 25                   expression...and courts must be alive


  1                   to the fundamental importance of open
  2                   court[s]..."
  3                 So that -- that is the test that, in my
  4  submission, should have been presented to you, and -- and
  5  -- and that -- that you should -- should consider in --
  6  in determining whether or not there should be public
  7  access to the materials in question.
  8                 I'm not aware of -- of any evidence
  9  relating to specific harm if these -- if these materials
 10  were -- were released.  And in my submission, in order --
 11  in order to comply with the Dagenais/Mentuck test, what
 12  you would have required at a minimum was some form of
 13  evidence indicating what harm would flow from the release
 14  of this information.
 15                 And as I say, there's no such evidence.
 16  And -- and weighing the other way is what is in the
 17  public record.  If you look at -- and now I will ask you
 18  to turn up the -- the book of authorities of Peter
 19  McCallion.  I'm just taking you to the transcript of the
 20  March 4th proceeding, which is at Tab 2.
 22                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 24                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   So this is a
 25  transcript that's available to the public.  And I'm


  1  looking at page -- there's a page 25 and the -- sorry,
  2  it's actually page 28 of the transcript.
  3                 And I know -- I appreciate that you,
  4  Commissioner, will be aware of this from other sources,
  5  but here, it's -- it's City counsel indicating that:
  6                   "There is...no dispute that the letter
  7                   from Mr. Gover on Mr. McCallion's
  8                   behalf sets out -- Mr. McCallion's
  9                   earnings, that he does not file income
 10                   tax returns and that he owns no real
 11                   property..."
 12                 Now, then there's a complaint about the
 13  extent of the information but, nevertheless, it is
 14  information that has been provided on the public record,
 15  albeit it's been established insufficient information for
 16  -- for your purposes.  It's information of the very
 17  nature which -- which now seeks to be protected.
 18                 And -- and I add here something that I
 19  would have raised earlier if I had been going through the
 20  importance of -- of openness and the underlying
 21  principles.  One (1), of course, is to assist in the
 22  truth-finding exercise.
 23                 And that goes back to -- to Wigmore,
 24  Bentham, all the jurists which are cited in many -- many
 25  of the leading Supreme Court of Canada decisions,


  1  including -- including the McIntyre (phonetic) case.  I'm
  2  not going to ask you to turn it up, but it's at tab 7 of
  3  my authorities.
  4                 Now -- so on that basis, in my submission,
  5  there just isn't the evidence before you that -- that you
  6  would require to -- to make a finding to -- to close the
  7  -- the proceeding to the public.
  8                 And, in addition, there's not -- there's
  9  not evidence that goes the step further, that -- that
 10  Sierra Club requires, that there's some interest that's
 11  also of a broader public interest.  There's no evidence.
 12                 I appreciate there is a submission by, I
 13  think, both Commission counsel and Mr. McCallion, that
 14  people wouldn't -- that basically you need to -- you need
 15  to have this confidentiality in order to the protect the
 16  process.  I appreciate there is that larger argument.
 17                 There's no evidence to support it.
 18  There's -- and the problem with that is that it turns the
 19  presumption of openness on its head.  Effectively, that
 20  means if anybody comes to you and asks for a
 21  recommendation for funding, the presumption should be
 22  that it'll be closed because they don't need to lead
 23  evidence because the presumption is that if -- if it were
 24  otherwise, the entire inquiry's process would fail.
 25                 And, in my submission, that -- that can't


  1  be right, particularly in light of what we know
  2  transpires daily in -- in the courts.
  3                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Do you
  4  see a distinction, Counsel, between this issue, which
  5  relates entirely to funding, and the larger issue, which
  6  is the terms of reference under which this Inquiry is
  7  charged with the responsibility of investigating evidence
  8  and pursuing in whatever means appropriate the terms of
  9  reference?
 10                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   Well, this --
 11  this --
 13  been suggested by counsel opposite that this is a
 14  peripheral issue to the terms of reference, and that all
 15  of the evidence having to do with the terms of reference
 16  will be forthcoming during the course of the Inquiry.
 17                 What do you say about that?
 18                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   I say, first of
 19  all, that it is indisputable that -- that issue doesn't
 20  fall squarely within the terms of reference.  However, in
 21  my submission, the -- the open court principle or, in
 22  this case, the open quiry -- inquiry principle doesn't
 23  tie in that way.
 24                 You wouldn't, in -- in a court proceeding,
 25  deal with a peripheral issue and say, We're going to


  1  exclude the public for this part because it's peripheral,
  2  because it's not squarely relating to the lead.
  3                 But perhaps more importantly, everybody is
  4  submitting that you need to consider this issue, the
  5  merits of the issue that's raised, because it touches on
  6  the fairness of this whole process.
  7                 And, of course, the key -- the key reason
  8  we have openness, among the key reasons, is to protect
  9  the integrity of the process, and that means to ensure
 10  that everybody is doing things the right way and the
 11  public can scrutinize it, and that means scrutinizing, of
 12  course, you, Commission counsel, Mr. McCallion, all the
 13  participants, the City, and -- and that's what's denied
 14  if you take it away.
 15                 And, as I say, it is something that --
 16  that everybody is saying goes to the fairness of this
 17  proceeding.  Mr. McCallion is saying, It's unfair to deny
 18  me this -- this funding.
 19                 Commission counsel is saying, You have to
 20  at least consider this on fairness principles, and you've
 21  -- and you've made that decision, as well, that you will,
 22  to protect the integrity and fairness of the proceeding.
 23                 So it's an overstatement at the least to
 24  say -- you know, to create this strong division between,
 25  okay, well, here's the terms of reference and that's what


  1  the public should know about, but we could have this
  2  other little area here, which does touch on the fairness
  3  of this whole process, but we're going to keep that
  4  secret.
  5                 So just to circle back to -- to -- to the
  6  -- to conclude the point on the first branch of -- of --
  7  of the Dagenais/Mentuck test, there is no evidence, and
  8  that, in my submission, is dispositive.
  9                 Now, I want to -- I -- I do want to talk
 10  at -- at -- at the end about the balancing exercise.  But
 11  before I do that, because -- because Mr. McCallion has
 12  raised a fairness point that -- that relates to the point
 13  I raised at the outset, saying, Jeez, I -- you know, now
 14  I've led this evidence and -- and I did so on the
 15  understanding that -- that it would be kept confidential,
 16  and now I've stepped into this and -- and now you're --
 17  it would be unfair to undo that.
 18                 And I think my opening submission
 19  addresses that to some extent but, of course, as a
 20  practical matter, that doesn't help Mr. McCallion.  I
 21  think the practical solutions to -- to that situation in
 22  which he would find himself if you were to -- to order
 23  that this be made public, is -- is twofold.
 24                 Number one, Mr. McCallion doesn't have to
 25  seek funding.  And if he withdraws his request for


  1  funding, then the openness issue won't be engaged.
  2                 Another alternative, and -- and in my
  3  submission, this -- this is one (1) that -- it -- it's
  4  open to you, but it's not one (1) that I recommend, is
  5  that Mr. McCallion can now make submissions relating to
  6  the harm, and lead evidence relating to the harm, which
  7  is what I submit, as you know, he would need to do to
  8  protect that confidentiality.
  9                 The reason I -- I -- I say that -- that I
 10  -- I'm against that is because it was, frankly, incumbent
 11  upon Mr. McCallion, if he was seeking to -- to get
 12  confidentiality in the first place, to put -- put
 13  everyone on notice, including the media that -- that he
 14  was seeking a confidentiality order.  And if -- had he
 15  done so, these arguments would have been presented to you
 16  in advance of your ruling.
 17                 That said, it is open to you if you have
 18  concerns about -- about his position, which -- which
 19  aren't addressed through basically saying, take it or
 20  leave it.  It's an open process.  If you -- if you want
 21  to come in here and ask for public funds, you're going to
 22  have to do so publically.  An alternative is to allow --
 23  allow him to now address the Dagenais/Mentuck test head
 24  on.


  1  motion of yours is dated April 26th, which -- and the
  2  date of the cross-examination was --
  3                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:  The 23rd.
  4                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   -- 23rd
  5  of April.  My ruling was made on March the 4th.  Was
  6  anything done between March the 4th and the cross-
  7  examination of Peter McCallion --
  8                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   Yes.
  9                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:  -- to --
 10                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   Commission counsel
 11  will -- will confirm that it -- it wasn't March 4th, I'll
 12  concede that, but I think it was a -- I think it was
 13  April 15th, frankly.  April 14 or April 15 is when I
 14  first wrote to -- to Commission counsel and asked
 15  Commission counsel to raise this issue before you.
 16                 At that time I wasn't convinced, and I --
 17  and I told Commission counsel that my preference was to
 18  not, frankly, appear before you, but rather that this
 19  just be raised because it was an issue that -- that, in
 20  my view, should have been -- that, in my client's view,
 21  should have been raised, and hadn't been.
 22                 So it was certainly -- it was -- you know,
 23  it was not March 4th, but it was well in advance of -- of
 24  -- of the actual cross-examination on -- on April 23rd,
 25  and after our initial correspondence, and I can confirm


  1  -- I could confirm on a date the exact -- or on a break,
  2  the exact dates, but it -- it is in or around April 14th
  3  -- we -- we had some back and forth and -- and Commission
  4  counsel advised, and I -- I expect this was likely after
  5  consulting with -- with you, Commissioner, but -- but I
  6  don't know that, that -- that the proper course was for
  7  us to bring this -- this motion, which we did.
  9                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 11                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   So then, in
 12  closing, I just come back then to the balancing exercise
 13  that's -- that's before you, before you only if you find
 14  that there's evidence that shows that -- that a
 15  confidentiality order is necessary.
 16                 And so, in my submission, it's a bit of a
 17  hypothetical here because, as you know, my position is
 18  that there is no -- no such evidence.  But assuming that
 19  there -- that there were, the -- the bottom line here is
 20  that when we get to the balancing point, we're talking
 21  about public funds.  We're talking about -- I appreciate
 22  your -- your order is not binding, but it's a
 23  recommendation relating to taxpayer money.  And, in my
 24  submission, that -- when we talk --
 25                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   What's


  1  your recommendation?
  2                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   As I just said, I
  3  -- I appreciate that, but obviously Mr. McCallion
  4  wouldn't be bringing the application and -- if -- if he
  5  didn't feel that there was some significance to your
  6  recommendation and -- and Your Honour wouldn't have
  7  requested additional evidence, et cetera, if Your Honour
  8  wasn't taking the task seriously, as -- as, of course,
  9  you should.
 10                 And there's no question, in my submission,
 11  in those circumstances that the recommendation can, not
 12  will, but can impact on the expenditure of public monies.
 13  And that's something that, when we're at this balancing
 14  stage, we're not then just dealing with openness
 15  principles, which, of course, are -- are very much alive
 16  and well, but we are dealing with a recommendation
 17  relating to the expenditure of taxpayer money.
 18                 And I can't speak for the ratepayers, but,
 19  in my submission, it's not too much to ask from a
 20  ratepayer perspective that if you want a recommendation
 21  in a public inquiry in which you are implicated, rightly
 22  or wrongly, but in which you -- you're clearly
 23  implicated, if you want a commi -- a recommendation from
 24  the Commissioner that there be public funds used to your
 25  benefit, then it's entirely fair, if evidence is required


  1  to support such a recommendation, that it be done in the
  2  open.
  4                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  6                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   Those are my
  7  submissions.
  8                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  9  you very much.
 10                 Mr. Gover...?
 13                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Yes, good morning, Mr.
 14  Commissioner.  Mr. Commissioner, I would preface my
 15  submissions by saying that in your March 4th ruling you
 16  took a context sensitive approach, and, of course, that
 17  approach is what is urged by the Mentuck case itself.
 18                 And in the Toronto Star case, Justice Fish
 19  emphasized that this is meant to be a flexible approach,
 20  it's not to be applied mechanistically.  And all of that
 21  leads us to the conclusion, in my submission, that, in
 22  this particular context, the context not of a court
 23  proceeding, and, of course, in the -- the authorities
 24  that Mr. Gilliland took you to we heard repeated
 25  reference to open courts and court proceedings, but your


  1  context, or course, is as the commissioner of a public
  2  inquiry, tasked with making a recommendation which itself
  3  was peripheral to the terms of reference.
  4                 As Commission counsel have recognized in
  5  paragraph 19 of their submissions, and I quote:
  6                   "Mr. McCallion's intimate personal
  7                   financial information is not relevant
  8                   to the terms of reference.  The terms
  9                   of reference address Mr. McCallion's
 10                   business dealings, not his personal
 11                   financial status."
 12                 This is unlike the Cornwall case to which
 13  counsel for the Mississauga News has referred.  There, of
 14  course, the identity of the supposed perpetrators was
 15  central to the terms of reference.  There was a real
 16  public interest in lifting the veil of secrecy
 17  surrounding allegations of sexual abuse by persons in
 18  authority, but that's not this case.
 19                 And in your March 4th ruling, Mr.
 20  Commissioner, you recognized the intrusive nature of the
 21  inquisitorial process that is a public inquiry.  As you
 22  recognized in your March 4th ruling, the City has put
 23  Peter McCallion's dealings at the heart of the Inquiry,
 24  but, of course, that relates to his business affairs in
 25  relation to World Class Developments.  And, plainly, the


  1  terms of reference warrant a probing examination of those
  2  business affairs at the appropriate time and in the
  3  appropriate manner.
  4                 The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized
  5  that the task of any commissioner is to balance the
  6  Inquiry's roles with the rights of those being
  7  investigated.
  8                 And, in this case, using that context
  9  sensitive approach, you concluded that the right balance
 10  entails respecting Mr. McCallion's privacy interests and
 11  right to fair treatment at the stage of determining what
 12  recommendation to make to City counsel.
 13                 And we submit that was a sound exercise of
 14  discretion well grounded in authorities, such as the
 15  Blood Inquiry case.  And I'll provide the reference, sir.
 16  It's at tab 1 of our brief of authorities, and I refer in
 17  particular to Justice Cory's comments at paragraph 31.
 18                 Further, in the Phillips case, or also
 19  known as the Westray case, Justice Cory again, in tab 3
 20  of our brief of authorities, paragraphs 175 and 176.  And
 21  this issue of managing the inquiry process in a way that
 22  will be fair was, as Commission counsel have pointed out,
 23  addressed by Justice Binnie in the Consortium
 24  Developments case at tab 7 of Commission counsel's brief
 25  of authorities, paragraph 27.  And, of course, the


  1  comments in Consortium Developments were made in the
  2  context of a public inquiry arising under the Municipal
  3  Act.
  4                 Returning to this point about context and
  5  the importance of considering it, of course, in Mentuck
  6  itself Justice Iacobucci, writing for the Court,
  7  emphasized that context must be taken into account.
  8                 In that respect, I might briefly take you
  9  to tab 10 of our brief of authorities.  This is Mentuck,
 10  tab 10, paragraph 37, where Justice Iacobucci said this:
 11                   "It also bears repeating that the
 12                   relevant rights and interests will be
 13                   aligned differently in different cases,
 14                   and the purposes and effects invoked by
 15                   the parties must be taken into account
 16                   in a case-specific manner."
 17                 Now, what really has been left unaddressed
 18  by counsel for the Mississauga News is the fact that when
 19  we consider this question of whether and how the
 20  Dagenais/Mentuck test applies, we have to consider it in
 21  the context of a public inquiry and in the context of the
 22  recommendation, this peripheral task which you are now
 23  concerned with.
 24                 The Commission, it bears emphasis, is not
 25  a court and is, therefore, not bound by the open-court


  1  principles articulated in Dagenais/Mentuck, Toronto Star,
  2  and Sierra Club.
  3                 Your order of March 4th was not a
  4  discretionary court order, as described by Justice Fish
  5  in paragraph 7 of the Toronto Star case.  As well, you
  6  are not bound by the public hearing requirements set out
  7  in Section 135 of the Courts of Justice Act.
  8                 In our submission, this matter can be and
  9  should be resolved by reference to Rule 34 of your
 10  inquiry rules of procedure, which confer upon the
 11  Commission the discretion to conduct hearings in private
 12  and/or issues -- issue orders prohibiting disclosure of
 13  intimate financial or personal details.  Commission
 14  counsel point out, as do we, that that is consonant with
 15  the approach taken in Section 4 of the Public Inquiry's
 16  Act.
 17                 So in that respect, although as has been
 18  said, this has a different legislative genesis, this
 19  particular Public Inquiry, we get a sense of what the
 20  Legislature's expectation is.  The Legislature in that
 21  sense has spoken.  We go further.  We say it's spoken
 22  again.  We have a -- an as yet unproclaimed replacement
 23  for the Public Inquiries Act, the Public Inquiries Act
 24  2009, which we've included at Tab 14 of our brief of
 25  authorities, which reflects the same sort of approach


  1  taken by the Legislature as recently as the fall of 2009.
  2  So although not directly applicable, we have a good sense
  3  of what the Legislature has to say on this, and recently,
  4  of course, it has spoken again.
  5                 I point out, as well, that when confronted
  6  with a similar issue, Justice Goudge, at what I'll term
  7  as the Goudge Inquiry, recognized that it was appropriate
  8  to protect personal information at the standing and
  9  funding stage.
 10                 And we see that in the excerpt from the
 11  Goudge Inquiry report, which you'll have at Tab 12 of our
 12  brief of authorities.  And if I could take you briefly,
 13  sir, to paragraph -- pardon me, to page 645 at Tab 12,
 14  you'll see in the sidelined portion, Justice Goudge said
 15  this:
 16                   "The Rules of Standing and Funding
 17                   instructed applicants on the basic
 18                   information to be included in support
 19                   of their application.  Through
 20                   Commission counsel the applicants were
 21                   advised that it was not necessary to
 22                   prepare formal application records with
 23                   sworn affidavits.  Ultimately, many of
 24                   the applicants did choose to submit
 25                   formal application records, while


  1                   others did not.  By July 16, 2007, I
  2                   had received eleven (11) applications
  3                   for standing.  Of the eleven (11)
  4                   applicants, seven (7) also sought
  5                   funding.  Once Commission counsel
  6                   reviewed the applications to ensure
  7                   that they did not disclose confidential
  8                   information, they were posted on the
  9                   Commission's website."
 10                 So Justice Goudge made the decision to
 11  protect confidential information in the applications for
 12  funding that were before him.  And earlier in my opening
 13  remarks, Mr. Commissioner, I had referred to the Toronto
 14  Star case, and the proposition that the test ought not to
 15  be applied mechanistically, but as flexible and
 16  contextual.  I won't take you to it, sir, but you may be
 17  assisted by the reference.  It's at paragraph 31 of
 18  Toronto Star.
 19                 Commission counsel have agreed that Mr.
 20  McCallion's affidavit does not address matters at the
 21  core of this Inquiry's mandate.
 22                 The affidavit and transcript contained
 23  private information, such as that which was considered
 24  confidential by the Goudge Inquiry, and we submit that
 25  the release of it would serve no legitimate purpose in


  1  furthering the Commission's mandate.
  2                 Now whether or not the -- the
  3  Dagenais/Mentuck test applies directly, and you've heard
  4  my submission, that Rule 34 is where this issue ought to
  5  be resolved, I submit that Commission counsel got it
  6  exactly right in paragraphs 15 through 37 of their
  7  submissions.
  8                 The confidentiality order is necessary to
  9  ensure fairness to Mr. McCallion or, as they have put it,
 10  there is a substantial risk to the public interest in
 11  fairness of the Inquiry if confidentiality is not
 12  maintained.
 13                 Now we say, with respect, that is clearly
 14  specific harm.  And on this subject that Mr. Gilliland
 15  has raised about evidence being necessary, commissioners
 16  of public inquiries have never demanded hard evidence
 17  before taking steps to ensure the fairness of an inquiry.
 18                 As an aside, I would submit, addressing
 19  one (1) of Mr. Gilliland's submissions, that there has
 20  been no waiver on Mr. McCallion's part in asserting that
 21  he is unable to fund legal representation himself.  That
 22  -- that doesn't warrant an intrusive examination into all
 23  of his financial circumstances that would be open to
 24  public scrutiny at this stage.
 25                 Returning to Commission counsel's


  1  submissions, they're right in saying that the openness of
  2  the inquiry's pursuit of its mandate, as set out in the
  3  terms of reference, is not compromised by your March 4th
  4  ruling.  Of course, anything relevant to the terms of
  5  reference, and that's consistent, of course, with the
  6  Court of Appeal's decision in Bortolati (phonetic), will
  7  be the subject of evidence led by your counsel.  We can
  8  count on that.
  9                 Thirdly, there are no reasonable
 10  alternatives, as Commission counsel have pointed out.
 11  What we're left with is this:  The salutary effects of
 12  your March 4th ruling outweigh any deleterious effects.
 13  And here we really need to put ourselves in the position
 14  of Mr. McCallion or any person who is swept up in the
 15  process of a public inquiry.
 16                 Imagine the position that someone in that
 17  position would be in if a context sensitive and balanced
 18  approach were not taken.
 19                 Faced with the intrusive process of a
 20  public inquiry examining certain of his business dealings
 21  that would take several weeks and in need of counsel to
 22  protect his reputational and other interests and unable
 23  to fund legal representation for that purpose on his own,
 24  such a person would be left with a Hobbesian choice.
 25                 He or she would have to either abandon his


  1  or her request for funding, and, actually, Mr. Gilliland
  2  as much as said this, or relinquish his privacy rights
  3  over his intimate financial and personal matters.
  4                 And it's precisely what it -- what your
  5  Rule 34 is meant to address.  It's precisely what you
  6  have addressed in your March 4th ruling, and that is
  7  completely consistent with the approach taken by
  8  commissioners of other public inquiries in ensuring
  9  fairness of the process which they are tasked with
 10  overseeing.
 11                 Those are my submissions, subject to any
 12  questions.
 13                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 14  you, Mr. Gover.
 15                 Mr. McDowell...?
 18                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Yes, sir, I -- Mr.
 19  Gover having substantially adopted our submissions, I
 20  don't propose to repeat them, but just a number of -- of
 21  points on the -- on the submissions by Mr. Gilliland.
 22                 First of all, on the -- on the question of
 23  the record, the factual basis for your order, you don't,
 24  in my submission, need to have evidence of precisely the
 25  harm that would ensue from disclosure of intimate


  1  personal and financial information.  You're entitled to
  2  draw that inference.
  3                 And I say that in part because we know
  4  that there is extensive statutory protection given to
  5  personal financial information, including in the public
  6  -- in the Personal Information and Protection of
  7  Electronic Data Act, better know as PIPEDA, the federal
  8  legislation, and similar provincial legislation.
  9                 And that -- that interest of protecting a
 10  zone or privacy around a person's personal financial
 11  affairs is one which is capable of being elevated to the
 12  kind of interest that Justice Iacobucci was talking about
 13  in the -- in the Sierra Club case.
 14                 I underline the unfairness to Mr.
 15  McCallion, who, in the wake of your ruling, gave a good
 16  deal of information to us by way of affidavit, agreed to
 17  be cross-examined, you having made an order, as -- as
 18  both the Public Inquiries Act and our rules permit under
 19  Section 34.  So the fact that there is detrimental
 20  reliance by Mr. McCallion I think is -- is a very
 21  significant factor.
 22                 We do take Mr. Gilliland's point about the
 23  relationship between the evidence to be disclosed and the
 24  truth-finding process, but as I have discussed with Mr.
 25  Gover, to the extent that anything in the affidavit or


  1  the cross-examination is relevant to the matters in the
  2  terms of reference, that evidence will be led in the
  3  Inquiry as it unfolds.
  4                 And, therefore, the public interest will
  5  be discharged in anything that is actually related to the
  6  terms of interest -- or terms of reference.  It's just
  7  that it won't be immediately disclosed now.
  8                 There is, I think, a risk here of
  9  conflating the public interest with the fact that the
 10  media have demonstrated interest in getting this
 11  information.  And as Justice Iacobucci noted in the
 12  Sierra Club case, at paragraph 85, the mere fact that the
 13  media are interested in this material gives rise to no
 14  inference as to whether or not there's a public interest
 15  in getting it.
 16                 Now on the question of the -- of the test
 17  which you must apply, you have our factum, but I just
 18  draw your attention in the Cornwall case as paragraph 32,
 19  Justice Sharpe sets out the submission of the Cornwall
 20  police, having conceded that the Public Inquiries Act
 21  requires the Commissioner to engage in a balancing test
 22  very similar to, if not identical to the Dagenais/Mentuck
 23  test.  It's in our -- it's at Tab 5, paragraph 32.
 24                 And so whether or not you, you know,
 25  recited the -- the appropriate language from


  1  Dagenais/Mentuck in coming to your decision really
  2  doesn't matter because the test that you were required to
  3  apply and you did apply is substantially the same test.
  4                 And again, as -- as Mr. Gover says, and --
  5  and he was there, after all, the evidence in that case
  6  that was sought to be concealed was at the heart of the
  7  -- of the terms of reference of that inquiry.  Here, how
  8  much cash Peter McCallion has in a particular bank
  9  account and how much he pays in -- in mortgage payments
 10  and has to set aside for gas money and so on is simply
 11  irrelevant to -- to the exercise before you.
 12                 So subject to any questions, sir, those
 13  are my submissions.
 14                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 15  you, Mr. McDowell.
 16                 Mr. Gilliland, would you like to respond?
 19                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   Very briefly.  Mr.
 20  Commissioner, the -- I think both -- both counsel, and
 21  certainly Mr. Gover has rai -- raised the point that --
 22  that I left out the -- the context consideration.
 23                 Well, it's indisputable that we consider
 24  the context.  All the cases do say that.  They also all
 25  talk about the necessity of -- of a serious risk well


  1  grounded in evidence.  One doesn't -- the -- the
  2  contextual considerations don't eliminate the
  3  requirements of the test.
  4                 You saw -- Mr. McDowell just took you to
  5  -- I was going to take you to it on this point, but he
  6  just took you to the portion of the Episcopal case where
  7  they -- they -- all parties were in agreement that that
  8  test applied, and -- and the court went on to -- to note
  9  that there is deference in the application of the test,
 10  but not to say that you don't have to apply the test.
 11                 Mr. Gover states that the legislation has
 12  spoken.  All the legislation does is provide you with the
 13  discretion to address this issue; that's no different
 14  than, for example, the Toronto Star case.  They --
 15  there's Criminal Code provisions that allow the Justice
 16  in that case to consider whether or not to impose a
 17  sealing order over search warrant materials; that's the
 18  discretion.  That's the genesis of a discretion.
 19                 The application of a discretion has to be
 20  consistent with Charter principles, which means it has to
 21  be consistent with the Dagenais/Mentuck test.
 22                 Mr. Gover states there's no waiver on Mr.
 23  McCallion's point to -- to give certain particulars about
 24  his economic situation.  I'm not suggesting it's waiver.
 25  I'm suggesting that's far from being evidence that he


  1  can't provide such evidence or that it would cause harm,
  2  he has gone some way down that road.  And -- and I
  3  appreciate that it's two (2) different things.  That's
  4  general, and he has provided now specific, but those are
  5  two (2) different things.
  6                 Mr. Gover made some comments about the --
  7  the -- effectively suggesting that -- that you don't have
  8  to consider open-court principles here because this is a
  9  public inquiry.  I think -- I think, frankly, your --
 10  your earlier judgment deals with that.  I think, clearly,
 11  openness principles are engaged in a public inquiry.  I
 12  think the Court of Appeal affirms that in the Episcopal
 13  case.
 14                 Commission counsel makes the point that
 15  you don't really need evidence because you can infer that
 16  this kind of information is -- is private.  And I will
 17  tie this back then to the litigation context, in court
 18  proceedings.
 19                 How many court proceedings involve, for
 20  example, well, detailed -- detailed financial
 21  information, in all different kinds of context, of course
 22  in relation to damages, but can arise in any number of
 23  circumstances?  And -- and the courts just don't, and
 24  they wouldn't because they -- they can't meet the test to
 25  say, oh, well, don't worry, you get -- you get a


  1  confidentiality order on your tax returns.
  2                 That's not how it works, particularly when
  3  those tax returns are going to form the basis for a
  4  subsequent ruling or in this case, I appreciate the
  5  difference, a recommendation.
  6                 And I think on that point that the
  7  Commission counsel has slightly misstated my position in
  8  a -- in a portion of his submission where he was giving
  9  me, I think, some credit and -- and talking about the
 10  connection between the terms of reference and -- and this
 11  issue.
 12                 My point is:  This issue goes to the
 13  fairness of this entire proceeding.  That's how it's been
 14  presented to you, and that is what needs to be
 15  scrutinized.  I'm not focussing on whether there's
 16  overlap between this particular evidence and what will
 17  ultimately come out in the Inquiry - that's not my point.
 18  And I think -- I think -- that's how I understood
 19  Commission counsel to phrase it.  My point is:  This
 20  issue touches on the fairness of the entire Inquiry,
 21  that's how it's presented to you, and that's why, among
 22  other reasons, it should be open.
 23                 That's all I have in reply, Mr.
 24  Commissioner.
 25                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank


  1  you, Mr. Gilliland.  Well, I appreciate the thoughtful
  2  submissions of counsel.  I will take this matter under
  3  consideration and, in short order, will post my decision
  4  on the website.  Thank you.
  5                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   Mr. Commissioner, I
  6  understand we have other matters to attend to today.  May
  7  I be free --
  8                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Yes.  I
  9  wanted to convenience you as much as I could, so you're
 10  free to go.
 11                 MR. RYDER GILLILAND:   Thank you.
 12                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 13  you.
 14                 All right, Mr. McDowell...?
 15                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Just a moment,
 16  please.
 18                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 20                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Perhaps
 21  you could give us an update as to where we are.
 24                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Well, there's an
 25  issue about documents with each -- in relation to each of


  1  the City and -- and OMERS, but just to give you some
  2  idea, we -- we have now reviewed and categorized
  3  something like sixteen thousand (16,000) documents.
  4                 We have a dedicated review team of
  5  contract lawyers that's going through all of the
  6  documents because we think we've got a responsibility to
  7  have a lawyer actually look at every document that's
  8  being produced.  So that's going well.
  9                 We've now interviewed approximately thirty
 10  (30) witnesses, and we're well into the production of
 11  Will Says for the Enersource portion of the hearing.  So
 12  that's the good news.
 13                 We think that we've located most of the
 14  key documents for both phases, but every day the review
 15  team draws something to our attention that we had not
 16  otherwise found.
 17                 The less positive news is that we still
 18  don't have coded documents in their entirety from -- from
 19  the City and from OMERS.
 20                 So dealing first with the City, the City
 21  has worked pretty diligently to get us material.  There
 22  is one (1) further tranche of several thousand documents
 23  to come and significantly it includes the bulk -- excuse
 24  me -- the bulk of materials to come from the Mayor's
 25  office.


  1                 So that is, I confess, slowing us up a
  2  bit.  However, I think we're going to get those
  3  imminently.
  4                 OMERS, we've got very few coded documents
  5  from OMERS.  Coding is important, just to underline,
  6  because it allows rapid circulation of documents among
  7  the Commission counsel team.  It allows us to produce
  8  almost instantly a disc of documents to -- to be produced
  9  to a witness or to -- to a party, rather than having to
 10  spend the better part of a day photocopying, creating
 11  multiple copies, and spending two (2) or three hundred
 12  (300) bucks a crack, as -- as we've had to do with some
 13  of the OMERS documents.
 14                 Candidly, and I raised this with Mr.
 15  Barrack, he's done different cuts at this.  The material
 16  that we get is immaculately organized.  The last cut that
 17  we got had some documents that were of particular
 18  relevance to the Inquiry.  They came on Tuesday night,
 19  and in an ideal world we would have been able to put some
 20  of those documents to witnesses who we -- we have
 21  interviewed up to this point, and we're going to have to
 22  go back around and -- and repeat that process.
 23                 So that is where we are.  And you may want
 24  to hear from counsel to the City and counsel to -- to
 25  OMERS.


  2  perhaps I could hear from counsel for the City.  When can
  3  we expect the balance of the documents?
  4                 MR. JAMES RENIHAN:   The tranche that
  5  Commission counsel just referred to, Commissioner,
  6  arrived at our office yesterday at the end of the day.
  7  So I imagine they will be going on to Commission counsel
  8  today.
  9                 There are a few remaining documents that
 10  we have recently received from the Mayor's office, and
 11  from other departments in the City.  The bulk of those
 12  from the City have already been turned over in a non-
 13  coded form to Commission counsel.  Coded documents will
 14  be coming as soon as we're able to get them.
 15                 And the rest of the Mayor's documents,
 16  which we just received, will also be -- copies of those,
 17  prior to coding, will be delivered to Commission counsel
 18  so they can review them, with coded documents to follow
 19  shortly thereafter.
 20                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   You now
 21  have all of the Mayor's documents?
 22                 MR. JAMES RENIHAN:   Yes, we -- we have
 23  all of the Mayor's documents at this point.
 25  right.  Thank you.


  1                 Mr. Barrack...?
  2                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   By no later than
  3  Wednesday of next week, Mr. McDowell will have all of the
  4  coded documents.
  5                 If I can just, Mr. Commissioner, just to
  6  put it into context, OMERS' approach was to take all non-
  7  privileged documents and make them available to the
  8  Commission.  And we tried to do that in a manner that
  9  best assisted the Commission.  And how we did that,
 10  there's a decision point at the beginning.  Do you dump
 11  all the documents, or do you cull the documents?  And the
 12  decision we took was to cull, not to dump.
 13                 And what that involved really was a
 14  process:  first, meeting with Commission counsel to set
 15  the groundwork.  Then we identified all of the relevant
 16  custodians who might have documents and we went and we
 17  got all of their documents.  And that's the big dump.
 18                 Now we could have coded that big dump and
 19  just given it to the Commission counsel, or we could have
 20  gone through it.  And the decision we made on behalf of
 21  OMERS was to go through the document, and we told
 22  Commission counsel about that.
 23                 And what we've done is, we have released
 24  the documents in three (3) batches.  The first batch was
 25  a -- the most relevant documents.  You'll recall you got


  1  some small packages of very, very relevant documents so
  2  that the key issues were identified.
  3                 The second pass was to take the big dump
  4  and to go through and really try and develop a chronology
  5  where we could make sure that all of the events were
  6  identified, and those we gave in hard copy.  We probably
  7  should have coded them a little quicker, but we gave them
  8  in hard copy.
  9                 And then we've gone back, as a result of
 10  discussions with Commission counsel, and done a further
 11  pass.  And that further pass has been delivered in hard
 12  copy and will be coded by next week.
 13                 At all times -- and we continue to -- to
 14  make the offer, that if the group of contract lawyers
 15  wants to come in and look at the OMERS documents in their
 16  raw form, other than the privileged, we're happy to have
 17  them come in and do that.
 18                 So all I would say to you is that, going
 19  into this process, I'm not sure Mr. McDowell did but I
 20  certainly didn't have my Eagle Scout badge in document
 21  production.  And I might have earned it part way through
 22  this and I may ask you, on some plenary jurisdiction you
 23  have, to confer one (1) on both me and Mr. McDowell at
 24  the end of the process.
 25                 But I -- I can say to you that the


  1  responsibility for any delay or perceived delay in
  2  delivering the documents is not my client's, it's mine,
  3  it's not Mr. McDowell's.
  4                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  5  you.
  6                 Mr. McDowell...?
  7                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   There's one (1) --
  8  there's one (1) issue that I should flag because we may
  9  have to come back to -- on it, and that is that there is
 10  a limited class of documents which we have which we would
 11  like to produce to the Mayor, and the City has taken a
 12  position that we can't do so.
 13                 We're going to try and work through that
 14  because I think that, depending on which particular
 15  document we're talking about, there may be some
 16  significance attached to that, so --
 18  are you meeting with the Mayor?
 19                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   The 11th of May, I
 20  believe.  The 13th of May, sorry.
 22  right.
 23                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   So between now and
 24  then we may have to get a ruling from you if we can't --


  1  right.  If you can't --
  2                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   -- sort this out,
  3  work it out.
  5  right.  What about what Mr. Barrack says about the
  6  balance of the documents coded by next Wednesday?
  7                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   That -- that's
  8  suitable.  As it happens, I'm out of town next week, but
  9  the bulk -- the rest of the team isn't, so that -- that's
 10  fine.
 12  right.
 13                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   It -- you know, it
 14  -- it will, I think, impact our schedule a little bit,
 15  we're going to come to the schedule, but it doesn't knock
 16  us off as much as I had -- had feared.
 17                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Well,
 18  it looks as though our hope of starting on May 17th may
 19  have been overly optimistic, but we are beginning to hear
 20  evidence on May 25th?
 21                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   That's correct.
 22                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   And we
 23  will sit that week.  We'll sit the 25th, 26th, and 27th.
 24  And we could sit a part of the 28th if that doesn't cause
 25  problems.  Then we will sit the 31st, the 1st, the 2nd,


  1  and the 3rd of June.
  2                 Then we will sit, hopefully, the -- yes,
  3  we will sit the 7th, 8th, and 9th of June.  I would like
  4  to think that we could use the week of the 14th, but that
  5  may -- it may be that we will have passed the first
  6  portion of the Inquiry --
  7                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Right.
  8                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   -- by
  9  that time and whether Commission counsel is ready to
 10  launch into the second portion will be determined.  But
 11  if you are, we can use the week.  I'm available.  I'd
 12  like to use it --
 13                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Sure.
 14                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   -- the
 15  week of the 14th.  And then we will sit the week of the
 16  28th, although Canada Day falls on the Thursday, and the
 17  week -- the week of July 5th.
 18                 We may be able to sit the week of July
 19  19th and the week of July 26th, but we'll determine that
 20  as we go along, and the week of August 9th, if necessary,
 21  and the week of August 16th, if necessary.
 22                 I'd really like to get as much of this
 23  underway --
 24                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Sure.
 25                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   -- as


  1  we can in a timely fashion.  For reasons that have been
  2  thoroughly discussed, and through no fault of anyone's,
  3  you know, our earlier anticipated start date has been
  4  delayed, but once we get going I'd like to get this thing
  5  underway and move ahead with it.
  6                 It may involve sitting through portions of
  7  the summer that might be inconvenient to some, but I
  8  think it's important that we keep going --
  9                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Oh, understood.
 10                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   -- as
 11  best we can.
 12                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   The one (1) --
 13  just looking ahead, the one (1) thing that seems sensible
 14  to do is -- is not sit the day after Canada Day.  I don't
 15  know if that was your intention, but...
 16                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   I don't
 17  think so.
 18                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   All right.  Now,
 19  Ms. McIntyre has a submission to make.  You -- you may
 20  have taken the wind out of her sails, I don't know, but
 21  we'll see.
 23  morning.


  1                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   Good morning,
  2  Mr. Commissioner.  Yes, we've been in discussions this
  3  week with respect to the schedule, and I appreciate the
  4  difficulties that have confronted Commission counsel in
  5  getting this matter launched, but it was with some alarm
  6  that I learned that the Commission may go into the fall.
  7                 And, as counsel on behalf of Mayor
  8  McCallion, that raises significant fairness concerns
  9  because that then takes us into the election period.  The
 10  election is scheduled to be held on October the 25th.
 11  And the closing date for the following nomination papers
 12  is September 10th.
 13                 So essentially, that sets up a six (6)
 14  week election period, a length -- a time frame in which
 15  it's the opportunity for the candidates to engage with
 16  the electorate with respect to -- with respect to the
 17  issues.  And we submit that it's fundamentally unfair,
 18  particularly to the Mayor to have hearings of the Inquiry
 19  overlap that period.  Now it may be a moot point.  You
 20  know, I'm -- I'm very encouraged to hear that the -- that
 21  you're committed to -- to using as much time as we can in
 22  the summer.
 23                 I'm sure when the Inquiry was called in
 24  October of last year, it was clearly the expectation of
 25  everybody that the matter would proceed and would be


  1  finished by now, certainly would be well done in advance
  2  of the --
  4  thought we'd be finished by the end of June.
  5                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   -- the election
  6  campaign.  And, sir, that would have given to the
  7  citizens of Mississauga the opportunity not only to have
  8  heard the evidence but, importantly, to know what your
  9  findings of fact were at the end of the day, and also to
 10  hear what recommendations you had to make in the context
 11  of those facts, because at the end of the day it's not
 12  the evidence and the question and all the -- the media
 13  around the Inquiry, it's your findings of facts at the
 14  end of the day that are important.
 15                 And as is the nature of these inquiries,
 16  unfortunately, it's taken much longer than anticipated to
 17  get the matter launched, and we've heard details on
 18  difficulties with disclosure.  I might say in passing
 19  that with respect to any reference to the Mayor's office,
 20  her staff have worked overtime to get the documents to
 21  the City, which then have to be reviewed by the City and
 22  go to Commission counsel.  But I don't think there's any
 23  question that she's been part of -- of the holdup in --
 24  in that matter.
 25                 In any event, we're -- we're now -- the


  1  participants and the public are in the unfortunate
  2  position of probably not having the benefit of your
  3  report, or possibly not having the benefit of your report
  4  before the election.
  5                 We certainly hope that we can.  The Mayor
  6  is committed to doing anything she can to expedite this
  7  process, to get it done.  She welcomes your report, your
  8  recommendations.  But given the terms of the ref --
  9  reference of the Inquiry, and the focus on the Mayor, in
 10  the normal course she would be, if not the last, one (1)
 11  of the last witnesses.  So what we've then got is a
 12  prospect of a schedule that has her testifying and being
 13  under cross-examination during the -- during the election
 14  period.
 15                 And in the context of the -- not your
 16  findings and the report, but the smoke and dust that's
 17  thrown up by the Inquiry, and the media's focus on it, we
 18  submit that it would be fundamentally unfair to conduct
 19  the Inquiry during that relatively brief six (6) week
 20  campaign period.
 21                 So in terms of principles, we've heard a
 22  lot of discussion about the -- about the principles of
 23  fairness that govern these inquiries, and we've heard
 24  Commission counsel talking in his factum and in his
 25  submissions about the need to balance the -- the


  1  principles of fairness and those who are targeted with
  2  the interests of the pursuit of truth and, at the end of
  3  the day, the report.
  4                 And so it's quite clear that the rules of
  5  procedure of the Commission itself recognize the
  6  Commission's commitment to fairness in process.
  7                 I would also like to make reference, if I
  8  may, to some comments made by Justice O'Connor on the
  9  application of fairness to those adverse -- adversely
 10  affected individuals in an inquiry.  And if I could ask
 11  that that article be passed out to you.
 12                 It's -- it's a paper pre -- presented by
 13  Justice O'Connor, who we know was commissioner in both
 14  the Walkerton Inquiry and the Arar Inquiry for the
 15  Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice.
 16                 And on page 13/14, he gets to focus on the
 17  principle of fairness as applied to adversely affected
 18  individuals.  And, if I may, I'll just quickly go through
 19  this.
 20                   "My second observation about the
 21                   inquiry process relates to the need to
 22                   ensure procedural fairness to those who
 23                   may be adversely affected by the
 24                   information that emerges during the
 25                   course of the inquiry or in the report.


  1                   This is critically important.  There is
  2                   enormous potential for an inquiry,
  3                   particularly a public inquiry, to
  4                   seriously damage personal and
  5                   professional reputations.  Because of
  6                   the nature of the issues that give rise
  7                   to an inquiry, there is often [intense]
  8                   publicity both with respect to the
  9                   evidence called during the hearing
 10                   process, and to the report which is
 11                   issued by the commissioner.
 12                   Inquiry hearings are frequently covered
 13                   live on television, and news media
 14                   often assign reporters to cover the
 15                   inquiry on more or less a full-time
 16                   basis.  During the course of [the]
 17                   hearings, the evidence is reported in
 18                   newspapers and on the radio before the
 19                   commissioner has formed any conclusions
 20                   with respect to the facts."
 21                 And I pause there to say that facing that
 22  prospect is of particular concern.
 23                   "News is frequently generated by
 24                   focussing on evidence that points to
 25                   fault by individuals or institutions."


  1                 Then they refer to the internet.
  2                   "Those caught up in [the] inquiry
  3                   process face a very real danger
  4                   of...their professional or personal
  5                   reputations [being] seriously affected
  6                   by the exceptional amount of public
  7                   attention generated by the inquiry
  8                   process."
  9                 He then makes reference to the Federal
 10  Inquiries Act and the Ontario Public Inquiries Act, and
 11  concludes by saying:
 12                   "That said, there remains a significant
 13                   danger that those caught up in an
 14                   inquiry process can have their
 15                   reputations unfairly tarnished in a
 16                   serious way.  I'm not sure of the
 17                   complete answer to this.  The amount of
 18                   public attention and what the media
 19                   will focus on is beyond the control of
 20                   the inquiry.  I do suggest, however,
 21                   that it is essential that Commission
 22                   counsel, in deciding what evidence to
 23                   call and how to lead it, lean over
 24                   backwards to be fair and balanced and
 25                   alert to the potential for unfair


  1                   damage to reputations.  Equally, a
  2                   commissioner crafting a report should
  3                   be careful in the use of language that
  4                   may [generate] this type of adverse
  5                   effect.
  6                   It's important to bear in mind
  7                   throughout that the primary purpose of
  8                   the inquiry is not to find fault but
  9                   rather to face facts, and to report on
 10                   what happened in order to make
 11                   recommendations to ensure that there
 12                   not be a repeat [of the crisis] in the
 13                   future."
 14                 How does that then apply to the particular
 15  circumstances we're dealing with here?  And, to me, it
 16  goes without saying that it is unfair to put the Mayor in
 17  the position of the Inquiry proceeding through the
 18  campaign period, and this is for two (2) reasons.
 19                 First, the potential interference with the
 20  campaign itself and the Mayor's ability to focus on the
 21  campaign while the Inquiry is running at the same time is
 22  basically putting her in the position of having to choose
 23  between participating in the Inquiry, which -- following
 24  the proceedings, instructing counsel, giving evidence
 25  perhaps, rather than focussing on the election campaign.


  1  This is, I would submit, unfair to someone who has
  2  devoted so many years to the public service.
  3                 Also concerned about the impact on the
  4  election itself, potential impact of holding hearings
  5  during the campaign, particularly when we're facing the
  6  prospect that the Inquiry may not be able to complete its
  7  work and issue a report prior to the election.  So what
  8  we're left with is the allegations and questions of
  9  counsel as interpreted through the eyes of the media.
 10  That, we would submit, poses a real danger of magnifying
 11  the pre -- prejudicial impact on reputational interest
 12  referred to by Justice O'Connor.
 13                 So what are we proposing?  First of all,
 14  we've had discussions with your counsel, sir, and we
 15  appreciate the effort to commit more time to this matter
 16  and get it launched.  That being said, I would point out
 17  that we have not yet received any disclosure and, of
 18  course, it's critical in the process that we get
 19  disclosure.  But assuming that can be done, we welcome
 20  the opportunity to get the matter done.
 21                 This is not that big of an inquiry.  It's
 22  limited to two (2) particular -- two (2) particular
 23  transactions.  One would have thought we could have had
 24  it done.  Let's -- let's get at it and get it done.
 25  There is all sorts of efficiencies that are set out in


  1  the rules that -- agreed statements of facts, summaries
  2  of facts, summaries of documents.
  3                 We are -- welcome the opportunity to work
  4  with Commission counsel and other counsel to get it done.
  5  However, in the event that it is not completed by the
  6  commencement of -- by September 10th, we would propose
  7  and submit to you that it be put over for that six (6)
  8  week period and so it does not interfere with the
  9  democratic process in Mississauga.  Thank you.
 10                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 11  you, Ms. McIntyre.
 12                 Anything further, Mr. McDowell?
 15                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   I confess to being
 16  a little bit troubled by those submissions.  First of
 17  all, to put them in context, the complaint about
 18  disclosure is a bit ironic because we don't have the
 19  documents from the Mayor's office ourselves yet, so it's
 20  pretty -- don't see how we would do that.
 21                 I wouldn't -- I wouldn't overstate the
 22  simplicity of the issues here.  I mean, we have found
 23  that there are -- there are real complexities, that there
 24  are corporate relationships which we've had to explore.
 25  There are money -- there are money flows which we've had


  1  to follow.  And there are a number of witnesses, frankly,
  2  on whom we have served subpoenas, summonses, and where
  3  we're in the -- in the position that we'll have to see
  4  whether they turn up on May the 17th and whether we'll
  5  have to take enforcement mechanisms.  And some of these
  6  witnesses are ones who are absolutely central to the
  7  Inquiry.  So I would say that.
  9  have been summonsed for the 17th of May with their
 10  documents?
 11                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   With their
 12  documents.
 14  some have taken the position that that's when they will
 15  arrive with their documents?
 16                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Right.  And -- and
 17  others, including, frankly, some public institutions,
 18  have been a bit coy about it, which I -- I find
 19  unhelpful.  And so I just say that anything that the
 20  Mayor can do in the exercise of her moral suasion to --
 21  to assist in this would be appreciated.  And I -- I would
 22  make that request of -- of any party in like
 23  circumstances.
 24                 The other thing though, at -- at the level
 25  of principle, the suggestion that somehow the Mayor's


  1  campaigning needs trump the process that's going on here
  2  is a difficult proposition.
  3                 If that's going to be seriously advanced,
  4  I'd want to hear some evidence about the Mayor's
  5  historical campaigning needs.  But beyond that, if you
  6  think of the Gomrey situation, which in a different
  7  capacity some of us lived through, objection was taken to
  8  many aspects of what Justice Gomrey was doing to his
  9  extrajudicial interviews, and his fact-finding processes
 10  and so on.
 11                 But the one (1) position that neither the
 12  government nor the Prime Minister took was that he could
 13  not hear evidence.  He could not release his report out
 14  of electoral concerns.  And my submission is that those
 15  considerations are -- are simply irrelevant to what we're
 16  doing.  If the Mayor comes and testifies, she has to be
 17  treated with immaculate fairness, and she will be.  And
 18  you will reinforce to the public and to the media that
 19  what you're hearing are facts upon which -- or evidence
 20  upon which you have formed no conclusion.
 21                 And the electors of Mississauga will
 22  understand that, just as the Supreme Court expected in
 23  its Dagenais decision that jurors would understand that
 24  what appears on television should in no way influence
 25  them.


  1                 We have to trust the judgment of -- of
  2  electors just the way we trust the judgment of jurors.
  3  And so I don't know that Ms. McIntyre is seeking any
  4  ruling from you today.
  5                 I think we should see how this rolls out,
  6  but I just wanted to make those statements for the
  7  record.
  9  McIntyre, did you want to respond to that?  I got a sense
 10  that you did.
 13                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   There was just a
 14  couple of comments.  First of all, with respect to
 15  documents from the Mayor's office, just those were given
 16  to the City some time ago, and we don't have them either.
 17  So with respect to -- they have to go, I guess, through
 18  the chain and come back.  I just wanted to comment on
 19  that.
 20                 With respect to our position, we are
 21  certainly not saying that the residents of Mississauga
 22  shouldn't hear the evidence.  We want them to hear the
 23  evidence.  We want them to see the report.  It's just the
 24  matter of timing on which perhaps Commission counsel and
 25  I disagree.  And perhaps it will become a moot point that


  1  we can resolve as -- as we move along.
  2                 With respect to the -- the suggestion that
  3  the Mayor, through her office, facilitate the attendance
  4  of witnesses, I -- I am quite, to use Mr. McDowell's
  5  term, mystified by that suggestion, so perhaps if he
  6  could give me -- give me some -- some further details on
  7  what he has in mind, we'll consider it.  Thanks.
  8                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  9  you.
 10                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   If I could just
 11  make a -- a brief comment.  You know in the past that --
 12  that I have written to you on behalf of my client, OMERS,
 13  asking for expedition in the process.
 14                 On behalf of my client, I want to thank
 15  you for the personal sacrifice of being willing to sit
 16  through the summer.
 17                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Well, I
 18  think you've heard my commitment to move forward with
 19  this Inquiry with dispatch.  I think those of you who
 20  know me will know that I won't be wasting time.
 21                 I think I heard somewhere earlier on that
 22  it is expected there might be something in the order of
 23  forty (40) days of evidence.  I'd like to think that
 24  would be the limit of it.
 25                 But I think the sooner that all of the


  1  documents are received, the sooner we can get on with the
  2  evidentiary portion of the Inquiry.  It's important that
  3  appropriate preparation be done before the evidence is
  4  led and that all of the interviews are conducted so that
  5  we aren't wasting time once we get into the evidence.  I
  6  think that is well underway.
  7                 It looks as though we're going to be back
  8  here on May 17th in the event that certain parties
  9  respond to summonses at that time.  I'm urging those
 10  people who feel that it's their duty to produce evidence
 11  on May 17th simply because the summons has that date, I
 12  would urge them to communicate with Commission counsel
 13  prior to that date if they have documents to produce so
 14  that we don't waste time.
 15                 And having said all of that, I intend to
 16  proceed with the evidentiary portion of this Inquiry
 17  efficiently and to use as much of the time available
 18  between now and the end of August as we possibly can.
 19                 I think some of the concerns that counsel
 20  for the Mayor has registered are perhaps somewhat
 21  premature, but I take them under advisement.  I
 22  understand the concern that has been raised, but I also
 23  understand the importance of proceeding with this Public
 24  Inquiry.
 25                 Thanks very much, and we'll see you on May


  1  17th.
  3  --- Upon adjourning at 11:32 a.m.
  7  Certified Correct,
 12  __________________
 13  Wendy Warnock, Ms.


The (only one of two “fringe” mayoral candidates challenging Hazel McCallion) Mississauga Muse

Mississauga Minutes don’t record Hazel McCallion’s Contracts Comments –even when the Audit Chair expects them “in the record”

March 19th, 2010  

In our March 17, 2010 Blog, What the MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY investigators will be up against… When Minutes Don’t Matter, I detailed how the minutes summarizing my February 3, 2010 deputation before General Committee were manicured to minimize the concerns that I’d raised on a number of issues pertaining to City of Mississauga Staff non-compliance to policies, procedures, guidelines and legislation.

I’d be prepared to bet that 90% of those attending the December 3rd “Friends of Hazel” Rally wouldn’t see anything wrong with minutes glossing over citizen input —provided it wasn’t theirs.

Today, we present special video. It’s the best way that I know to demonstrate that even Audit Committee meeting minutes are manicured and no one escapes from having their voices CUT TO MUTE.

This time that voice is Hazel McCallion’s.


What follows is video of the September 24, 2007 Audit Committee meeting. While the minutes show McCallion as “Present”, video confirms that the Mayor did not arrive until 9:55 or 45 minutes after the one-hour meeting began.

But once there, Mayor McCallion sure had some important things to say about the report on the Capital Maintenance Contracts Audit – Facilities & Property Management Division. To her credit, Madame Mayor minced no words, calling it “a very bad report. One of the worst that I think I’ve ever seen.”

As we know, contracts blow up at the City in subsequent years. A group of sub-contractors got stiffed for tens of thousands in 2009-2010 because Facilities and Property Management did not do due diligence. Given all that’s happened at the City, that the Mayor’s warnings regarding contracts were not recorded into the Audit Committee minutes weighs heavy now.

Especially when there’s a Judicial Inquiry in the wings that is set to explore how the Enersource contract got mysteriously changed.

To be clear, the minutes of the September 24, 2007 Audit Committee meeting record Hazel McCallion as being silent throughout the meeting. There is zero mention of her making any comment let alone something as vital as:

Let me draw your attention to one thing in this report that bothers me more than anything. Because that’s what happened in Toronto. Staff changed contracts.

And that’s what happened here. Now it isn’t big, I assume. But the point is that Staff thinks that they can change a contract. I mean that is serious. Because it happened in Toronto and that was a big one.

If it can happen in a small one it can also happen in a big one in Mississauga. And that really—

The one that bothers me most is a change of contracts.

The City creates manicured minutes that don’t reflect Reality. That minimize, indeed mask problems. Elected officials approve those minutes. Chronic.

That’s why I say that Staff are beyond the control of elected officials. And it’s why I believe that this Staff, (who McCallion herself observes, “thinks that they can change a contract”) are fully capable of changing an Enersource contract.

Jes’ sayin’.

Video: Hazel McCallion “The one that bothers me most is a change of contracts” –not recorded in minutes (5:54 min)

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



Last, does our Auditor have any comments? Kevin?


No, I don’t have any comments on any of these reports.




—well written, and certainly identify the objectives very well upfront too. And I like the way of style the reports were written, but I have no further comments.



Mayor McCallion, just to [inaudible] here that we have finished the two reports. And any questions —I know now, any questions on the Capital Maintenance Report.

Ken has left and Raj but if you want to go ahead and make your comments, at least they can be —you know, so we can get them in the record.


I apologize for being late. I had a speaking engagement in Oakville.

I have real concerns about this report, I have to tell you. I don’t think I want to go over all the questions but, it certainly doesn’t represent our philosophy of running the City like a business. I would say I have a number of questions.

It’s a very bad report. One of the worst that I think I’ve ever seen.

So I have real concerns about it. I just can’t believe some of the things that are not done. I don’t know if you folks asked questions.


We did. And I’ve had —looking at your notes they’re identifying all the same issues.


I just say extremely disappointed in the report.



There has been the suggestion for Janice to go over these issues up [sic] with both Works and Community Services as well to ensure that the proper process is in place not just in Facilities and Property Management but through the other areas of—


[inaudible] I want to meet with Janice on it —I just, I don’t want to go over the questions. I think you can see that I marked the—


Yeah, and we did raise all of the issues that I think you’ve got marked there —we did raise and the one thing, Madame Mayor that was pointed out in the presentation is that for fourteen recommendations in this report, thirteen of them have now already been implemented.




So all of those issues that we raised concerns about and you’re raising concerns about —they’re very serious concerns have been addressed and have been dealt with.


They shouldn’t have existed.


They shouldn’t have been existing.


That is my concern. It’s not a good report.


And that was why as you recall, when we did the Works Capital Maintenance, we had put a lot of these safeguards already into place there.




And this is why I said to Janice that I was kind of surprised that this Department wasn’t implementing what had already been done in the previous department.

So to make sure that all of this gets put into the other Departments that deal with Capital Maintenance as well.

So, not to do another audit on them. Just make sure that they’re following these recommendations.


Well, yuh, I mean the fourteen, fourteen recommendations covers [sic] our concerns.




And I just hope that they’re not only implemented, but that you will follow them up to make sure that they continue to be implemented but there’s laxity—




There’s laxity somewhere in the operation.  I—


There’s a new manager in that area today. I mean that’s one of the— you know that was not, it was not as a result of the audit, but I think in my view, we’ve got somebody in managing in that area today who would be far more effective in looking at those kinds of processes.

So I think that’s something, an asset that we have that we haven’t necessarily had.


Do you have any other questions on those reports?


No, no.


Just that one, OK?


No, just that I was hoping to get into my comments on that.


Yeah, because we would’ve kept Staff here.

OK, the last item then is the date of the next meeting which is November 26th, 9 AM, here. All right. And maybe if we know how many Staff we’re gonna need [inaudible]


Let me draw your attention to one thing in this report that bothers me more than anything.

Because that’s what happened in Toronto. Staff changed contracts.




And that’s what happened here.

Now it isn’t big, I assume. But the


point is that Staff thinks that they can change a contract. I mean that is serious. Because it happened in Toronto and that was a big one.

If it can happen in a small one it can also happen in a big one in Mississauga. And that really—

The one that bothers me most is a change of contracts.


OK. We’re then adjourned.




—meeting to order. Are there any declarations of direct or indirect pecuniary interest? Seeing none [inaudible].

We’ll go right to Matters to be Considered because the presentations are [inaudible].

Minutes of the last Audit Committee meeting, on September 24th. Councillor Carlson—


Move it.


—any changes or vote for them? Yes, I guess that’s receipt. Approval, right. I always forget whether it’s approval or receipt.

So they are approved.

Item 2 is, we have two final audit reports…




The Mississauga Muse

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY SUBMISSION: MISSISSAUGA AUDIT COMMITTEE LACKS CONTINUITY “And I want to say that it’s also important to have continuity on the Audit Committee.”

February 21st, 2010  

Short and simple —another video for submission to the Judicial Inquiry.

FACT: I, The Mississauga Muse have been present at more Audit Committee meetings (beginning Fall 2006) than any other City of Mississauga elected official including (Ex-officio) Hazel McCallion.

This video speaks to the ineffectiveness and superficiality of the City of Mississauga’s Audit Committee. Followed by the transcript.


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


MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga Council Public Question Period, May 28, 2007):

The reason why I felt my question was important is that I was at Monday’s Audit Committee and the three Councillors who were there in 2006, because I sat in on the last two, were wiped clean. Councillor Iannicca wasn’t on it. I believe Councillors Corbasson and Mullin weren’t on it.

And when I back over the minutes —five years worth of minutes of the Audit Committee, there was a sort of a clean slate of individuals year after year after year. Including Monday brand new people at the councillor-level.

And I want to say that it’s also important to have continuity on the Audit Committee for the Corporation of the City of Mississauga.

That’s all I want to say. So thank you.

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Council Public Question Period, May 28, 2007):

Thank you. I would like to address that.

Continuity is one thing, yes. The point is the process we use for appointments of Councillors to the Audit Committee is to make sure that all members of Council have the privilege of sitting on the Audit Committee and learning from the process.

That’s the reason for it.

[cross zoom]


“It’s been a few years I guess. Is it every few years we’re on the Audit Committee? Pretty well. Pretty well, See then you start to tend to forget what was in the reports that you’re actually working on.”

[clock wipe]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga Council Public Question Period, May 28, 2007):

And when I back over the minutes —five years worth of minutes of the Audit Committee, there was a sort of a clean slate of individuals year after year after year. Including Monday brand new people at the councillor-level.

And I want to say that it’s also important to have continuity on the Audit Committee for the Corporation of the City of Mississauga.

That’s all I want to say. So thank you.

[logo: fade]

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Council Public Question Period, May 28, 2007):

Thank you. I would like to address that.

(ANIMATED GIF)  CITY OF MISSISSAUGA AUDIT COMMITTEE LACKS CONTINUITY "And I want to say that it's also important to have continuity on the Audit Committee"



The (Check out elected officials who were starting to tend to forget what was in the reports that they were actually working on during the 2000 Audit Committee. And the Staff….) Mississauga Muse

2009 MISSISSAUGA VIDEOS: MISSISSAUGAWATCH Shatters the MYTH behind the City of MYTHississauga

January 1st, 2010  


Last Blog you saw the pics: The first being, Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion hugging and congratulating Michael Nobrega fellow Director of the Enersource Board after their successful Enersource public meeting and Cable 10 broadcast. Nobrega is president and chief executive of Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) —10% partner with 100% veto power (yes. really!).

Here’s the video uploaded to YouTube on January 25, 2009 of Mississauga Inc and McCallion-Nobrega in action.


(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

FEBRUARY 2009 (Uploaded February 10, 2009)

Video of youth/Police interaction on the TTC. Bitter February and the youth was wearing a thin T-shirt —complete with holes.

Video: HOMELESS YOUTH and TORONTO POLICE/SPECIAL CONSTABLES at TTC SUBWAY (Queen St station) 090205 (2:28 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube


MISSISSAUGAWATCH asks Dr. Alvin Curling if the authors of the Roots of Youth Violence Report had filed any Freedom of Information as part of their research. Nope.

Video: “ROOTS OF YOUTH VIOLENCE” co-author, DR. ALVIN CURLING interviewed by MISSISSAUGAWATCH (4:40 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

APRIL 2009 (Uploaded April 17, 2009)


(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

MAY 2009 (Uploaded May 17, 2009) PUT A *STAR* BESIDE THIS ONE!

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION: on City Staff’s “complete disregard” for Policies (10:06 min)

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



(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

JULY 2009 (Uploaded July 4, 2009)


(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube



(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

SEPTEMBER 2009 (Uploaded September 10, 2009)

Video: Poor and Invisible in Toronto. Through a (Tim Hortons coffee shop) Window 6:22)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube



(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube


Video: “Mega-Builder” Harold Shipp $$$threatens$$$ Seven Mississauga Councillors with $$$DEFEAT$$$ (1:04 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

DECEMBER 2009 (Uploaded December 15, 2009)

Video: MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY: Citizen-Blogger MISSISSAUGAWATCH requests limited standing (8:09 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube


MISSISSAUGAWATCH at www.mississaugawatch.ca



MISSISSAUGAWATCH photos (and documents secured through Freedom of Information) at Flickr The Mississauga Muse


The Ontario Ombudsman Twitter


The Ontario Ombudsman Facebook

The Ontario Ombudsman YouTube

The Ontario Ombudsman Flickr

CAROLYN PARRISH VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: “This Inquiry is about things that have been going on —murky things that have been going on around our city for quite some time.”

November 8th, 2009  

Yesterday, we posted video of Councillor Carolyn Parrish’s explanation as to why Mississauga needs a Judicial Inquiry.

By way of introduction to today’s Blog, I will simply repeat what I wrote yesterday. The reader can regard this as my official position on the Judicial Inquiry. Yesterday I wrote:

I’ve filed two years and $2,100 worth of Freedom of Information on City of Mississauga Corporate Security. If the rest of the City of Mississauga is as corrupt and unaccountable as their Security operation, this judicial inquiry is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overdue!

There you have it.

And now, the video, followed by the transcript.


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


NOTE:  Councillor Parrish really did say “one hundred million” and the City Solicitor also did say “ten million”. Next, regarding OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retiredment System) Councillor Parrish really did say, “They gave us ten percent of Enersource” —this is clearly in error and can’t be what she meant to say based on the rest of her comments.


Councillor Parrish.


Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I know you’re all going to want to boo. So if you just be patient and wait til I finish speaking and then boo maybe we’ll get through this a little more quickly.

First of all I’d like to tell you, and get on the record that there’s a procedural problem here in that the judicial review was passed four weeks ago. So what Councillor Mullin has done is defer the Terms of Reference. She hasn’t asked us to reverse that decision yet. So the procedure to do that is quite different and we’ll have to discuss it.

Secondly I would like to ask the lawyer, the City’s lawyer, if in fact we can get to a 100-million dollars in your wildest dreams and secondly, can a judge order us to pay the costs of the witnesses that come before the judicial review.


Through the City Solicitor.


In my report, I set out the reasons for why I’ve estimated the costs the way that I have. I don’t think the costs are going to  be anywhere near the range of  10-million dollars. They could definitely go higher than what I’ve estimated because as I’ve said in the report, there are a number of variables depending  on what the investigation turns up and how the Commissioner decides to handle those matters.

In terms of the Third Parties or Corporations or outside parties, the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to provide funding and I set that out on page 11 of my report. In terms of who has Party status and who can participate fully in the Inquiry, if the Inquiry is held, that is a matter that will be determined by the Commissioner.

The Commissioner establishes the rules for a Judicial Inquiry —Council does not. So they will determine the rules. They will determine the Parties. They make —may make  recommendations on funding if they think it’s appropriate. But they do not have any jurisdiction to make that decision.


Thank you. And another comment I would like to make is, with the exception of Mr. Shipp who took a direct shot at me, and I will discuss it with you later because I want you  to know what you said about me is not true.

I agree with everything that was  said today about Hazel McCallion. This Inquiry is not about Hazel McCallion. This Inquiry—no—

[Protests, jeers from audience]


Let her finish please.

[Protests, jeers from audience]


You’ve had your opportunity.

[Protests, jeers from audience]



[Protests, jeers from audience]



[Protests, jeers from audience]


Order. Please proceed.

[Protests, jeers from audience die down]


This Inquiry is about things that have been going on —murky things that have been going on around our city for quite some time.

And if you want to talk about money and you want to talk about OMERS, the first thing that was discovered after I was elected, through a very laborious process that cost us over a million dollars, was the Enersource agreement that was signed in 2000 was altered two days before it was signed on direction from the lawyers from OMERS and accepted by then City Manager.

It was altered to give Veto Power —one hundred percent Veto Power to our ten percent partner.

Now you need to understand, that’s OMERS.  They came in. They gave us [sic] ten percent of Enersource and they took one hundred percent control.

They have excuses for doing it but the main excuse was that we have a Put agreement, which is too complex to get in to. If it was a good excuse, why didn’t they bring it to the Councillors of the day in 2000 and say this is why we need this little veto in here. This is why we have to be able to veto one hundred percent of your decisions. You’re ninety percent, we’re ten percent. We have a good reason but you know what? We’re not going to tell you what it is. We’re gonna send a letter from OMERS to the City Manager of the day and to our Lawyer of the day and say, “Just slip that in.”

So that when we were looking into selling Hydro, which we subsequently decided not to, cost us one-hundred-fifty/two-hundred thousand dollars to find that little mistake. And the clock has been ticking ever since.

So OMERS, who sent us a threatening letter last night, saying, “We’ve just spent nine months trying to re-negotiate that deal because we know we shafted you, we’re going to draw the re-negotiation out of the ballpark. We’re taking it back. We don’t like what you’re doing with the Judicial Review. We don’t like being named in it. And by the way, we want you to pay for our lawyers for the last nine months while we were trying to figure out how to fix the mistake that was done without the knowledge of your Councillors or your Mayor!”

The City Manager of the day slipped the papers to her, said go ahead and sign them [inaudible word] the same as the ones Council looked at.

So Number One, I want to look at OMERS, I’m sorry. We’ve have a few deals with those guys.

Secondly, we tried to buy a piece of land to build Sheridan College here in City Centre.  What was discovered was affidavits were sent through the courts where certain persons involved in World Class Development said you have to pay us off. We’ve put in two-point-three-million dollars that we’re not going to get back. So we’re going to take you to court, hold this whole thing up and Sheridan won’t get built because they have to get built by 2011 just like the other infrastructure money.

So if we have to go to court and fight with these guys, W. [sic] World Class Development, Sheridan won’t get built!

So what do we do? World Class Development does all these affidavits, tells us about off-site meetings, tells us this, tells us that. And they say, “But you know what, for a cash settlement from OMERS we’ll withdraw our objection.” In my world, that’s blackmail.

So I want those guys looked at. Because they affect our city and they affect the prices we pay. If OMERS paid them three million to go away, I’m sure we paid them three million more than we should have for that land.

So that’s what I want to look at and that’s what we all wanted to look at.

Mayor McCallion’s Conflict of Interest is a small technicality that is absolutely irrelevant to me.

[Murmurs, groans from audience]


What is relevant, what is relevant, is the fact that six days after the minutes of the meeting was [sic] taken care of, somebody in this building changed those minutes. And we’ve never had an explanation.

The other thing you need to know, ‘cuz we’ve asked the City Manager in-camera, you know when you Blackberry each other in business —you guys are all in business, you all have those little Blackberrys, this City monitors our PIN to PIN conversations.

That was admitted by the City Manager that the City has the technology to do that…

[MISSISSAUGAWATCH turns video camera to video surveillance camera over Councillor Parrish’s left shoulder.]


So somebody can find out who instructed the minutes to be changed or go into the minutes and change them. To me that’s an issue!

I’m sure you’d like to know that your minutes, when you read them from a meeting are honest, nobody has the ability to change them, and we’ve never had an explanation as to why they were changed.

So when you look at the Terms of Reference of this, it was a lengthy conversation by all the members of Council —and I didn’t give them something in their drinking water, and I didn’t promise them jobs or Heaven, or anything else.

I merely looked into this because I’m a bit of a ferret and I follow Hazel’s instructions which are “Do Your Homework” and when you keep doing your homework and you keep finding problems that you can’t answer or solve —the rest of your colleagues say, “Hey, we got to look at this.”

Now if there’s a way of doing the Terms of Reference that Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest is taken out of it, I have no problem with that because she’s admitted she had a Conflict of Interest.

I want to find out how the minutes got changed, I want to find out why OMERS took what they paid World Class Development to go away. I want to know what other deals have been going on at the City Centre like that. I want to know why we’ve spent a year-and-a-half trying to fix a deal that was signed by the Mayor without her knowledge or Council’s knowledge slipping in a huge Veto Power in there for a little ten percent partner!

My colleague, Nando, has often said, if that is acceptable in business, he’s going to buy ten percent of every one of your houses—


(whispers) And tell you what to do.


—and then tell you what to do with them. When you can live in them. Who can live in them with you. He’s In Charge.

So please get it out of your heads that I— and by the way I was told by Hazel McCallion when she announced six weeks ago or whenever that she was running again, I was the only one who sent her a note congratulating her. I want her to run again!

[Laughter, jeers from audience]


No, I’m sorry…


Order. Order.

[Laughter, jeers from audience]




But I also want this judicial review to clear the air.

And I’m also surprised at how little faith you have in the Mayor when you all keep talking about this thing growing like a giant mushroom cloud.

If it’s a little Conflict of Interest, it’ll be over in ten minutes.

If it’s OMERS it might take longer.

If it’s people in this building snooping on all our PINs and changing minutes—might take a little longer. But these are the things that we want to look at.


And if there’s a way in the Terms of Reference and I’m going to ask our lawyer, if we can take Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest out of it at that meeting on May 21st, I’d be happy to do so. Could I, through you, ask our lawyer?”


Through the Solicitor.


Please note that video ends because YouTube allows a maximum of 10 minutes per video and this video is exactly 10:04 including the MISSISSAUGAWATCH logo.


The Mississauga Muse

MISSISSAUGA Conflict of Interest Judicial Inquiry VIDEO TRANSCRIPT COMPILATION-1: IN THEIR OWN WORDS, Councillors Corbasson, Dale, Carlson, Iannicca

November 6th, 2009  

At the October 28, 2009 Council meeting, despite blistering opposition from the “Our Hazel Can Do No Wrong” crowd, seven City of Mississauga Councillors voted for a judicial inquiry into the inner “murky” workings of the Trust, Quality, Excellence people.

While the traditional media have taken considerable interest of late, the reader/viewer is limited to reporters’ version of events which in some cases are as ghastly and non-researched as what is churned out by the “Our Hazel Can Do No Wrong” crowd.

Again, to repeat, I’ve been filing Freedom of Information on City of Mississauga Corporate Security conduct, operations and adherence to policies. If there are similar WThuh?! open cesspools like I’ve dredged up with $2,100 worth of Freedom of Information, this judicial inquiry was long overdue.

So MISSISSAUGAWATCH will turn today’s Blog over to a compilation of video transcripts of four Councillors as they explained why they voted for a judicial inquiry.

These transcripts appear in the order presented in previous Blogs: Councillor Carmen Corbasson (Ward 1), Councillor Frank Dale (Ward 4), Councillor George Carlson (Ward 11) and Councillor Nando Iannicca (Ward 7).

The reader who knows a thing or two about Mississauga will notice Councillor Carolyn Parrish (Ward 6) is not among these four and not addressed at all so far.  That’s because Councillor Parrish’s October 28, 2009 comments were extensive and will need more time to work up in video as well as provide transcripts.

The next Blog (and possibly a second) will deal exclusively with Councillor Parrish’s October 28, 2009 comments.

As I’ve said in my previous Blogs, all video and transcripts will be submitted to the Mississauga City Clerk for inclusion in the October 28, 2009 minutes because frankly, I do not want Future Mississauga 30-40 years from now to read only the Corporation’s side of the story (aka manicured minutes). (As a historical record it can’t get better than video and the transcript).

Here we go.




Thank you Mr. Acting Mayor and I will be brief. Um, let me first say that this isn’t an easy time for any of us around this table just like it’s not an easy time for you. I don’t think we take comfort in any of the decisions we’ve had to make of late. But notwithstanding, we are elected to make some tough decisions and I think that’s the type of comment you’re gonna hear around this table today.

I am not at all overwhelmed by the number of people who showed up, Councillor Prentice. In fact, I’m surprised there wasn’t more.

And I’ll tell you why I’m surprised because we all know Madam Mayor is loved, admired and respected. And I for one moment am not going to take away that from her. For me, she has been a role model in many many ways. We both started here in the City in 1978 and I’ve learned an awful lot from her.

I— my biggest difficulty is, and I hope you can understand and appreciate that when we have in-camera sessions, we are privy to certain comments and information that the general public is not.

For me, the in-camera session on the judicial inquiry opened up more questions than it answered.

I— that Madam Mayor didn’t declare one Conflict of Interest for a 17-minute or a 17-second, whatever it was, I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem that official government documents got changed with no satisfactory explanation.

I do have difficulty that any member of Council, doesn’t matter if it’s Madam Mayor, or me, or anyone else, can have off-site meetings, with a landowner, who has an interest in the City of Mississauga, that is going to financially benefit a member of any one of our families.

That may not be against the Conflict of Interest Act. But in my opinion, I would hope, and it’s my understanding that a judicial inquiry can —and most probably would, depending on their findings —make some very strong recommendations to have either the Conflict of Interest Act or the Municipal Act changed.

That’s simply put, Ladies and Gentlemen, for me —I’m not going to speak, I’ll let the others speak for themselves.

This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it ten million? I don’t know.

But I would like to see this City in particular, and certainly Madam Mayor come out with credibility, integrity and that we all maintain our dignity.

I do thank you for coming out today, Ladies and Gentlemen and I will turn it back to the Acting Mayor.

Video: Councillor Carmen Corbasson  (3:50 min)

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



Thank you Mr. Acting Mayor. I certainly just wanted to make a point, that I want to be clear as a member of Council that I always examine the facts that are before me and weigh them in any decisions that I make as the Councillor. And taking into, of course, the consideration, uh, taking into consideration, the best interests of this great city as well as the community in which I represent.

And I stand behind the position that that I took with respect to the inquiry primarily for the same reasons that Councillor Corbasson eloquently described.

And I do want to make it clear that this was not personal to the Mayor. This was just based on the facts that was presented before us and the recommendations that were before us by outside legal counsel —and reviewing that, and examining that, made that decision. And I stand by, and will support the recommendations that are before us today, with respect to the terms of reference.

I want to be clear though that the decision I make, the decision then—the decision I make today is for no one’s political gain.

Jeer from audience

I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.

Video: Councillor Frank Dale (1:58 min)

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



Thank you very much Mr. Acting Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity just to say a few words that may be a slightly different tone than some of the other comments made. I think it’s sad in a way that it’s looked as a win-lose here today.

This was a process because we really, as a governing body, find ourselves vexed by the issues we’re reading about here today. And they haven’t just started dogging us yesterday at noon. This has been going on for some years.

And we’ve spent a considerable amount of money trying in our own way to get to the bottom of many of these issues. And in my opinion, I don’t think we’ve been all that successful. And it continues to hang over Council .

And when you read of the divisions on Council, you’re mostly talking about Enersource and the issues associated with OMERS and partnerships. So to me, I’m delighted that the motion is to delete Madam Mayor from that minor Conflict of Interest, which she’s already said she accepts responsibility. That is a nothing-issue as far as this inquiry is concerned

And as far as I’m concerned, Explanation Accepted. Forgotten about. That part is a Big Zero to me.

So because it’s so obvious from the heartfelt response from the folks here today that this appears to be a first-class witch hunt —must be Hallowe’en, we’re too much into the witch stuff, that we need— This helps to de-focus that and gets us on the other issues which I’m afraid the media find a lot less interesting than going after dear old Hazel.

The kind of stuff about governance and ownership and shares puts most people to sleep. I have to agree with you. But, it’s Big Bucks and we have never properly settled that issue. And I don’t know how to do it other than this.

But I think another point of view as well too, the fact that we’re going to a judge, that speaks volumes to me as a Canadian. I love that we have a country where we can go to an impartial judiciary and say look, we’ve played with the damn thing for two years and we’re not lawyers, judges.

And as I said to one resident today, if there was anything going on here, I would not want this group, much as I love them all, to be sitting in judgment of me. This is a non-starter —reat group of people to work with but, this is not a court of law.

So I think sometimes when you’re stuck, you’re stuck and you’ve got to get some help from somebody. And for me, that’s all this is about and the speculation about politics and who’s the Mayor—

I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. And she gettin’ a lot of advice that brought this because for sure this is costing her votes if she ever were to run for Mayor.

So you may get your wish in that she’ll never be elected Mayor but we still have to sort out these problems and that’s why I’m supporting — It has nothing to do with the Mayor. I’ve known her —I’m trying to think when I first met Hazel, I think I was probably three years old or something. I have no interest in any vexatious action against her.

But by golly, I don’t know what else to do. I guess you could hire a consultant —we’ve done all of the consultants. We’ve done, we’ve asked for outside lawyers and asked for —we need someone who can come in and sort out the stuff and say, here’s what you need to do and what/where you went wrong, if we did go wrong. And here’s how you can improve it for the future.

That’s all I’m voting for and if that’s bad, I guess that’s bad but that’s all I can say about it and I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chair

Video: Councillor George Carlson (3:53 min)

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



And if you don’t mind, as Chair, I would like to speak if someone would so move.

[Someone does]


Thank you, I—


Here he goes.


—have an obligation to my consitituents and I’ll be very very brief but I think Councillor Carmen (Corbasson) hit on the fundamental point that we’re all grappling with. This is not a fun day for us. This is a heart-wrenching decision.

The reason that I was one of the proponents of the Inquiry —the reason I stand by it emphatically needs all of ten seconds to explain.

Number One, I don’t have a crystal ball. I don’t know where this is going.

I do know that minutes have been altered —there some other things have gone on that I cannot explain to my taxpayers and I owe them an explanation.

Point Number Two, the Lady of Justice is blind for a reason. It matters not who she judges over —whether that’s your Mayor, whether that’s my brother, whether that’s the local parish priest. And I have to hold that close to my thoughts as well.

I also have a concern to be brutally candid with you of my understanding of some of the conduct that has been outlined —because, to be brutally candid with you, I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar manner.

It is not a city that I would want to live in. I’ve never conducted my affairs in that manner.

I’m shocked that anyone in the audience or anyone in this city would put the cost of such an exercise ahead of having to ensure you have Integrity and Accountability in your political system.

[Jeers and protests from the audience]


I beg your pardon.

And so to conclude, at the end of the day, I was not elected for my love of the Mayor. I was elected to do the right thing.

This, as difficult as it is on an emotional level —I want you to hear from me directly, from many of you that I’ve known for a long time, on an ethical, moral, and the-right-thing level, this is one of the easiest decisions that I’ve ever had to make though I’ve never regretted a decision more.

With that I now turn to the motions before me, I need the assistance of the Clerk to make sure…

Video: Councillor George Carlson (2:23 min)

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


Again, Councillor Parrish’s comments are on-deck and for historical reasons, transcripts and video of the Councillors who opposed the judicial inquiry will also be recorded here for posterity.


The Mississauga Muse


MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Carmen Corbasson, “This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that”

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Frank Dale, “I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.” November 4, 2009

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor George Carlson, “I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. November 4th, 2009

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Nando Iannicca, “I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar manner. It is not a city that I would want to live in.”

Best quotes for people to Get It.

“This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it ten million? I don’t know.”

—Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

I want to be clear though that the decision I make, the decision then—the decision I make today is for no one’s political gain. (Jeer from audience) I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.

—Mississauga Councillor Frank Dale regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. And she gettin’ a lot of advice that brought this because for sure this is costing her votes if she ever were to run for Mayor. So you may get your wish in that she’ll never be elected Mayor but we still have to sort out these problems and that’s why I’m supporting — It has nothing to do with the Mayor.

—Mississauga Councillor Frank Dale regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

And I also have a concern to be brutally candid with you of my understanding of some of the conduct that has been outlined —because, to be brutally candid with you, I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar matter. It is not a city that I would want to live in.

—Mississauga Councillor Nando Iannicca regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor George Carlson, “I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all.”

November 4th, 2009  

[The BACKGROUND (all in dark blue font) is a repeat from previous blogs. You may just want to scroll down directly to the video and transcript.]


The October 28, 2009 Mississauga Council meeting will always be remembered as the Judicial Inquiry Meeting.

Facing blistering criticism from angry Hazel McCallion supporters and even dire threats of defeat from “When-Our-Hazel-Dies-I-Want-Her-Here-In-This-Hall” Mega-builder Harold Shipp, seven Councillors held their ground —and put their political futures directly on the line.


In his October 31, 2009 article, Mississauga melee gets ugly, Toronto Sun, columnist Ted Woloshyn telegraphs the 2010 pro-McCallion strategy.

He writes:

So expect Hurricane Hazel, who’s facing a tornado of trouble right now including a judicial inquiry into her actions and the inability to win key votes at council, to fight back hard.

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.

The other seven incumbents are now seen as anti-Hazel. If even two of those went down in defeat, control of Mississauga’s council chamber would shift dramatically, and in the end control of council equals control of the city.

An endorsement from a mayor who continuously garners in excess of 90% of the vote would carry a ton of weight. Would a politician who runs as part of Team Hazel get a little more attention and maybe a few more lawn signs?

I suspect an endorsement from Mississauga Mega-builder Harold Shipp is worth a mega-ton as well. Not to mention a mega-ton of lawn signs!

Having researched City of Mississauga governance (videotaping, Freedom of Information etc) and documenting “citizen input” over the years, this is the Picture…

The vast majority of Mississaugans do not know what’s going on. Second, of those who don’t know what’s going on, I’ve concluded that sadly, few would care if a judicial inquiry confirmed widespread malfeasance and corruption. Voters clearly vote with their wallets and wallets don’t care about ethical governments.

During his deputation in support of a judicial inquiry, Donald Barber stated:

“I’m not here to discuss anything about Hazel. We all know that, you know, even if she was dead and buried, her name was on the ballot sheet, she’d be elected  That’s fine.”

To which Mr. Barber received strong applause and cheers.

I’d go so far as to say that even if headlines confirmed that she routinely stuffs cats and political opponents into a wood-chipper, Mississaugans would re-elect Hazel McCallion. Such is the Pathology of MYTHissauga.

Over the next while, MISSISSAUGAWATCH will post videos of the October 28, 2009 Council meeting onto YouTube for posterity. Regardless of who is speaking, all videos will begin the same way —with Harold Shipp and his $$$threat$$$ of political oblivion to any Councillor who’d stand up during a recorded vote in support of a judicial inquiry.

Video: “Mega-builder” Harold Shipp warns MISSISSAUGA Councillors. Councillor George Carlson responds (3:53 min)

So. First video of  Ward 11 Councillor George Carlson and why he supported the judicial review, followed by a transcript from the video. All transcripts will be sent to the City Clerk for inclusion into the Council minutes for this meeting.

We begin.

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


VIDEO INTRODUCTION speaking AGAINST a judicial inquiry. “Mega-builder” HAROLD SHIPP:

If I were sitting there among you, Ladies and Gentlemen, who serve on our Council today, I would be wondering what my position would be one year from now when an election is held and how many of you might have a chance for re-election —IF you proceed with the action you are contemplating now.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

Now that’s a threat. Isn’t that interesting..

DIP TO BLACK (to signify later in the meeting).


Councillor Carlson.


Thank you very much Mr. Acting Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity just to say a few words that may be a slightly different tone than some of the other comments made. I think it’s sad in a way that it’s looked as a win-lose here today.

This was a process because we really, as a governing body, find ourselves vexed by the issues we’re reading about here today. And they haven’t just started dogging us yesterday at noon. This has been going on for some years.

And we’ve spent a considerable amount of money trying in our own way to get to the bottom of many of these issues. And in my opinion, I don’t think we’ve been all that successful. And it continues to hang over Council .

And when you read of the divisions on Council, you’re mostly talking about Enersource and the issues associated with OMERS and partnerships. So to me, I’m delighted that the motion is to delete Madam Mayor from that minor Conflict of Interest, which she’s already said she accepts responsibility. That is a nothing-issue as far as this inquiry is concerned

And as far as I’m concerned, Explanation Accepted. Forgotten about. That part is a Big Zero to me.

So because it’s so obvious from the heartfelt response from the folks here today that this appears to be a first-class witch hunt —must be Hallowe’en, we’re too much into the witch stuff, that we need—  This helps to de-focus that and gets us on the other issues which I’m afraid the media find a lot less interesting than going after dear old Hazel.

The kind of stuff about governance and ownership and shares puts most people to sleep. I have to agree with you. But, it’s Big Bucks and we have never properly settled that issue. And I don’t know how to do it other than this.

But I think another point of view as well too, the fact that we’re going to a judge, that speaks volumes to me as a Canadian. I love that we have a country where we  can go to an impartial judiciary and say look, we’ve played with the damn thing for two years and we’re not lawyers, judges.

And as I said to one resident today, if there was anything going on here, I would not want this group, much as I love them all, to be sitting in judgment of me. This is a non-starter —reat group of people to work with but, this is not a court of law.

So I think sometimes when you’re stuck, you’re stuck and you’ve got to get some help from somebody. And for me, that’s all this is about and the speculation about politics and who’s the Mayor—

I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. And she gettin’  a lot of advice that brought this because for sure this is costing her votes if she ever were to run for Mayor.

So you may get your wish in that she’ll never be elected Mayor but we still  have to sort out these problems and that’s why I’m supporting — It has nothing to do with the Mayor. I’ve known her —I’m trying to think when I first met Hazel, I think I was probably three years old or something. I have no interest in any vexatious action against her.

But by golly, I don’t know what else to do. I guess you could hire a consultant —we’ve done all of the consultants. We’ve done, we’ve asked for outside lawyers and asked for —we need someone who can come in and sort out the stuff and say, here’s what you need to do and what/where you went wrong, if we did go wrong. And here’s how you can improve it for the future.

That’s all I’m voting for and if that’s bad, I guess that’s bad but that’s all I can say about it and I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chair


Thank you. Councillor Mullin…



The Mississauga Muse

“This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it ten million? I don’t know.”

—Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

I want to be clear though that the decision I make, the decision then—the decision I make today is for no one’s political gain. (Jeer from audience) I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.

—Mississauga Councillor Frank Dale regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

MISSISSAUGA MUSE, MISSISSAUGAWATCH "Conducting Administrative, Oversight & Ombudsman Investigations" GARETH JONES


April 11th, 2009  

Hey Missy Dudes and Dudettes,

Today’s Blog is going to be a little different because it will consist entirely of a report I filed inside Mississauga Council Chambers last Wednesday as Council went “in-camera”.

It’s essentially my incredulous and frustrated response to  the chronic blight of citizens being limited to MINUTES of Council meetings. Being limited to reading the accounts of all the He-Saids, She-Saids They-Saids of municipal government meetings through manicured MINUTES.

MINUTES —someone writing stuff down, just like it was done back when papyrus was first invented!

So, crabby, I vented into my video camera my own “Why aren’t we recording all meetings on VIDEO? Or at least AUDIO?” report.

Today’s Blog will be the transcript.


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


I have to say that Council today was really remarkable in the amount of “He-Said She-Said They-Said” that was going on. And they were talking about going back to minutes of meetings.

Well, I mean, I happen to know when you compare the video of the Council and even General Committee meetings –the video that I shoot, and you compare it to what actually makes it in the minutes, we’re talking about Creative Writing here. And that’s a problem that is systemic here at the City of Mississauga.

And what they write down is essentially [a] manicured message of The Corporation and that’s pretty well anybody who’s required to write a report of some kind.

And what was particularly fascinating was reference to what happened at various in-camera meetings. Now in-camera meetings are closed, secret meetings –really, away from the public. In fact the word, “in-camera” means exactly the opposite.

They go off into a special room up there. I guess it’s on the third floor and then away from the public. We don’t know what they’re talking about in there. And there seems to be, no not “seems to be” –certainly, there was considerable debate as to what it is that they actually said in behind closed doors.

And it’s left me to wonder, surely the in-camera meetings aren’t limited to somebody taking notes [whispering into camera] because City of Mississauga is not good at taking notes. You don’t want them to take notes on you.” [whispering ends]

[Pauses to think…]

We’re in the new millennium. 2009 now. And we’re witnessing an entity –indeed, pretty well all municipalities -that they limit the minutes of their meetings to what someone chooses to write down and record.

And just from my own experience and research and two years of Freedom of Information documents –to be able to tell the difference between what they [City of Mississauga] say publicly and what The Reality shows, you know, they do privately…

‘scuse me, telephone.

[cell phone call interrupts. Fade to black. Fade in]

Where was I? Right. We’re in a new millennium where the kind of camera that I’m using right now to record this has seven hours of recording time. [reaches for digital recorder] We have digital audio recorders that can record for days!

And yet we’re limiting things to minutes of meetings –in other words, Pen and Quill Technology, and the public is limited to what someone chooses to record.

And in my own experience, and this is researching and securing documents through Freedom of Information, it’s often what they don’t record that screws you over royally.

And I’m just wondering when the debate between, “well this was said and that was said and this was left out and no, no, no you don’t have all the facts” -what I don’t understand is why they can’t have [points] on that computer screen, because I can do it at home -go to my hard drive, I can go right now and find out what the March 11th meeting said about Enersource or about some corporate policy or what by-law was passed or what wasn’t –and I can’t understand -why we’re limited to someone’s view of what happened!

That’s why I’m recording this! Because I know the inventive Creative Writing that goes on here. Because the selective “memory” [gestures] within these walls is obscene!

[whispers] It’s obscene!

And I uh, just two weeks ago, I secured Freedom of Information on Report Writing for Mississauga Corporate Security and it was a pdf file [Ed: incorrect, I meant “Power Point” files] and there were three documents. And while it didn’t say directly that you should keep stuff out, it did warn the guards that anybody could secure or ask for their records –and by the way, I do.

And they also mention “Freedom of Information” as being one.

So they don’t want to write down something that doesn’t advance the interests of The Corporation.

And you know, you’ve got Parrish and Adams saying one thing. You’ve got Mahoney saying something else and you know [reaches for digital audio recorder] let’s hear it in here! Or better yet, on video.

And I really think, one of the things is, forty or fifty years from now –because I think our democracy is being eroded something horrible, just.

We’re allowing our governments to use technology unfettered and that includes [points to Council Pelco PTZ “Pelco One”] these frikkin’ video surveillance cameras without any oversight!

And they’re using this sophisticated technology and yet citizens forty/fifty years from now, when they’re going to want to know how Mississauga came about. How it responded to the Smart Growth. How it got the transit system it developed. That’s happening right here, right now! This is The History.

And we’re allowing –citizens are allowing the history of this city to be [points to Council] to be written by them!  And, and, it isn’t just that, it’s all Ontarians are allowing that to happen. Whether it’s in Vaughan, in Whitby, in Ajax, in Brampton, in Oakville. All citizens in Ontario –and I’m going to use the word “victimized” -are being victimized by minutes of meetings as opposed to it being recorded and the actual video record of every Council meeting, of every General (Committee) meeting, of every Audit Committee meeting should be part of the record!

And I know why it isn’t. I know why it isn’t. Because a video record cuts through the “He-Said, She-Said”. Cuts through the selective reporting -or even the lies. Because.. [long pause]

I, uh –the thing that happened today with Councillor Parrish and her frustra-I can understand the frustration! I can understand what it’s like to be stonewalled, to have delays, to be treated with disrespect –and by the way, being bullied, intimidated, threatened and [very long pause] I can understand her frustration.

[even longer pause]

They’re coming back (from in-camera). So let me record it this way.

Let’s add “no video records of things” and “selective minutes, selective reporting” as another Root of Youth Violence.



The Mississauga Muse