MississaugaWatch Mississauga Watch

Steve Mahoney: The SYMBIOTS of MYTHissauga –Mississauga 2014 Mayor Campaign Analysis

April 29th, 2014  

Every established politician has his share of what MISSISSAUGAWATCH refers to as “Symbiots”.

Don’t try Googling “symbiots”  –we just made it up. We define “symbiot” as one who engages in symbiosis.

In his testimony at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, OMERS President, Michael Nobrega referred to those who engage in symbiosis, (for example, those who cling to Mayor Hazel McCallion) as “hangers-on”.

We’ve determined that some Symbiots hang onto Hazel McCallion so tenaciously that we’ve come to refer to them as “Cling-ons”.

So we raise the inevitable question: what makes a person or group actively support (hang-on) to a politician?

We believe that Justice J. Douglas Cunninghams, has the answer. He wrote:

“A review of the interaction between the mayor and various players in relation to the WCD deal suggests
  that those who are fortunate enough to enjoy friendships with the mayor have derived benefits from
  those relationships.”

—J. Douglas Cunningham, Commissioner  Report Updating the Ethical Infrastructure, October 3, 2011

Symbiots have “derived benefits from those relationship”, be that with Mayor Hazel McCallion or any other politician.

This raises another question: What, if anything, can we learn about a politician by researching his Symbiots?

By example, what if you knew absolutely nothing about a politician and your only source of information comes from what you can learn about his “hangers-on”?

And that raises three other questions: So who are MYTHissauga’s Symbiots? And why?….


WHO wins BIGGEST if Steve Mahoney does?…

And then there’s FORD NATION…




June 17th, 2013  

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

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


The Decision released June 14, 2013

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



(released June 14, 2013)


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[3]   The issues are as follows:

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

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


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

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

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

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



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


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

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

[7] Having regard to the following:

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

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

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




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


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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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



[31] The application is, therefore dismissed.

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


Justice Sproat’s Decision


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

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

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

November 29th, 2012  

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

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

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

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)


MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Council Chambers, November 29, 2012

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

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

He’s Above the Rules.

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

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

Never in a million years.

And a lot of people are in shock.

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

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

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

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Council Chambers, November 29, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

Was it willful?

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


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

This guy does not do Rules.


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

And gets almost some answers.

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

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)








Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 14) Acting on Advice of Integrity Commissioner.

January 29th, 2012  


This blog is a continuation of the following blog entries:

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

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

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

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 4) “providing persons…with an understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its municipal government” Pages 11 through 13 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 5) WTF?! “information deemed to be ‘personal information’ under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act”?! Pages 14 through 15 of the Code.

City of Mississauga’s Elected Officials’ Records policy now online as a companion piece to the City’s Council Code of Conduct.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 6) Use of City Staff, Property, Services etc –and Election Campaigns Pages 16 through 18 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 7) Improper Use of Influence and Business Relations. Pages 19 through 20 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 8) Conduct at Meetings/When Representing the City and Media Communications. Pages 21 through 22 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 9) CITIZEN ALERT! Avoid Kafkaesque Rule 12′s Respectful Workplace Policy. Pages 22 through 24 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 10) Conduct Respecting Staff and the HUGE hidey-hole loophole. Pages 25 through 26 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 11) Employment of Council Relatives/Family Members. Page 27 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 12) Failure to Adhere to Council Policies and Procedures. Page 28 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 13) Reprisals and Obstruction.  Page 29 of the Code.

Again, for the record, my goal is to go through The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word as preparation for future Council deputations.

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

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

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 30 begins)

Rule No. 17

Acting on Advice of Integrity Commissioner:

1. Any written advice given by the Integrity Commissioner to a Member binds the Integrity
Commissioner in any subsequent consideration of the conduct of the Member in the same
matter, as long as all the relevant facts known to the Member were disclosed to the
Integrity Commissioner

[First of all, regarding, “any written advice given by the Integrity Commissioner”. Do you really believe that Mayor Hazel McCallion will accept behavioural admonishment from what amounts to little more a City employee with a five-year stint?

Remember. When confronted with Justice Douglas Cunningham’s October 3, 2011 “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” report, specifically his ruling:

“The Mayor’s actions amounted to both a real and apparent conflict of interest. On any view of the evidence, Peter McCallion stood to gain substantially on the successful completion of the hotel and condominium project. He had, on his own evidence, a potential upside of more than $10 million. And as an investor he stood to gain much more than that. By her own admission, the Mayor knew at the very least that he was the real estate agent for the purchaser. I have found that the Mayor knew that a successful WCD project would have earned her son more money than he would otherwise have earned over the course of many years —probably in his lifetime. I have found that the Mayor must have known that her son had a financial role much greater than acting simply as the purchaser’s agent.”

Hazel McCallion responded with, “That’s his opinion.”

Think about it. If one of the most respected judges in the land can’t make Hurricane Hazel heel, why on earth would anyone believe that some lower-tier-legal-hired-help on a McCallion-controlled-Council’s payroll can?

Last. I’ve read Rule No. 17 over several times now, and I still don’t get it but love the “as long as all the relevant facts known to the Member were disclosed to the Integrity Commissioner” part. Especially given the acrobatics that the City of Mississauga (and especially the Friends of Hazel) contort themselves into to avoid the leaking of facts.]



Yes. That’s it.

Short one today.






What follows is a two-part video of Justice Douglas Cunningham as he reported on his findings in the Judicial Inquiry report, “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” on October 3, 2011.
What he actually said differs at times with the Commissioner’s Statement on the Public Release of the Report. As a result, I’ve prepared this video transcript of Justice Cunningham’s address and will share it with Mississauga Council to be included for the public record in the October 26, 2011 Council meeting minutes.

Justice Cunningham: Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” Part 1 (15:32 min)

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

Justice Cunningham: Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” Part 2 (8:59 min)

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

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 5) WTF?! “information deemed to be ‘personal information’ under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act”?!

January 10th, 2012  

This blog is a continuation of the following blog entries:

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

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

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

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 4) “providing persons…with an understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its municipal government”  Pages 11 through 13 of the Code.

Again, for the record, my goal is to go through The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word as preparation for future Council deputations.

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

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

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct.

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 14 begins)

Rule No. 4

Confidential Information:

Confidential Information includes information in the possession of, or received in confidence
by, the City of Mississauga that the City is either prohibited from disclosing, or is required to
refuse to disclose, under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
, or any other legislation.

[Reminder of what Mayor Hazel McCallion told the Traditional Media in an April 14, 2010 scrum:

“Well, I don’t think there’s —today, I don’t think there’s nothing confidential. There’s absolutely nothing confidential. Freedom of Information —you can get anything you want.”

Here it is, almost two years later and I still don’t know if McCallion’s, “There’s absolutely nothing confidential. Freedom of Information —you can get anything you want.” was a lie or just another example of how little she knows about provincial legislation and her own City’s Corporate policies. Back to Page 14 of the Code.]

MFIPPA restricts or prohibits disclosure of information received in confidence from third
parties of a corporate, commercial, scientific or technical nature, information that is personal,
and information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Municipal Act, 2001 allows information that concerns personnel, labour relations,
litigation, property acquisitions and security of the property of the City or a local board, and
matters authorized in other legislation including MFIPPA, to remain confidential. For the
purposes of the Code of Conduct, “confidential information” includes this type of information.

1. As elected officials, Members of Council will receive highly sensitive and confidential
information concerning residents who need their assistance. This is consistent with the
nature of the Members’ duties. In accordance with the City’s Elected Officials’ Records
policy, Councillor constituency records are at all times under the control of the Member
and are not subject to any municipal disclosure requirements.

2. The following are examples of the types of information that a Member of Council must
keep confidential:

• items under litigation, negotiation, or personnel matters;
• information that infringes on the rights of others (e.g. sources of complaints where the
identity of a complainant is given in confidence);
• price schedules in contract tender or request for proposal submissions if so specified;
• information deemed to be “personal information” under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act; and

[The City of Mississauga’s Code of Conduct has gone through dozens of readings since a draft code first appeared in June, 2010. Yet there’s clearly a mistake. The bullet, “• information deemed to be ‘personal information’ under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act” should read, “• information deemed to be ‘personal information’ under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Act”.

Fact is, there are only two instances of the word “personal” in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with both referring to “personal financial gain”. And the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act doesn’t contain the word “information” at all.

That said, should a citizen wish to file a privacy complaint with the Integrity Commissioner, don’t be deterred believing that the City’s erroneous statement, “information deemed to be ‘personal information’ under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act” prevents you. The province defines “personal information” through its Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and all Ontario municipalities must comply. Back to Page 14 of the Code.]

• statistical data required by law not to be released (e.g. certain census or assessment

3. Where it is clear that a communication was not made in a confidential manner (i.e. copied
to others, or made in the presence of others) or the manner of communication undermines
the validity of labelling it “Confidential”, such communication will not be given any
higher level of confidentiality than any other communication. The words “Privilege”,
“Confidential” or “Private” will not be understood to preclude the appropriate sharing of
the communication for the limited purpose of reviewing, responding or looking into the
subject-matter of the communication.

[CITIZEN ALERT! From bitter experience I’ve learned that every Corporate Report that I’ve examined or taken for a “test drive” has at least one massive loophole from which City Staff or Elected Officials can hide or seek exemption. Now’s the time to marvel at Item 3’s 85 meticulously-selected words that really mean, “Screw the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, WE DECIDE WHAT’S CONFIDENTIAL OR NOT! Back to Page 14 of the Code.]




4. Under the Council Procedure By-law, a matter that has been discussed at an in-camera
(closed) meeting remains confidential, until such time as a condition renders the matter

a. No Member shall disclose the content of any such matter, or the substance of
deliberations, of the in-camera meeting until the Council or Committee discusses the
information at a meeting that is open to the public or releases the information to the

b. No Member shall disclose or release by any means to any member of the public, any
confidential information acquired by virtue of their office, in either oral or written
form, except where required by law or authorized by Council to do so.

c. No Member shall use confidential information for personal or private gain, or for the
gain of relatives or any person or corporation. For example, no Member should
directly or indirectly benefit, or aid others to benefit, from knowledge respecting
bidding on the sale of City property or assets.

d. Members of Council should not access or attempt to gain access to confidential
information in the custody of the City unless it is necessary for the performance of their
duties and is not prohibited by Council policy.






Well, given that Rule No. 4 Confidential Information, contained the City of Mississauga’s 85-word caveat:

“3. Where it is clear that a communication was not made in a confidential manner (i.e. copied to others, or made in the presence of others) or the manner of communication undermines the validity of labelling it “Confidential”, such communication will not be given any higher level of confidentiality than any other communication. The words “Privilege”, “Confidential” or “Private” will not be understood to preclude the appropriate sharing of the communication for the limited purpose of reviewing, responding or looking into the subject-matter of the communication.”

citizens will find the Code’s Rule No. 4‘s, “such communication will not be given any higher level of confidentiality than any other communication” to be classic MYTHissaugaspeak: wordsmithed to lead the public into thinking one thing when the reality is quite the opposite.

And checking the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry’s report, “UPDATING THE ETHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE” section on the Council Code of Conduct, there’s no mention of the Code’s Rule No. 4 Confidential Information. Clearly confidentiality wasn’t part of the Inquiry’s mandate. Oh well…




UPDATE: January 11, 2012. The following email was sent to the Mayor, the City Solicitor and cc’d to the City Clerk for inclusion in the next Council agenda.

From: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
To: MAYOR <mayor@mississauga.ca>
Cc: Mary Ellen Bench; Crystal Gree>; “mississauga_watch@yahoo.com” <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:40 PM
Subject: Error in the Mississauga Council Code of Conduct Page 14

[Hi Ms. Greer. I ask that you include this email in the January 18, 2012 Council agenda/minutes. Thanks].Hi Madam Mayor,Please refer to the Council Code of Conduct’s Rule No. 4.Regarding Confidential Information it states:

The Municipal Act, 2001 allows information that concerns personnel, labour relations,
litigation, property acquisitions and security of the property of the City or a local board, and
matters authorized in other legislation including MFIPPA, to remain confidential. For the
purposes of the Code of Conduct, “confidential information” includes this type of information.
• items under litigation, negotiation, or personnel matters;
• information that infringes on the rights of others (e.g. sources of complaints where the
identity of a complainant is given in confidence);
• price schedules in contract tender or request for proposal submissions if so specified;
• information deemed to be “personal information” under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act; and

Bullet 4 refers to “personal information” as defined by the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act does not contain the word, “information” and “personal” appears just twice in the Act, with both references being to “personal financial gain” and not personal/confidential information.

Bullet 4 should read,”information deemed to be ‘personal information’ under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and”

Last, please note that I plan to attend and videotape the January 23, 2012 Governance Committee meeting in Room A at 1:00 pm and all subsequent meetings for a historical record.





1. The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct April 2011

2. Canada in the Making Common Law and Civil Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Ted Woloshyn, Toronto Sun

BEWARE of TRAPS in Mississauga Code of Conduct if filing complaint with integrity commissioner

December 7th, 2011  

Once again, apologies for taking so long to write a new blog.

For the record, currently I’m in a protracted research phase —doing a lot of reading, studying actually. Also doing a lot of videotaping while reviewing five years worth of audio and videotape relating to City of Mississauga municipal government. And throughout all this, I’ve also have to scour Freedom of Information documents going all the way back to January 2007.

Not fun.

Also, I’m preparing a 3-part video on the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry’s recommendations as they relate the City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct, hiring of an integrity commissioner and other MYTHissauga window-dressing “ethics” initiatives.

Today, the Mississauga News came out with article, Politicians to blame for voter apathy: study.

Some highlights:

The politically disengaged are not as apathetic or ignorant of politics as previously thought — they opt out because they feel the political system has failed them, says a survey of Canadians across the country, including a focus group from Mississauga.

• less engaged Canadians overwhelmingly describe themselves as outsiders. They do not feel they have a voice or any ownership stake in the political system
• Canadians’ dislike for politics seems closely related to a perceived gap between the ideals of democracy and the reality of how they are represented politically
• Disengagement is, in fact, a response to people’s personal interaction with politics and government

“A common theme across the focus groups was that the political system has failed many Canadians in clear and tangible ways,” said Alison Loat, Samara’s co-founder and executive director. “Consequently, political disengagement is a learned response — this is a far cry from the conventional wisdom that assumes the disengaged simply do not care.”

Kendall Anderson, Samara’s communications and project manager, says the research shows most disengaged non-voters start off wanting to be part of the system, but a series of unpleasant experiences ultimately turns them into non-voters.

Love that “perceived gap between the ideals of democracy and the reality of how they are represented politically”. Recall how I warn people about the “vast yawning gap between what Mississauga trumpets versus the behind-the-scenes Reality.” The perceptive reader will see that “vast yawning gap between what Mississauga trumpets versus the behind-the-scenes Reality” simply means “lie”.

Quite convenient for the Mississauga News to come out with their citizen-disengagement article today. Leads in quite nicely to the theme of this video: Our Lying, Deceptive Governments. And how integrity commissioners are just a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. A reminder that I truly believe that “The System is CORRUPT, there is no way to fix it.”

So. The video, complete with transcript.

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

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


MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from Cooksville 5 & 10 intersection. December 5, 2011

It is Monday, December the 5th, 2011 and I’m parked here at Highway 5 and 10. And I just want to report a little bit, to provide a little bit of an update for you regarding what’s been going on in Mississauga.

There’s so many competing issues for me right now that the best way for me to describe what’s happening is that I feel mired in all kinds of conflicting issues. And mired to the point of paralysis.

And it’s not just conflicting and competing but there’s also this important kind of thinking that I have to do.

It isn’t enough just reading this book, “REPORT ON THE MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY Updating the Ethical Infrastructure“. You need to think about it. You need to think what the implications are.

So, one of the things that I’m doing is I’m reading this [Mississauga Council Code of Conduct April 2011]. Not just reading but understanding the rules —almost to the point of committing certain things to memory.

And then I go back and I read in here [REPORT ON THE MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY Updating the Ethical Infrastructure] what Commissioner Cunningham recommended for improving the Mississauga Code of Conduct.

And it’s taken a lot of time, and a lot of pondering —a lot of thinking.

I’m also filing at least one —at least one complaint with the integrity commissioner.

And it’s got to be done right. It’s got to be done right because I got really tripped up in a complaint that I filed against City of Mississauga Corporate Security.

And I need to refer you to the series on nursing homes by the Toronto Star. And they were reporting on some of the horrid abuses at nursing homes including one where a male nurse raped one of the women in his care.

The Toronto Star in that particular article also said that when they reviewed the investigation letters in nursing homes, the actual letter, the resolution letter, was sanitized. And that’s the word that they used: “sanitized“.

And so sanitized that they really couldn’t tell what the complaint was about. Or what they were investigating.

So, they couldn’t for example, determine from the letters whether something dealt with sexual abuse —or physical abuse.

I can tell you the City of Mississauga Corporate Security do the same thing. They sanitize their resolution letters so badly, when you read the resolution letter and then read what the actual public complaint was about, they’re two different things.

And just a little bit of background.

I’d sent an email asking a question through publicinfo@mississauga.ca. And I got a response that I considered rude enough that I asked for the identity of the individual who sent me the comment. And I repeated my request, for that person to identify himself, over a period of three months.

So I gave the person almost three months to come clean, and identify himself. When he didn’t I filed a complaint.

The individual confessed and by “confessing”, this person knew that he could stop the investigation and that was it. Basically I got a resolution letter that said, yes, the person was rude, he had been spoken with and I’m to consider the matter closed.

The point is, that again, when somebody reads the letter, oh, a person was being rude, it’s been taken care of.

No! No. The individual refused to identify himself!

And when I filed Freedom of Information asking them to follow the trail of where my email was sent, up across the top it said, “Jamie Hillis” —who is the Manager of Corporate Security.

So there’s every evidence, that the person who was hiding anonymously in email was actually the Manager, Jamie Hillis, who’s charged, by the way, with implementing the public complaints process! And the policy.

By the way, I fought that all the way to the IPC, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commission. And they sided with allowing this individual his anonymity.

It was a mistake that I made —well, first of all, the biggest mistake was I felt now that they had a formal complaints procedure that it would be somehow legitimate. Clearly it wasn’t.

And I keep saying that the City of Mississauga has infinite capacity to pervert. They have infinite capacity to pervert policies, procedures, guidelines, provincial legislation and anything else.

And it’s the same here [with the Mississauga Council Code of Conduct April 2011]. I know for a fact, just because of prior behaviour, that if I don’t file the complaint with the integrity commissioner absolutely according to this [Mississauga Council Code of Conduct April 2011] document —it too will be perverted.

Also just for the record, I don’t believe for a minute that when I do file the complaint —or complaints, with the integrity commissioner, that it’s even going to matter.

Again. The City of Mississauga has infinite capacity to pervert.

And something else. I’ve been talking about McCallion-backed councillors. Tovey, Mullin, Fonseca, Crombie, Starr, Mahoney and Saito. Seven of them.

And just a reminder that [Councillor] Nando Iannicca basically said to all the councillors —and he stood by this. And he said, if you did not vote for the Inquiry, you’re not fit for public service.

[Video Insert begins]

Councillor Nando Iannicca, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

If you did not vote for the Inquiry. If you do not agree with its findings. And if you are not appalled at what happened, you are not fit for public service.

Acting Chair, McCallion-backed loyalist Councillor Katie Mahoney, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

Councillor Iannicca, I am going to cut this deba—

[Video Insert ends]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from Cooksville 5 & 10 intersection. December 5, 2011

So you understand [laughs] that three of the four councillors who are going to be “working” on this Code of Conduct and in possibly hiring and making recommendations for Mississauga’s next integrity commissioner are, according to Nando Iannicca, “not fit for public service”.

So that gives me a lot of confidence here!

[Music: Caspian & Grafhic – Matrix Shit]

This thing here with the integrity commissioner —and preparing a complaint, just believe me when I say, it’s got to be done in the right order. And you have to make sure as a citizen that you don’t fall into the traps that are inherent in this [Mississauga Council Code of Conduct April 2011] document.

And here’s an allegation. They were put here on purpose. On purpose.


Councillor Nando Iannicca, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

If you did not vote for the Inquiry. If you do not agree with its findings. And if you are not appalled at what happened, you are not fit for public service.

Acting Chair, McCallion-backed loyalist Councillor Katie Mahoney, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

Councillor Iannicca, I am going to cut—


Example of SANITIZED City of Mississauga Corporate Security resolution letter.

Can you tell what the complaint was about?
Can you tell this complaint was against a Security BOSS?
Can you tell from this letter that contrary to Policy, a Security underling “investigated” a superior —and cleared him?

City Mississauga Corporate Security public complaints resolution letter heavily SANITIZED.



Bonnie Crombie and “What parent waits almost three months to act upon concerns that her child is being cyber-stalked?

November 25th, 2011  

From the: I don’t call it “MYTHissauga” for Nothing Department.

Bonnie Crombie, “cyber-stalking”, Hazel McCallion scandal and other MYTHissauga MYTHteries (12:47 min)

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


MISSISSAUGAWATCH parked at Square One with Mississauga City Hall in background, November 19, 2011

It is Saturday, November the 19th, 2011 and I’m parked here at Square One and you’ve got Mississauga City Hall in the background. And I just want to set the record a little bit straight, or at least follow up on events that happened on November the 9th, 2011 inside Mississauga Council Chamber, when McCallion-backed Councillor Bonnie Crombie accused me of “cyber-stalking”.

And I’m going to —there’s a printout of a National Post, Megan O’Toole’s article, “Mississauga councillor accuses watchdog of ‘cyber-stalking’ her children on Facebook“. And I just want to read part of it that says “she” meaning Councillor Bonnie Crombie

“was referring to an online video compilation featuring Facebook photographs of her three children that was uploaded by ‘MississaugaWatch’ this past August. The video primarily focuses on Alex Crombie, now 22, contrasting picture of his vacations and parties with a Facebook site he created to support his political ambitions.

But the video also highlights photographs of 14-year-old Natasha Crombie and 18-year-old Jonathan Crombie. The children were younger in some of the featured photographs, Ms. Crombie said.”

And at the time, I reacted, I was in total shock during the Council meeting. I —was aware that I had created a video but had not realized —not remembered that there was the younger Crombie’s Facebook page.

And upon reviewing it, I realized that yes, that was true.


The problem that I have is reference —the hot button word “cyber-stalked”. And again, read Megan O’Toole’s article. It says that it was the online video uploaded “this past August”.

It’s clear that Councillor Crombie knew since August that this video was online.

And I have to say that on November the 9th, the presentation, or the deputation that I made in front of Mississauga Council, I only decided to do because the week before —the Wednesday before, which was, yeah, November the 2nd, was a pretty big exchange of words between the McCallion-backed Councillors, all insisting that the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry was unnecessary. And that their $40,000 outside legal opinion was all that was ever needed.

And that there wasn’t much that the Inquiry revealed that wasn’t in that report. And you know that’s outrageous! Absolutely outrageous. And I thought I’d follow up on a video —and on a presentation.

The night before, which was November the 8th, the video was going so poorly that I almost bailed. I almost said forget it, I’ll do it the next week or some other time.

And you know, it’s left me to wonder, you know, having considered pulling out —I was that close! The question in my mind is how long would Councillor Crombie have taken to finally act on her concerns regarding “cyber-stalking”?

Mid-August and it was almost mid-November —we’re talking about almost three months! And only because I went up there.

I’ve had a lot of time to think. Like. Since November the 9th, I really haven’t done any kind of blog. I’ve been really thinking. And thinking. And thinking.

And again, there’s this thought that keeps skipping around in my head, like a record.


Councillor Crombie knew about that video since mid-August. And yet she waited until November the 9th —at a Council meeting, to act on those concerns. And she had plenty of opportunity in the meantime.

I remember seeing her —let me see, I guess the first would be her swear-in when she walked into Council for the first time.

Gave her oath of office. There was the Judicial Inquiry with Justice Cunningham giving his report. She was there for that too.

A couple of other things.

What if I hadn’t gone up there? When was she going to express this concern?

Who waits three months?

And I just don’t get that.

What parent waits three months —almost three months to act on a concern about “cyber-stalking”?! And I keep asking myself that. Like a broken record, “What kind of parent waits three months”?

[pointing to Mississauga City Hall in background]

That place doesn’t make sense. It’s toxic. It’s corrosive to the soul. And by the way, for the record, it was toxic and corrosive to the soul when I first started back in June 14th, 2006. There were already indications.

But it’s so much worse now.

Anyway. I have something else for the record.

And that’s regarding not going back to Mississauga Council.

October 2010, I already found it grim.

And it goes beyond corrosive to the soul to a point of being just —ashes.

I’m so desperately trying to make sense of this place. [Points to Mississauga City Hall] How it’s structured.

This Empire of Illusion.

About the malfeasance and the corruption in here.

The abuse of authority. And above all, the abuse of  —history. History. The revisionism.

And it was a very short comment by an online commenter at the Mississauga News who said, Mississaugans don’t care about optics.

And no sooner did this guy post that than a week or two later, the Toronto Star comes out with a poll that says that Hazel McCallion is the most popular mayor in Canada and that 78% of Mississaugans approve of her. And this was after all of these revelations came out with the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry!

And that really stung! That —was crushing to me!

That an online commenter, that Mississaugans don’t care about optics is true! I mean I have to accept that it’s true. You can’t fight that.

And already —I’m going to play two things. Comments that I made on September the 18th, just before residents of Ward 5 were to go to the polls. And at that point I had already announced that my research time was over.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting while parked on street, Malton, September 18, 2011

I’ve often been asked, well, you’ve been doing this since 2006, when are you going to stop?

And I’ve always believed that there will be a signal. There will be a signal that your data collection time is over.

And my signal, regardless of whether this [by]election had been held or not, was seeing And seeing Victor Oh popping the champagne. That’s when it all came together. When you saw Sheldon Leiba, Mississauga Board of Trade, Victor Oh, Mississauga Chinese Business Association, Honourary President. And thank you Andrew, for your photographs documenting the Mississauga Chinese Business Association.

That was for me, The Signal.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting while driving north on Hurontario, November 19, 2011

And also, an even more important one, I believe it was October the 9th [actually it was October 12, 2011]. And it was there, interestingly enough, that I had said that I would  —that my research time would be closing by mid-November.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting inside Mississauga Council Chambers, October 12, 2011

I would think that by mid-November my research time here is going to be over.

There’s one more event that I have to monitor, cover, and beyond that I think you’ve got this closure.

That —I mean some can argue and say wait a second, now you need to document and follow how the Judge’s recommendations are going to be implemented. And of course, I will.

But I will predict now, that they will not be authentically implemented. And I’ll tell you why—


MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting while driving north on Hurontario, November 19, 2011

Like there’s a lot that I don’t understand —that makes no sense.

And of course, always, you drive around and you ask yourself, “What parent waits almost three months to act upon concerns that her child is being cyber-stalked?”


Music: Living in the Past by Jethro Tull

And on one of these drives, a song came on by Jethro Tull. And it’s called Living in the Past.

And I realized that by not going to Mississauga Council anymore, that’s essentially what I’m doing. Is it’s like, I’ve cut my own political observation and ended it on November the 9th, 2011.

And it’s like I’m now Living in the Past.

That is, any interest that I have regarding Mississauga Council has a time-frame of say, May 6, [sic] 2006 when I first stepped into that Mississauga Council Chambers, to November the 9th, 2011, which was my last time.

So the song Living in the Past then is a way of focusing me now to those five years but also being a kind of discipline thing, to say, look, perhaps something new is coming up that you should be observing or researching, but no, your job now, is to Live in the Past and report on that Past.

And that’s going to be interesting. To become an expert on the Mississauga Council that was existing between May 2006 and November 9, 2011.

But I have to say it’s a relief.

Oh God, it’s a relief.


I think I’m like a lot of human beings, in that, you know you search for meaning, you search for —your world has to make sense? And right now it doesn’t. And as a result, I’m not sure where to go.

I know I have to file more Freedom of Information. That’s for sure.

And I know you don’t turn to the Traditional Media. That’s for sure.

Anyway, that’s more than enough. Turning camera off.



As always I’d appreciate being advised of any errors in the transcript.



The (“What parent waits almost three months to act upon concerns that her child is being cyber-stalked?) Mississauga Muse

Or misses these chances?!

September 28, 2011 media interview with me two feet away!

"Councillor Bonnie Crombie was right beside MISSISSAUGAWATCH as she was being interviewed by Toronto Star's San Grewal and National Post's Megan O'Toole! Funny she never leaned over to me during or after their interview to mention cyber-stalking  11/09/28
—and LEAVING with me just two feet away…

Councillor Bonnie Crombie was right beside MISSISSAUGAWATCH as she was being interviewed by Toronto Star's San Grewal and National Post's Megan O'Toole! Interview completed" "Crombie thanks Grewal and O'Toole ---AND LEAVES!  September 28 2011
—and Brian Crombie sitting behind me during release of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report, October 3, 2011

Brian Crombie was sitting right behind MISSISSAUGAWATCH  inside Mississauga Council Chambers during  the release of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report. Funny he never leaned over to me and mentioned "cyber-stalking"....
What parents wait almost three months to —ahhhh, never mind!

Councillor Nando Iannicca to Hazel McCallion-backed loyalists, “If you did not vote for the Inquiry. If you do not agree with its findings. And if you are not appalled at what happened, you are not fit for public service.”

November 3rd, 2011  

No introduction today. Just video of Mississauga Councillor Nando Iannicca speaking for the mere 22 percent of Mississauga residents who care about integrity, accountability and optics.

Yes, 22 percent  —the 22 percent who did not give Mayor Hazel McCallion a 78 percent approval rating in a poll released October 24, 2011 of citizens in the country’s 15 biggest cities.

And in a municipality where “tell it like it is” means to delete the truth and ratchet up the Positive Positive Positive, it was wonderful to witness Iannicca take one swift, judicious kick at the “tell it like it is” Katie.

So. As is our custom, the video followed by the transcript. This entire blog will be sent to Mississauga Council as correspondence to be included in the November 9, 2011 Council minutes.

Hazel McCallion Scandal: “If you are not appalled…you are not fit for public service.” (5:58 min)

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


MISSISSAUGAWATCH at the “Our Future Mississauga” Open House, Great Hall, Mississauga Civic Centre, June 24, 2008

How do you ensure that Youth thrive?

"MISSISSAUGAWATCH writes "Ethical Infrastructure before Bricks and Mortar (and buses)" on Post-It wish" "during Our Future Mississauga Open House. June 24, 2008

Okay and it says, “Ethical Infrastructure before Bricks and Mortar!”.

And let’s put here, “(and buses)”

Now again, I have not —even though I’ve gone to all of these meetings, every single last symposium, I have never before participated. So.

And this is how we’re going to ensure that Youth thrive.


Acting Chair, McCallion-backed loyalist Councillor Katie Mahoney, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

Councillor Iannicca.

Councillor Nando Iannicca, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

Thank you, madam chair. I’ll be brief.

I appreciate some of the comments, but a majority of them make me feel like I’m going through that episode of the Twilight Zone again.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011


Councillor Nando Iannicca, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

I must live in a parallel universe and some of my constituents might as well.

So just to reiterate and to be very very clear. Contrary to what you’re being told here by some members of Council, here’s what the Justice said in quotations:

“There was no other practical way to explore what transpired.”

Period. Full Stop.

That’s what he actually said.


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

I obviously have no view about whether City Council should have called this Inquiry. What I do say in the Report is that if the issues identified by City Council were to be explored, there was no other practical way to explore them. It is simply not practical under the existing MCIA procedure for an ordinary citizen to launch a Court application claiming conflict of interest on the part of an elected official. The downside risk of tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs should the application be found to be unwarranted, acts, in my view, as far too great a deterrent.

Councillor Nando Iannicca, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

I’m satisfied with that. Little bit of revisionism going on here.

As to the value of the land, Councillor Starr, I’m happy to speak to the point to that. Two individuals, one of whom is a developer in the downtown core said that you badly overpaid for the land. I said listen, we got appraisals we sent it back.

Unlike you, perhaps, I wasn’t willing to bury it.

I fulfilled my duties and [inaudible] going to bring it up again. But this is a person that buys land in the downtown core and said at the time you overpaid.

I’m not going to sweep it under the rug. I’m happy to deal with it.

The third point that I would make is, and this is all seemed to have been glossed over [inaudible].

Are any of you concerned about the evidence that was given?


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

The Mayor’s actions amounted to both a real and apparent conflict of interest. On any view of the evidence, Peter McCallion stood to gain substantially on the successful completion of the hotel and condominium project. He had, on his own evidence, a potential upside of more than $10 million. And as an investor he stood to gain much more than that. By her own admission, the Mayor knew at the very least that he was the real estate agent for the purchaser. I have found that the Mayor knew that a successful WCD project would have earned her son more money than he would otherwise have earned over the course of many years —probably in his lifetime. I have found that the Mayor must have known that her son had a financial role much greater than acting simply as the purchaser’s agent.


Councillor Nando Iannicca, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

Do any of you read a newspaper?

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

That’s right.

Councillor Nando Iannicca, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

The City of Mississauga was dragged through the mud over this.

I’ll give you another quote. If you missed this.

“Ethical Infrastructure”.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011


Councillor Nando Iannicca, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

To use the words that the Justice used.

We’re in need of the renewal of the Ethical Infrastructure of this City. That’s appalling!

Do you know what happened to me a week ago?

I had the privilege of being in St. Martin’s School where my son got blessed with his 86 percent average. Was getting an award for being on the Dean’s List. And I was very proud of my son.

As I’m leaving, some gentleman there says, “Nando, [inaudible] why would you waste time, not going to university, right? He’s going to get a real estate degree. He’s going to work in real estate.”

My God, I’m glad I was in a crowded room as I don’t know what I would have done. I think you’ll be proud of me, I left. That’s the nonsense that I have to put up with because of what transpired and all of you seem oblivious to.

Well, I’m not.

I could belabour it. I’ve fulfilled my duty to my constituents. I am not a co-conspirator in all of this.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011


Councillor Nando Iannicca, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

And as I said at the time and I will say it one last time.

If you did not vote for the Inquiry. If you do not agree with its findings. And if you are not appalled at what happened, you are not fit for public service.

Acting Chair, McCallion-backed loyalist Councillor Katie Mahoney, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

Councillor Iannicca, I am going to cut this debate now!

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

Good for you.

Councillor Nando Iannicca, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

I said it at the time. I stand by it.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

[applauds] Good for you.

Acting Chair, Councillor Katie Mahoney, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

Sir, sir, I am going to cut this debate now! Councillor Mullin, do you have something?

Councillor Nando Iannicca, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011

My God.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011


McCallion-backed loyalist Councillor Pat Mullin, Mississauga General Committee, November 2, 2011



I would appreciate being notified of any errors in the video transcript. Thanks.



“That’s his opinion.” —Hazel McCallion regarding Justice Douglas Cunningham’s findings

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

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry: Memo to Council from Councillor Nando Iannicca – November 2nd re: Judicial Inquiry Next Steps

November 2nd, 2011  

What follows is a “Memo to Council from Councillor Nando Iannicca – November 2nd re: Judicial Inquiry Next Steps” that Councillor Iannicca shared with Mississauga Council at today’s General Committee meeting. I reproduce it here in its entirety as written, with the good Councillor’s kind permission.

Memorandum [Corporate logo for City of Mississauga]

To: Members of Council City Manager
From: Nando Iannicca, Councillor Ward 7
Date: November 2, 2011
Re: Judicial Inquiry Next Steps

With this item now on our General Committee Agenda of November 2, 2011 I provide a list of questions and concerns expressed to me by residents during the course of the Judicial Inquiry, its subsequent findings and report, and the media reporting of same.

Like most other Councillors, many direct and forceful questions were asked of me by Ward 7 Constituents and others throughout this process and I advised all of them that I could not speak to the matter while Justice Cunningham and the Inquiry was seized of this issue. I fulfilled this obligation to his Honour and the process but I also promised all those who raised an inquiry that I would formally express their concerns and questions at the appropriate time so as not to appear to have avoided the issue, and to also give them the satisfaction of knowing that I formally addressed their concerns as their elected official.

In formally referring the matter to the City Manager and the appropriate municipal staff, I am well aware that some of the items that have been asked of me are answered in the “Report of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry” or in today’s General Committee Agenda. Where this is the case I would ask staff to simply refer to the appropriate reference in these documents and proceed to then answer the balance of the queries. At the conclusion, what I hope to have achieved on behalf of my constituents is a written response to their direct inquiry either provided by the Inquiry Report, the Report prepared by City staff, and amendments to this Report before the final document goes to Council.

  1. Mayor’s Gala Fund

    Justice Cunningham dealt with this matter in his Report as have municipal staff. I am satisfied that all of the concerns that have been asked of me regarding the amount of money raised relative to the actual disbursements, the fact that we broke Revenue Canada’s laws, and particularly the fact that the municipality no longer plays a principal, official or any other direct role in this entity means that the City and I have addressed this concern.

  2. Need for a Judicial Inquiry

    Many residents asked why we even needed a Judicial Inquiry when some argued that the original legal opinion presented to Council said it was not required. I am glad to finally speak to this matter and to state in absolutely unequivocal terms that this most assuredly was not what was conveyed to Council in Camera on the matter. While it is absolutely true that the written Report presented to Council said that the Mayor may not have breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, in the extensive conversation that ensued prompted by questions from Councillors, the responses from the legal professionals in the room made it clear that a great many other concerns existed in the Mayor’s conduct. These were all borne out in evidence before the Inquiry and the ultimate findings. In fact, Justice Cunningham himself stated of the call for an Inquiry that, “there was no other practical way to explore what transpired.”

  3. Enersource/Borealis Veto

    This matter was also dealt with where it was confirmed the provision was “slipped in” after the fact and Council had no knowledge and gave no approval to the clause.

  4. The City must have a Hotel Convention Centre

    This part of the Inquiry prompted by far the greatest number of questions and concerns particularly from members of the business community, development community, and realtors. The list of questions they put to me are as follows:

    • when did the Council of The City of Mississauga determine that a Hotel/Convention Centre was vital and would be pursued?
    • when was the decision actually made?
    • can someone provide an Agenda of such meetings, the information presented, the Planning Report related to the subject, and the public process and public consultation that took place?
    • who determined that Mr. Peter McCallion would be chosen to lead the project?
    • what credentials and experience does he have in putting together a billion dollar Hotel and Convention deal in light of the fact that Justice Cunningham found, “Mr. McCallion’s experience was strictly as a real estate agent, and he has never put a development project together.” Many of those who put the question to me on this front were very upset that it appears no Requests for Proposal, Call for Submissions, or any other public process or competition was used to determine who could compete for this very lucrative business opportunity.
    • when the decision was made to go ahead with the project with Peter McCallion as the sole Principal and/or Agent, why does it appear as though those pre-eminent in the Hotel Convention business with names such as Wynn, Hilton, Hyatt, Trump and the like were never brought into the fold but that the biggest development proposal in the history of the City was instead entrusted to Peter McCallion and individuals he approached with names such as Cook, Couprie, DeCiccio, and the like, who Justice Cunningham referred to as friends of the McCallion family.
    • In the one instance where someone with standing in the Hotel business was approached, his candid comments are particularly disturbing. As Justice Cunningham wrote in his Report, “Steve Gupta, the CEO of Easton’s Group of Hotels…testified that a four star hotel…could not be achieved, given the less expensive hotels in the vicinity and the proximity of other four star hotels both near the airport and in downtown Toronto.” So when the only expert consulted said the proposal was dead on arrival who chose to keep the scheme alive?
  5. Sheridan College Flip

    A couple of individuals have made a very astute observation regarding the final outcome which has led them to question whether there was ever any intention on the part of the City to actually build a Hotel Convention Centre. They specifically point to the fact that when the Council of The City of Mississauga became aware that Sheridan College was looking to build a campus in our city the Council with great haste and $15 M of Taxpayers money immediately purchased the site in question that Peter McCallion referred to “as the best, last piece of land for a Hotel Convention Centre” and immediately conveyed it to Sheridan College at the nominal sum of $1 per year. As it was put to me, this fact clearly demonstrates that the City Council of The City of Mississauga had absolutely no intention whatsoever of pursuing a Hotel Convention Centre. They need an explanation as to why so many of the actions of the Mayor, Peter McCallion, and his various associates would demonstrate otherwise.

  6. Role of the Office of the Mayor

    When the deal ultimately fell through what role was the Mayor and her Office pursuing on behalf of Mississauga City Taxpayers when she continued to be involved in trying to obtain the highest possible settlement for the firm in which her son was a Principal. Many have followed up this question by noting the peculiar outcome, as they put it, in which Mr. McCallion was involved in a project in which he seemingly never bought or sold or listed a piece of land, and ultimately never built a Hotel Convention Centre and yet he and his associates received $4M of compensation. They also note that this $4M comes directly from the $15M which all Taxpayers paid for the land in question for Sheridan College from which the sellers of the land and then forwarded $4M to Mr. McCallion and his associates.

[Iannicca memo ends]

I have just one question arising from today’s General Committee meeting: Why has no one asked “How can you possibly trust a corrupt municipality like MYTHissauga to hire its own integrity commissioner?”

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


The Mississauga Muse

Commissioner Douglas J. Cunningham, video transcript of his October 3, 2011 address inside Mississauga Council Chambers.

October 11th, 2011  

What follows is a two-part video of Justice Douglas Cunningham as he reported on his findings in the Judicial Inquiry report, “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” on October 3, 2011.
What he actually said differs at times with the Commissioner’s Statement on the Public Release of the Report. As a result, I’ve prepared this video transcript of Justice Cunningham’s address and will share it with Mississauga Council to be included for the public record in the October 26, 2011 Council meeting minutes.

Justice Cunningham: Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” Part 1 (15:32 min)

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


MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from Mississauga Council Chambers, October 3, 2011

I just want to state for the record, here’s what I’m really happy about.

There’s the term “Ethical Infrastructure” and that’s a term I’ve been using since 2006. So that to me is the Commission saying, “We listened to you.”

Ethical Infrastructure.


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

Well, good morning.On November 11, 2009 Mississauga City Council adopted a Resolution requesting that a judge be appointed to conduct an inquiry pursuant to s. 274 of the Municipal Act.

I was named to assume the role of Commissioner.The Terms of Reference required me to make inquiries into two broad factual areas. They also permitted me to make recommendations for the good governance of Mississauga.

As I think you will see I have given this part of the report a great deal of thought.

Let me briefly address my factual findings. As I’m sure you realize, Commission Counsel and I decided to hold the Inquiry in two phases after an appropriate preparation period.The issues in Phase I concerned the December 2000 Enersource Shareholders Agreement to which the City was a party with Borealis, then a division of OMERS, the Ontario Municipal Employees Pension Plan.

The issues in Phase number II involved land in the City Centre. A company called World Class Developments had approached the co-owners of 8.5 acres of land in the City Centre with a proposal to build a hotel, convention centre and condominiums. The co-owners were Oxford, the real estate arm of OMERS, and AIM, the Alberta Pension Fund. The WCD transaction failed in January 2009. Fortunately, the City of Mississauga acquired the land which it then conveyed to Sheridan College to build a campus which now stands next door. Thereafter there was litigation concerning WCD’s claim to a continuing interest in the lands. The Phase II issues consumed far more time than those related to Enersource.Let me briefly deal with Phase I.

I found that errors were made in relation to the Enersource transaction. Distilled to its essence, my finding is that the City Manager of the day, David O’Brien, failed to discharge his duty to communicate a significant change in the City’s transaction with Borealis to Mayor McCallion and members of Council. At the late stages of negotiation, Borealis secured a veto over major decisions of Enersource. The veto made commercial sense and was, in any event, never used. While Borealis raised the veto issue late in the negotiations, this in my view was consistent with expectations in commercial dealings between sophisticated parties. I have found that some limited changes to the City’s practices should be made, but have not found it necessary to make extensive recommendations in this phase of my Report.

I did however, find it necessary to deal in depth with the issues surrounding the City Centre Land and WCD. The actions of the Mayor in relation to the proposed hotel and convention centre raise significant concerns. I have made my findings with some regret. The Mayor as a public servant has served Mississauga, and indeed Canada, for much of her life.

How did the Mayor find herself in this situation? Mississauga has, for much of its history, seemed not to have a real centre. By default, Square One, which is owned by OMERS and AIM, has served as Mississauga’s City Centre. In order to create a real core, real city core, City Council and the Mayor had identified the construction of an upscale hotel and convention centre as an important public project for Mississauga.

In the fall of 2005, Mayor McCallion jump-started negotiations between the co-owners of the City Centre lands and WCD. The Mayor’s son, Peter McCallion, was a participant in and owner in WCD from the outset. The Mayor promoted the interests of WCD throughout the events at issue in this Inquiry. Indeed, I have found that the co-owners would not have entered negotiations with WCD absent her intervention. Once the Agreement of Purchase and Sale was signed, the Mayor sought significant commercial concessions. She went to great lengths to keep the deal alive as economic conditions deteriorated. And when the co-owners terminated the deal and litigation ensued, the Mayor again intervened to attempt to have the litigation settled.

The Mayor’s actions amounted to both a real and apparent conflict of interest. On any view of the evidence, Peter McCallion stood to gain substantially on the successful completion of the hotel and condominium project. He had, on his own evidence, a potential upside of more than $10 million. And as an investor he stood to gain much more than that. By her own admission, the Mayor knew at the very least that he was the real estate agent for the purchaser. I have found that the Mayor knew that a successful WCD project would have earned her son more money than he would otherwise have earned over the course of many years —probably in his lifetime. I have found that the Mayor must have known that her son had a financial role much greater than acting simply as the purchaser’s agent.

None of the Mayor’s private actions on behalf of WCD was known to members of Council, to municipal officials or to the public at the material time.

Given Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interest in the transaction, it was improper for the Mayor to repeatedly use her office on behalf of WCD. This finding is supported both by the common law and common sense. With respect, the Mayor ought to have given the WCD project a wide berth. A member of Council cannotpromote the financial interests of family members and must avoid any appearance of impropriety. Citizens have a right to expect that a Mayor will act impartially and without favor, as her oath of office requires. It is no answer to say that a public office holder may promote the financial interests of a relative where to do so also promotes the greater good. To accept this proposition would in my view lead over time to the erosion of public trust in municipal government.As I said at the outset, the Terms of Reference also permitted me to make recommendations for the good governance of Mississauga. I have chosen to do so. I believe this to be the real value of the Inquiry. Indeed I hope the real value of this report will be those recommendations rather than the findings I have made.

In recent years, a great deal of public attention has been devoted to questions surrounding municipal infrastructure in Ontario. Cities age, and increasing sums of money are required to improve and replace the existing infrastructure. I believe that the same might be said of Mississauga’s ethical infrastructure. For many years Mississauga had very little in the way of formal rules or officials to enforce them. The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (the “MCIA”) contained rules governing conflict of interest, but these were and are inadequate. I have found that substantial legislative reforms are necessary at the Provincial level. I have also proposed changes to the Mississauga Code of Conduct and I’ve attempted to define a role for an Integrity Commissioner in Mississauga.

I know that the decision to call this Inquiry was and remains controversial. This Inquiry was, for the most part, an exercise very much like sophisticated commercial litigation. We in the judiciary are keenly aware that commercial litigation conducted by first-class counsel can quickly become very expensive. It follows that holding an inquiry such as this one, sifting through the thousands of pages of materials which Commission counsel had to triage at the outset, and the calling 40 days of evidence, comes with a cost. City Council called this Inquiry knowing that the cost would be in the millions of dollars. There are of course important differences between inquiries and litigation. An inquiry brings with it an important policy layer. It follows that the process of writing my report was much different and much more involved than writing a judgment at the end of a forty-day trial. It is my hope that with the assistance of all counsel and with the benefit of the expert evidence we heard at this Inquiry, we have created a Report which will have lasting guidance to Mississauga and to the Province.

I obviously have no view about whether City Council should have called this Inquiry. What I do say in the Report is that if the issues identified by City Council were to be explored, there was no other practical way to explore them. It is simply not practical under the existing MCIA procedure for an ordinary citizen to launch a Court application claiming conflict of interest on the part of an elected official. The downside risk of tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs should the application be found to be unwarranted, acts, in my view, as far too great a deterrent. There are a great many troubling issues which arise which simply remain unexamined.

As matters stand, only a municipal council is able to resort to the procedure of a judicial inquiry set out in s. 274 of the Municipal Act. Such inquiries are rare. Municipal councils do not initially realize that they must be responsible for all of the costs associated with an inquiry. Once that realization hits home, most inquiries die on the vine. I have addressed this difficulty in my recommendations. I believe that it is important that all major municipalities have the ability to create an office of Integrity Commissioner in a way which permits examination of the kinds of matters which we have considered at this Inquiry. The Integrity Commissioner must have sufficient tenure and independence to examine issues surrounding conflict of interest, both informally and formally. An Integrity Commissioner might hold formal hearings as necessary, make findings and impose sanctions.

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

Justice Cunningham: Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” Part 2 (8:59 min)

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

I also believe that the scope of the MCIA should be changed so that the rules regulating conduct apply to any meeting attended by a member of Council in his or her official capacity. I pause here to say that the Mayor held the view that provided she declared a conflict of interest in her legislative capacity and refrained from voting at Council or taking part in discussion, she was on safe ground. Currently-certainly, she was correct in her view that the MCIA did not apply to her actions in advocating privately for her son’s company. This may very well point to an inadequacy in the Act. Nevertheless, I have found that her actions were nevertheless improper-improper under the application of common law principles. These principles should be codified. The Act should be amended to make it clear that mayors and members of Council are subject to the conflict of interest provisions both in the legislative and executive functions of their office.

I believe that the Mississauga Code should be amended as well. Its language should be strengthened to make clear that members must avoid the improper use of the influence of their office and shall avoid conflicts of interest, both apparent and real. The Code should also make it clear that members of Council shall not extend preferential treatment to any individual or organization in the discharge of their official duties. Preferential treatment would be found to exist if a reasonably well informed person could conclude that the preferential treatment was advancing a private interest.

I have served on a municipal council. I know that members of Council must of course be able to use their influence on behalf of their constituents, but I believe that there must be greater transparency surrounding the nature of these dealings.

I also have found that Mississauga should consider whether to create a searchable database containing a list of all declared or known conflicts of interest.

All of these and other measures would have prevented the circumstances which required this Inquiry to have been called. For example, the Mayor could simply have sought advice from the Integrity Commissioner prior to embarking upon her course of dealing with the co-owners of the land. One of the co-owners might have raised the matter with the Integrity Commissioner. There must be a practical and low-cost way of clearing the air in these circumstances.

Let me briefly deal with the issues of the Mayor’s Gala.Some time after the conclusion of the formal hearings in this Inquiry, I learned that there had been a misunderstanding shared among a number of counsel concerning the nature of benevolent activities undertaken by the Mayor through her Gala and other events.

I felt these matters required my consideration: the Terms of Reference specifically required me to examine relationships between the Mayor and other individuals and companies identified in the Terms of Reference, including WCD. The principal of WCD, Mr. DeCicco had, together with other participants in the Inquiry, purchased a number of expensive items at the Mayor’s Gala. The Gala Fund has supported a variety of community activities through the years and I had thought from the evidence at the Inquiry that the Mayor’s Gala was a charitable event as the term is commonly understood, and that those who attended might have received a charitable receipt for portions of their tickets. Media reports later suggested that this was not the case.
My counsel examined a considerable volume of documentation and conducted interviews on issues surrounding the Mayor’s benevolent activities. Ultimately questions in this area were resolved by the inclusion of an Agreed Statement of Fact, which is appended to my Report. I note that the Mayor agreed in 2007 to transfer the Gala funds of some $2.3 million to the Mississauga Community Foundation to be administered at arm’s length. A similar arrangement is in place to administer the funds raised through the Mayor’s Charity Golf Tournament.

I believe these measures to be appropriate. And I have chosen not to make recommendations surrounding the Mayor’s benevolent activities. I believe that broader consideration of elected officials lending their support and office to benevolent activities might be considered in the future by City Council, with the assistance of the Integrity Commissioner. For me to have undertaken a proper review of these matters and to make recommendations would have required re-opening the hearings and calling further evidence. In my view, it was not in the public interest to proceed in this way at this time.

We live in an age when the media and ordinary citizens demand increasing transparency and accountability. I believe that the approach taken in the Report to improve Mississauga’s ethical infrastructure will serve to promote public trust in municipal institutions.

Let me close by saying this. I had the benefit of having the Mayor appear before me for three days of testimony. I continue to marvel at her stamina. She was candid in her testimony about the limits which she thought should be placed on public officials dealing with private business. I have seen first hand the Mayor’s careful stewardship of the long term interests of Mississauga and I have every confidence in her leadership abilities. As Council debates whether to adopt all, some or none of my proposals for change, I am hopeful that my recommendations enjoy her personal support

Finally let me publicly acknowledge my sincere thanks to counsel who appeared before the Inquiry. This whole exercise could very easily have gotten off the rails. Because of the civility exercised by all counsel, it did not and for that I am most grateful.

Let me also publicly thank all staff who made the ship run smoothly and for making my job so much easier. Thank you.

Commission counsel will now respond to any questions. Unfortunately I have to leave because I have to fly to Ottawa for court appearances.


Justice Douglas J. Cunningham
Mississauga Judicial Inquiry October 3, 2011



“That’s his opinion.” —Hazel McCallion regarding Justice Douglas Cunningham’s findings

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

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report won’t change Hazel McCallion’s “Her Town Her Rules”. As for the Inquiry’s recommendations authentically implemented?…

October 2nd, 2011  

Given all the hype in the papers right now about the release of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report tomorrow, you would be forgiven if you believed that its contents actually mattered.

In the Mississauga News article, “Report could be a game changer”, don’t believe “game changer” for a second. Remember. We are dealing with a Commission that actually allowed Hazel McCallion to delay the release of this “After Labour Day” report until the Mayor had successfully installed yet another puppet-councillor into the Ward 5 Council chair.

There are those who argue that the Mayor didn’t just flee to Brazil to delay the report —the line that the Mayor’s lawyer is warbling.

In the Mississauga News article, “Inquiry report delayed”, reporter Louie Rosella informs us that:

McCallion’s trip is part of the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance Trade Mission to Brazil, which has been in the works since last fall, said the mayor’s lawyer, Liz McIntyre.

“Last fall” is fall 2010. Yet neither McCallion or McIntyre respected Inquiry commissioner Douglas Cunningham and his commission counsel enough to inform them of this trip until mid-August.

Then there’s this pathetic statement in the Mississauga News, once again courtesy of the Mayor’s lawyer, who said that her client is looking forward to Monday’s report.

“We expect (the recommendations) will provide useful guidance to municipal officials across the province,” she said. “We hope that the Commissioner takes a fair and balanced approach, carefully considers the evidence that was presented, and makes findings based on the standards for elected officials that were reasonable and knowable at the time.”

“makes findings based on the standards for elected officials that were reasonable and knowable at the time.”

Shameless. Absolutely shameless.

It’s just not possible to scrape lower into the bottom of the barrel than Liz McIntyre’s “makes findings based on the standards for elected officials.”

Reminder. This isn’t just some “elected official”. This is the iconic Hazel “Best Mayor in the World” McCallion whose “Best City in Canada” loves to remind all other municipalities that Mississauga “leads Canada in management.”

Hazel McCallion and her MYTHissauga Inc routinely trumpet a Lot of Bests. Until of course events threaten to hold them accountable to Best. Then these cowardly hypocrites wilt-and-hide behind “makes findings based on the standards for elected officials that were reasonable and knowable at the time.”

As for the Mayor’s lawyer’s use of the weasel phrase “were reasonable and knowable at the time” (no offense to weasels) here’s another reminder. This is the Mayor who goes on forever about how “we are the Best” and “we must lead by example”, not to mention the City of Mississauga mantra of “Trust Quality Excellence”.

In their August 2011 commentary, “Hazel’s Revenge!”, Mississauga News reporters had this to say about Mayor Hazel McCallion:

Politics is a dirty game and when you’ve been in the business for 50 years you pick up a few tricks along the way.

Tomorrow will reveal whether McCallion’s latest “makes findings based on the standards for elected officials that were reasonable and knowable at the time” trick worked: Will Justice Cunningham judge McCallion’s conduct as just an “elected official” or as Canada’s most influential Mayor who’s had over three decades of practice pretending to get it right?

As for the Inquiry’s recommendations regarding municipal governance in this province? Read the Globe and Mail article, “McGuinty courts McCallion in battle for Ontario’s suburbs”. McGuinty knows only too well that the “fabulous” Hazel McCallion isn’t one for rules let alone optics. McGuinty also knows that not only is Mississauga “Her Town Her Rules” but it’s also Hazel McCallion’s Province.

Inquiry’s recommendations authentically implemented?…

Don’t you about you but I’m not that stupid.

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.


ALL NEW! Hazel McCallion bobblehead doll commemorates the Mayor’s Landing of BIGGEST FISH YET!

August 22nd, 2011  

Please do not fret! The old “Bobblehead, Mayor Hazel McCallion, Fishing Edition” version is still for sale at the City of Mississauga website.

Gifts  -   Bobblehead, Mayor Hazel McCallion, Fishing Edition

And now… Introducing!

ALL NEW! Hazel McCallion bobblehead doll commemorating the Mayor’s BIGGEST FISH YET!

NEW! Hazel McCallion bobblehead doll commemorates Mayor's BIGGEST FISH YET! (courtesy Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance)Courtesy Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance (and Traditional Media)

Swallowed hook, line and stinker.


The Mississauga Muse

Email sent to Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Counsel asks the obvious question –and then asks who else asked it.

August 20th, 2011  

For the record, this email was just sent to Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Counsel, William McDowell and Naomi Loewith asking the obvious question about Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion’s Trade “Mission” to Brazil that delayed the release of the Judicial Inquiry’s report until after the September 19, 2011 Ward 5 By-election voting.


From: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
To: William McDowell; Naomi Loewith; Gerry Timbers; Louie Rosella; Chris Clay; Megan O’Toole; San Grewal; Tom Urbaniak; Royson James; Crystal Greer; Peel Council; City of Brampton Council; John Stewart
Cc: mississauga_watch@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 10:53 AM
Subject: Two Questions regarding Hazel McCallion’s Trade “Mission” to Brazil

[To City of Brampton, Mississauga and Peel city clerks. I ask that this August 20, 2011 email to Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Counsel, William McDowell and Naomi Loewith be added to your earliest September 2011 Council meeting minutes as Correspondence. Thanks.]

Hi Mr. McDowell and Ms. Loewith,

As you know, I’m the citizen-journalist who appeared before the Inquiry requesting to videotape the proceedings. The Commission did one better and actually gave me access to the Inquiry Rogers Cable 10 feeds, and I thank you again for your commitment to the public’s right to know.

I’m writing because you’ve made the decision to delay the release of the Inquiry report until after the Ward 5 by-election.

I’ve got two questions, but first this time line for context:

* Jun 28, 2011 (Missisauga News) Inquiry report after Labour Day

– The much-anticipated final report from the Mississauga judicial inquiry, already delayed several times, will be released sometime after Labour Day.

* June 29, 2011 (Missisauga News) By-election set for September

– Ward 5 residents will go to the polls on Sept. 19 to fill the City Council seat left vacant when former councillor Eve Adams jumped ship to Ottawa.

* Jun 30, 2011 www.brampton.ca Business Headlines & BramFacts

– GTMA Plans Business Mission to Brazil – Brampton Companies Invited to Particpate [sic] …..The Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance (GTMA) is in the planning stages of a return mission to Brazil. The program will run for 5 days from September 12th – 16th and will focus on the Futurecom Conference which will take place in Sao Paulo.

* Jul 22, 2011 TWITTER. Greater Toronto Martketing Alliance announces Business “Mission” to Brazil. gtmatoronto GTMA

– Join the GTMA on a GTA Business Mission to Brazil! Inquire about the early bird special by July 29th > http://t.co/0dBRiNG22 Jul

* Aug 16, 2011 (Missisauga News) Inquiry report delayed

– The much-anticipated release of the Mississauga judicial inquiry report has been pushed back once again because Mayor Hazel McCallion will be out of the country next month….McCallion’s trip is part of the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance Trade Mission to Brazil, which has been in the works since last fall, said the mayor’s lawyer, Liz McIntyre.

So that’s the sequence of events. Here’s my first question:

Given that McCallion’s lawyer, Liz McIntyre:

– would or should have known that the Mayor’s “Trade Mission” to Brazil had been in the works since last fall, and
– would or should have known by June 28, 2011, that the Inquiry report was scheduled for release after Labour Day, and
– would or should have known by June 29, 2011 that Ward 5 residents will go to the polls on September 19, 2011, then

On what date did McIntyre (or Hazel McCallion) first inform you and Justice Cunningham that she would be out of the country for the Business “Mission” to Brazil?

Second question:

Has anyone else (ie: Traditional Media, etc) asked you that obvious question?

Thank you,

Ursula Bennett

“‘And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”‘    –George Orwell, 1984



HAZEL MCCALLION'S LIE AT THE MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY. City Staff are "very professional and they follow the policies very, very, very diligently. "

Carolyn Parrish “we have no choice”. Mayor McCallion gets another $250,000 to cover lawyers’ fees.

August 6th, 2010  

Last Blog, Mississauga Council okays $250,000 more for Hazel McCallion’s lawyers fees. (Video of debate highlights) we showed video of Councillor Nando Iannicca’s “We’re asking for justice and a proper inquiry” speech.


This is justice and it doesn’t matter where it takes you and who’s involved. And the last thing I’d want to do is stop if we’re trying to seek the truth and politicians are involved. That’s just not right. So, it’s not even an academic argument. It’s an argument you shouldn’t be having in society. It costs what it costs to get to the truth under the circumstances and I’m not going to deviate from that at all.    —Nando Iannicca, August 5, 2010

What follows is another excerpt of Wednesday’s Mississauga Council debate on covering the Mayor’s legal bills. This time we highlight Councillor Carolyn Parrish who strikes into the heart of the matter, that Council has no choice.

And so the video and of course, the transcript.

Video: We *HAVE* to pay Hazel McCallion’s lawyers’ fees. Carolyn Parrish explains the bottom-line. (1:22 min)

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



And unfortunately and I guess we don’t give anybody instructions around here but, I would have felt much more comfortable had we had a detailed breakdown of the anticipated costs from the Mayor’s lawyer. Saying, this is what we anticipate. These are the hours of preparation. These are the hours of questioning. These are the hours we anticipate to be in the Inquiry.

Sending a letter kind of whining about the other Councillors doesn’t impress me and this makes me just a little bit nervous. I think Councillor Iannicca said it well. He said if you give them $400,000 you’ve set a target, not a, not a, you know, a reasonable goal.

So, the other thing that, I mean, we’re over, we’re in [sic] a rock and a hard place because the Mayor’s requests, we have no choice but to accept it.

I’m not doing it with a great deal of enthusiasm, I’ll tell you. This cost is very very high and I think the Mayor herself will have to explain this to the taxpayers. I’m not going to try.

But given the position we’re in, if you were to say no, there would be an immediate application for a judicial review and the whole thing would come to a halt.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

That’s right.


That is certainly quite possible —an application to the Commissioner.

It’s been my recommendation that you do approve the request, yes.


Thank you.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:




Judicial inquiry coverage

The Mississauga News has provided a terrific resource so I’ll just cut-and-paste with special thanks to them for making my job easier.

Faces of the inquiry. From left, businessman Peter McCallion and his powerful mother, Mayor Hazel McCallion, are in the spotlight as the historic Mississauga judicial inquiry continues to unfold in the Burnhamthorpe Rd. W. courthouse. Justice Douglas Cunningham (right) is probing the extent of the mayor’s involvement in a major land deal that was being brokered by her son, and whether she had a conflict of interest.

Related Stories

The Mississauga News
Aug 04, 2010 – 8:36 PM

Did Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion have a conflict of interest when she got involved in her son’s business dealings? Or, was she just working on behalf the City of Mississauga by helping to being a major hotel and convention centre to the City Centre?

That’s what Justice Douglas Cunningham is trying to determine at the ongoing Mississauga judicial inquiry.

It’s also a hot topic of conversation for many city residents.

The City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry was established under Section 274 of the Municipal Act by a vote of City Council on Nov. 11, 2009.

It has been conducted in two sessions. The first half, which began May 25 and ran through June 15, examined a controversial Enersource Shareholders Agreement that gave unusual veto powers to the utility’s minority owner, the giant OMERS pension fund.

The second part of the inquiry, which got underway July 8, is examining the mayor’s role in a bid by a development company fronted by her son to buy a package of City Centre land from OMERS for a hotel and convention centre.

Below is our coverage of the judicial inquiry to date.

Council okays $250,000 more for mayor

What price truth?

Mayor should step down

McCallions’ inquiry tab could top $500,000

Mayor not helped by son’s testimony

McCallion should pay: Parrish

‘I did nothing wrong’

Firm thought McCallion was a real estate agent, inquiry told

City wasn’t fleeced in land deal

Son misled mayor, lawyer suggests

McCallion sticks up for mom

McCallion’s memory tested

Mayor pushed her son’s project

Mayor’s son on the hot seat

Not a principal: McCallion

McCallion co-signed loan

Mayor an ’emissary’ for son’s company: lawyer

O’Brien was also involved in Sheridan deal

Lawyers prepare for battle at inquiry

Hazel vouched for son’s partner

Mayor’s son to testify

OMERS denies inflating land deal

Code needed at City

Company received $4M payout

City seeks public review of ethics code

Company received $4M pay-out over hotel deal

Voters will decide

Process can’t be muzzled

Mayor pushed deal, Inquiry told

Mayor linked to meeting

Mayor pushed for hotel in City Centre

Judge shoots down mayor’s request

Was it legal?

Mayor cries foul at inquiry

Inquiry hits another roadblock

Questions remain

Inquiry costs now expected to hit $5 million

Inquiry may hurt Enersource: lawyer

‘I am not stepping down’

Inquiry’s second phase begins in July

‘I forget‚’ doesn’t cut it

Council told of veto: Mahoney

Mahoney set to testify at inquiry

Mahoney called to testify

Councillor asks for fees

Mayor’s legal fees capped

Inquiry costs climb

Lawyers want more to represent mayor

McCallion calls out Parrish

Mayor denies knowing of veto

Deal negotiated improperly, inquiry hears

Mayor on stand tomorrow

Enersource deal ‘terrific’ for Mississauga

Enersource deal nixed by inquiry

We’ll all pay a share

Former City manager vague in details

Councillors should have known about veto, deal maker says

Files stay sealed

City set to approve full funding for mayor’s son

City key to OMERS, inquiry told

No common sense

High stakes drama

Enersource powers ‘changed’

Hydro deal took years to probe, inquiry hears

Judicial inquiry starts today

Inquiry starts tomorrow

Mayor to testify June 2

Councillors consider code of ethics

Council code of conduct on agenda

More money for Mayor’s son

Commissioner to rule on funding for mayor’s son

Inquiry costs at $1.5M and rising

Peter McCallion’s entire July 27, 2010 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony (PART 1) now video record on YouTube

August 1st, 2010  

Today’s Blog is dedicated to Edward R. Murrow. This is Part One

Here they are —as promised. Video of Peter McCallion’s first day at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, July 27, 2010.  All told about four hours of testimony. As luck would have it just this week, YouTube announced that it would up time limits for videos from ten minutes to fifteen. That still meant that Mr. McCallion’s testimony required 18 YouTube videos in all and we offer them here.

For the official transcript at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry’s website check out:  http://mail.tscript.com/trans/mississauga/jul_27_10/index.htm

We have also provided a transcript at MISSISSAUGAWATCH:  www.mississaugawatch.ca/blog/?p=9655

We will also make Peter McCallion’s July 28, 2010 testimony available here as well as time permits.

Video: PETER MCCALLION INTRODUCTION PART 1 to the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry July 27, 2010 Testimony (7:22 min)

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

Video: PETER MCCALLION PART 2 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry July 27, 2010 TESTIMONY PART 2 of 18 (14:56 min)

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

Video: PETER MCCALLION PART 3 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry July 27, 2010 TESTIMONY PART 3 of 18 (14:59 min)

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

Video: PETER MCCALLION PART 4 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry July 27, 2010 TESTIMONY PART 4 of 18 (14:54 min)

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

Video: PETER MCCALLION PART 5 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry July 27, 2010 TESTIMONY PART 5 of 18 (14:54 min)

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

Video: PETER MCCALLION PART 6 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry July 27, 2010 TESTIMONY PART 6 of 18 (14:49 min)

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

Video: PETER MCCALLION PART 7 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry July 27, 2010 TESTIMONY PART 7 of 18 (14:46 min)

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

Video: PETER MCCALLION PART 8 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry July 27, 2010 TESTIMONY PART 8 of 18 (14:46 min)

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

Video: PETER MCCALLION PART 9 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry July 27, 2010 TESTIMONY PART 9 of 18 (15:00 min)

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

For videos 10 through 18, please click here for Part 2 of the Blog, Peter McCallion’s entire July 27, 2010 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony (PART 2) now video record on YouTube.

Ursula Bennett
The Mississauga Muse

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion leaves after winning 2006 election on 061113

Winning the 2006 election easily, Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion leaves the Great Hall after final results.
Municipal Election Night November 13, 2006.


Joe Chin
Jul 30, 2010 – 8:08 AM

‘I did nothing wrong’

The man in black. Peter McCallion arrives at the Burnhamthorpe Rd. W. courthouse to begin his testimony at the Mississauga judicial inquiry. He later told reporters he and his mother, Mayor Hazel McCallion, are guilty of no wrongdoing in connection with a failed bid to build a hotel and convention centre on City Centre lands. Staff photo by Fred Loek
Related Stories

Two days of aggressive grilling couldn’t budge Peter McCallion from insisting he did nothing wrong in an ill-fated bid to bring an upscale hotel to Mississauga’s downtown core.
While he was in denial mode, he took time to stick up for his mother, Mayor Hazel McCallion, too.
“No, we did not (do anything wrong),” McCallion told reporters on Wednesday as he left the Burnhamthorpe Rd. courthouse, site of the Mississauga judicial inquiry.
The high-profile hearing is probing, among other issues, whether the mayor breached conflict-of-interest rules in her involvement in the land purchase deal…..

Please click here to read the rest of  ‘I did nothing wrong’

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Transcript – July 28, 2010 (Peter McCallion Day 2 testimony)

July 31st, 2010  

Source: The Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website:

July 28, 2010 Hearing transcript (Peter McCallion Day 2 testimony) at: http://mail.tscript.com/trans/mississauga/jul_28_10/index.htm


  9  Before:        Associate Chief Mr. Justice J. Douglas
 10                 Cunningham
 19  HELD AT:
 20                    Provincial Offence Court
 21                       Mississauga, Ontario
 22                          July 28, 2010
 24                       Pages 2005 to 2261


  1                        APPEARANCES
  2  William McDowell                  )Commission Counsel
  3  Naomi Loewith                     )
  4  Yashada Ranganathan               )
  6  Freya Kristjanson  (np)           )For Mayor Hazel McCallion
  7  Elizabeth McIntrye                )
  8  Adrianne Telford   (np)           )
  9  Pavle Masic                      )
 11  Brian Gover                      ) For Peter McCallion
 12  Luisa Ritacca                    )
 14  Clifford Lax, Q.C.                )For City of Mississauga
 15  Tracy Wynne                       )
 16  James Renihan                    )
 17  David Schwartz    (np)           )
 19  Michael Barrack                  )For OMERS
 20  John Finnigan                    )
 21  Kim Ferreira     (np)            )
 22  James Roks        (np)            )
 23  Alana Shepherd    (np)            )
 24  Deborah Palter                    )
 25  Ronald Podolny    (np)            )


  1                   APPEARANCES (Cont'd)
  2  Alan Mark          (np)          )For Enersource
  3  Kelly Friedman    (np)           )
  5  Don Jack                          ) For 156 Square One
  6  Adam Goodman                      )
  8  Gerarda Mazza     (np)           ) For Mr. Leo Couprie
 10  Michael Cohen     (np)           ) For Mr. Murray Cook
 12  Jean-Claude Killey (np)           ) For Mr. Tony DeCicco
 13  Linda Rothstein                   )
 15  Patrick Eighenberg (np)           ) For Mr. Jonathan Toll
 17  Peter Cavanagh    (np)           ) For Mr. William Houston


  1                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  2                                                       Page No.
  3  Exhibit List                                             2009
  6   Continued Cross-examination by Mr. Clifford Lax         2015
  8  Submissions by Mr. Brian Gover                           2110
  9  Submissions by Ms. Elizabeth McIntyre                    2123
 10  Submissions by Mr. William McDowell                     2123
 11  Submissions by Mr. Clifford Lax                         2125
 12  Reply Submissions by Mr. Brian Gover                    2128
 13  Ruling                                                  2129
 16   Continued Cross-examination by Mr. Clifford Lax        2132
 17   Cross-examination by Ms. Elizabeth McIntyre            2144
 18   Re-cross-examination by Mr. William McDowell           2182


  1                 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't)
  2                                                       Page
  3  No.
  5   Examination-in-chief by Mr. William McDowell           2187
  6   Cross-examination by Ms. Elizabeth McIntyre            2222
  7   Cross-examination by Ms. Luisa Ritacca                 2236
  8   Cross-examination by Ms. Linda Rothstein               2242
  9   Cross-examination by Mr. Don Jack                      2248
 10   Re-direct Examination by Mr. William McDowell          2260
 12  Certificate of transcript                               2261


  1                     LIST OF EXHIBITS
  2  EXHIBIT NO.      DESCRIPTION                        PAGE NO.
  3  274            COM001002003 - Declaration of Trust
  4                 dated January 1, 2000
  5  199            COM001002039 - Statement of Defence
  6                 and Counterclaim Court file No.
  7                 08-CV-35121PD1A
  8  291            COM001002766 - letter - World Class
  9                 Developments Limited - corporate
 10                 matters dated November 20, 2006          2057
 11  210            COM001002821 - letter - Murray Cook
 12                 et al ats Leo Couprie dated September
 13                 26, 2008
 14  213            MIS001011340 - LRO No. 43 Charge/
 15                 Mortgage dated April 27, 2005
 16  216            MIS054001061 - calendar - Hotel/
 17                 Conference Centre dated October 4,
 18                 2007
 19  217            MIS055004020 - Calendar - ES/MB/
 20                 Peter McCallion re City Centre
 21                 Project dated February 15, 2007
 22  218            MIS055005021 - Note - (Hurry - 416-
 23                 399-5041...) dated February 15, 2007
 24  219            MIS055005026 - Calendar - WCD - hotel
 25                 and Conference Centre dated August 9, 2007


  1                   LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd)
  2  Exhibit No.      Description                        Page No.
  3  191            MIS064004001 - calendar - Peter
  4                 McCallion dated January 18, 2007
  5  223            MIS064004007 - Calendar - dated June
  6                 21, 2007
  7  224            MIS064004013 - Calendar - meet w
  8                 P. McCallion/AR etc, dated November
  9                 13, 2007
 10  227            MIS064004017 - Calendar - dated
 11                 March 6, 2008
 12  228            MIS068001001 - Note(s) - dated June
 13                 24, 2009
 14  276            MIS068004004 - report dated December
 15                 11, 2008
 16  235            MIS079001008 - telephone records -
 17                 dated November 5, 2007
 18  237            MIS079001010 -     telephone records -
 19                 dated November 5, 2007
 20  239            MIS079001027 - telephone records -
 21                 dated May 22, 2008
 22  204            MIS079001029 - telephone records
 23                 dated June 5, 2008
 24  240            MIS079001031 - telephone records -
 25                 dated June 6, 2008


  1                 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd)
  2  Exhibit No.      Description                        Page No.
  3  241            MIS079001033 - telephone records -
  4                 dated July 4, 2008
  5  242            MIS079001041 - telephone records -
  6                 dated October 9, 2008
  7  243            MIS079001060 - telephone records -
  8                 dated December 11, 2008
  9  245            OMR001002272 - letter - World Class
 10                 Purchase from OMERS dated October
 11                 17, 2008
 12  246            OMR001002288 - email - re: How did
 13                 it go? dated May 13, 2008
 14  249            OMR002002899 - email - FW: World
 15                 Class Developments - Block 29, Plan
 16                 43M-1010, Mississauga dated October
 17                 8, 2008
 18  250            SOL001001076 - email - WCD - Tony
 19                 Dicico call back dated December 2,
 20                 2008
 21  256            WCD001001974 - email - WCD November
 22                 21 meeting dated November 22, 2007
 23  193            COM001002019 - Shareholders Agreement
 24                 dated January 29, 2007


  1                   LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd)
  2  Exhibit No.      Description                        Page No.
  3  211            COM001002846 - real estate
  4                 transaction documents - Leo Couprie
  5                 purchase from Peter McCallion
  6                 5405 Durie Road, Mississauga File
  7                 No. 0800003, dated May 14, 2008
  8  181            COM006001036 - map - Mississauga
  9                 City Centre plan - 1998 Marketing
 10                 Group Partners dated January 1, 1998
 11  182            COM06001038 - marketing - Mississauga
 12                 Ontario Canada - Development
 13                 opportunity - New hotel/Conference
 14                 centre dated January 1, 2000
 15  288            COM006001202 - marketing - Mississauga
 16                 City Centre Vision
 17  284            OMR001002175 - report - Square One
 18                 land sale (blocks 9 and 29) to World
 19                 Class Development dated January 31,
 20                 2007
 21  283            OMR001002225 - report - Square
 22                 One - land sale (Parcels 6 and 7)
 23                 dated May 18, 2006


  1                   LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd)
  2  Exhibit No.      Description                        Page No.
  3  287            OMR001002295 - letter - World Class
  4                 Developments Limited Agreement of
  5                 Purchase and Sale with OMERS Realty
  6                 Management Corporation and 1331430
  7                 Ontario Inc - Blocks 9 and 29, Plan
  8                 43M-1010, Mississauga dated July
  9                 16, 2009
 10  285            OMR001002339 - email - re: WCD dated
 11                 July 9, 2008
 12  282            OMR001002395 - memorandum - Square
 13                 One - land sale (Parcels 6 and 7)
 14                 dated May 1, 2006
 15  289            Transcript of the cross-examination
 16                 of Peter McCallion                       2015
 25  --- Upon commencing at 10:30 a.m.


  1                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order in the courtroom.
  2  All rise, please.  This Inquiry is now in session.
  3  Please be seated.
  5  morning.
  7                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  9                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Commissioner, a
 10  couple of housekeeping things.  1)  We will file, and
 11  mark as an exhibit, the transcript which we placed before
 12  you yesterday.  We probably need one to be marked as the
 13  next exhibit.
 14                 THE COURT CLERK:   Two eighty-nine (289).
 16  --- EXHIBIT NO. 289:       Transcript of the cross-
 17                             examination of Peter
 18                             McCallion
 20                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Right.  Do we have
 21  another copy of the transcript?
 22                 That's the first thing.  The second thing
 23  is that, counsel having huddled, we think that it
 24  probably is more prudent to let the examination continue,
 25  and then to deal with the issue, if it arises, because it


  1  -- it may not.
  3  right, that's fine.  Mr. McCallion, you're still under
  4  oath.  Good morning.
  6                 PETER MCCALLION, Resumed
  8                 THE WITNESS:   Good morning.
 11                 Q:   Good morning, Mr. McCallion.
 12                 A:   Good morning.
 13                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Can we turn, Mr.
 14  Commissioner, to Exhibit 190, and this is the declaration
 15  of trust that you spoke about yesterday with both your
 16  counsel, and with Mr. McDowell, the one (1) that was
 17  witnessed by the mayor.
 20                 Q:   Just so that I'm clear, you -- you
 21  said that the reason for this declaration of trust being
 22  prepared and executed at the time that it was, was
 23  because you had an upcoming trip to Vietnam with Mr.
 24  Couprie, is that correct, and you wanted to protect your
 25  interest?


  1                 A:   Correct.
  2                 Q:   Just out of curiosity, was the trip
  3  to Vietnam the only trip that you took with Mr. Couprie,
  4  jointly?
  5                 A:   No, it is not.
  6                 Q:   Pardon me?
  7                 A:   No, it is not.
  8                 Q:   You went on other trips.
  9                 A:   Yes, I did.
 10                 Q:   After this Vietnam trip?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   And you told us that after you
 13  returned from the Vietnam trip you tore up this
 14  declaration of trust because you didn't need it any more.
 15                 A:   Well, I said I discarded it.  I
 16  didn't say I tore it up.
 17                 Q:   All right.  Because you didn't need
 18  it any more?
 19                 A:   I didn't feel we needed it anymore,
 20  yes.
 21                 Q:   And when you went on the other trips
 22  subsequent to the Vietnam trip, did you prepare a
 23  declaration of trust, or did you have one prepared to
 24  protect your interest, just in case anything happened on
 25  those trips?


  1                 A:   No, I did not.
  2                 Q:   Why not?
  3                 A:   I didn't feel it was necessary at the
  4  time.
  5                 Q:   Well, if it was necessary for the
  6  Vietnam trip, why was it not necessary for the trips that
  7  followed?
  8                 A:   Because there were other people
  9  involved at the time.
 10                 Q:   That would be who?
 11                 A:   Murray Cook.
 12                 Q:   By the time that this declaration of
 13  trust is signed, Mr. McCallion, Murray Cook was already
 14  involved.  That's why only -- only 80 percent of the
 15  shares of World Class were being held in trust for you.
 16  The other 20 percent were -- belonged to Murray Cook, or
 17  were promised to Murray Cook, weren't they?
 18                 A:   I believe.
 19                 Q:   All right.  So he was already
 20  involved at the time of this declaration of trust.
 21                 A:   I believe he was not a shareholder at
 22  this time.
 23                 Q:   All right.  But you're holding 20
 24  percent in reserve for him?
 25                 A:   I believe so.


  1                 Q:   All right.  And so if you need to
  2  protect your interest for the Vietnam trip, how come you
  3  didn't need to protect your interest on the later trips
  4  when Murray Cook -- when Murray Cook there was just a sha
  5  -- was a shareholder for 20 percent, as you contemplated
  6  at the time of this declaration of trust?
  7                 A:   It was contemplated at this time, but
  8  it was not formalized.
  9                 Q:   And what difference does it make to
 10  you as to wether your interest is protected if Murray
 11  Cook's 20 percent shareholding interest was only
 12  contemplated, or formalized?
 13                 A:   I believed he was a family friend and
 14  I trusted him at that point.
 15                 Q:   You didn't trust him when -- when you
 16  only promised him 20 percent of the shares?
 17                 A:   I didn't promise him the 20 percent.
 18  Leo Couprie promised him the 20 percent.
 19                 Q:   You didn't trust him at the time you
 20  signed this declaration of trust?
 21                 A:   I like formal documentation.
 22                 Q:   Pardon me?
 23                 A:   I like to see formal documentation.
 24                 Q:   How did the formal documentation give
 25  you any higher degree of confidence in Murray Cook?


  1                 A:   It did at the time.
  2                 Q:   How?
  3                 A:   Confidence in my mind.
  4                 Q:   What in the documentation would give
  5  you 1 ounce of additional confidence in Murray Cook?
  6                 A:   In my mind, it gave me full
  7  confidence.
  8                 Q:   Are you able to tell me why that was
  9  the case?
 10                 A:   He was a family friend.
 11                 Q:   He was a family friend before the
 12  declaration of trust --
 13                 A:   Correct.
 14                 Q:   -- and he was family frie -- family
 15  friend when he was your partner.
 16                 A:   Well, he wasn't my partner.
 17                 Q:   He was your fa -- he was a family
 18  friend when both of you then officially owned the shares
 19  of WCD, correct?
 20                 A:   Correct.
 21                 Q:   So what was it that the documentation
 22  was going to do that was going to give you any more
 23  confidence in Murray Cook?
 24                 A:   Because he had signed the
 25  documentation.


  1                 Q:   Are you unable to give me an answer
  2  why --
  3                 A:   I cannot --
  4                 Q:   -- you had any more confidence?
  5                 A:   I had that confidence at the time.
  6                 Q:   Now, at the time that you had this --
  7  signed this declaration of trust, you've told us that
  8  your belief was that your interest was that of a -- of a
  9  real estate agent, correct?
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   You wanted to protect the future flow
 12  of potential commission.
 13                 A:   Correct.
 14                 Q:   But the declaration of trust doesn't
 15  say anything about commissions.  It talks only about 80
 16  percent of the shares of World Class Developments.
 17                 A:   Correct.
 18                 Q:   Now, how can we equate what you were
 19  concerned about protecting -- namely commissions -- to be
 20  equal to 80 percent of the shares of World Class
 21  Developments?
 22                 A:   I can't answer that.
 23                 Q:   Do you agree with me that this
 24  declaration of trust did not in any way protect your
 25  anticipated future real estate commissions?


  1                 A:   It does not state that in there, no.
  2                 Q:   Thank you.  Will you just please turn
  3  to Exhibit 199, Mr. Commissioner?  This is the statement
  4  of defence and counterclaim that was filed by Murray Cook
  5  in the action commenced by Leo Couprie.
  6                 Now, I think it's important for the
  7  Commissioner to understand that Leo Couprie, the
  8  plaintiff in this action, sued for a declaration that the
  9  Shareholders' Agreement was null and void.
 10                 Do you -- do you understand that?
 11                 A:   Yep.
 12                 Q:   And Mr. Bisceglia was the lawyer who
 13  acted for Leo Couprie.
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   Would it be fair to say that at the
 16  time that Mr. Couprie was the -- issued this lawsuit, and
 17  Mr. Bisceglia was receiving his instructions not from Leo
 18  Couprie, but rather from Tony DeCicco and from you and
 19  from Mr. Bisceglia, because you were the interested
 20  shareholders in Wold Class Developments?
 21                 A:   I didn't give any instruction.
 22                 Q:   Would it be fair to say that Mr.
 23  Couprie really had no independent interest?  He held the
 24  shares in trust for either you or -- or Mr. DeCicco's
 25  holding company, what was it called, Lands -- Landplex.


  1                 A:   So what are you asking?
  2                 Q:   That he was just there as a
  3  figurehead.  He -- he was take -- Mr. Bisceglia's -- Mr.
  4  Bisceglia's real clients were you, DeCicco, and
  5  Bisceglia.
  6                 A:   Not in my mind at that time, no.
  7                 Q:   Because at that time, you thought
  8  that Leo Couprie really owned the shares --
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   -- because at that time, you hadn't
 11  read the trust agreement.
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   And at that time, you had brought in
 14  or introduced De -- DeCicco into the transaction with the
 15  -- with the knowledge that that would likely force out
 16  Murray Cook.
 17                 A:   That wasn't the purpose.
 18                 Q:   But you knew that that was a likely
 19  result.
 20                 A:   It was a possibility.
 21                 Q:   Now, let's see what Mr. Cook pleaded
 22  in his statement of defence.  And I take it you told us
 23  that you have never re -- read this document; is that
 24  correct?
 25                 A:   This one here?


  1                 Q:   Yes.
  2                 A:   No, I have not.
  3                 Q:   Okay.  Just turn please to the
  4  statement of defence, third page in, paragraph 3(b).  Mr.
  5  Cook sates --states in paragraph 3(b) -- and I have to
  6  just add a few words here to ma -- give it context --
  7  that:
  8                   "In or about the year 2005 [which
  9                   appears in paragraph (a)], that it was
 10                   agreed between Murray Cook [and these
 11                   are the curious words] and another
 12                   participant [that I suggest was you]
 13                   that the corporate vehicle to be used
 14                   to effect the purchase of the said
 15                   lands was a company known as World
 16                   Class Developments Limited, which had
 17                   been incorporated by a solicitor
 18                   retained by the aforementioned
 19                   participant."
 20                 Now, we'll just stop there.  You agree --
 21  we agree from the -- from the evidence that it was you
 22  who caused a solicitor, Caprara Brown, to incorporate
 23  World Class Developments?
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   So that when Mr. Cook is referring to


  1  "another participant" who incorporated World Class
  2  Developments, that would be you?
  3                 A:   Correct.
  4                 Q:   Go on to paragraph (c) for a moment.
  5                   "It was agreed that in consideration of
  6                   Murray Cook participating in the
  7                   transaction and to exercise access to
  8                   his reputation, expertise, know-how,
  9                   business contacts, office space, and
 10                   support, there would be conveyed to him
 11                   a 20 percent interest in the shares of
 12                   World Class Developments Limited."
 13                 And I take it that's -- that was true as
 14  well?
 15                 A:  Yes. 
 16                 Q:   That's why Couprie was only holding
 17  80 percent for you, because the other 20 percent was
 18  going to Cook?
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And then if we skip down to paragraph
 21  4:
 22                   "In or about 2006, Murray Cook became
 23                   aware that the original participant
 24                   [that would be you] sought to have his
 25                   interest in World Class Developments


  1                   Limited held by the plaintiff..."
  2                 And that would be Couprie.  And that would
  3  be the trust agreement, correct?
  4                 A:   That is correct.
  5                 Q:
  6                   "...and asked that Murray Cook proceed
  7                   to manage World Class Developments
  8                   Limited and close the transaction with
  9                   the plaintiff as the co-shareholder."
 10                 That would be accurate as well?
 11                 A:   That's number 5?
 12                 Q:   No, number 4.  You did not appear as
 13  a shareholder of record, Leo Couprie did; he held his
 14  shares in trust for you?
 15                 A:   At that time I didn't know that, but,
 16  correct.
 17                 Q:   So there were only two (2)
 18  shareholders, namely, Leo Couprie and Murray Cook?
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   Then we go down to paragraph 7.
 21                   "In or about 2007, the plaintiff
 22                   [that's Mr. Couprie] advised that he
 23                   had transferred all or part of his
 24                   interest in World Class Developments to
 25                   two (2) other individuals, Tony DeCicco


  1                   and Emilio Bisceglia, who were to
  2                   attend meetings and participate in
  3                   management decisions."
  4                 And that's correct as well?
  5                 A:   I now know that, yes.
  6                 Q:   Well, we knew it at the time, because
  7  you were responsible for the introduction of DeCicco to -
  8  - to World Class Developments, and you -- and you knew
  9  that DeCicco was acquiring part or all of the shares that
 10  were held by Couprie.
 11                 A:   Except for the fact that I was not
 12  aware of Emilio being a partner. 
 13                 Q:   All right.  Now, I'm not going to
 14  belabour the point.  I'll take you now to the resolution
 15  of this tra -- of this litigation.  It resolved pretty
 16  quickly.  This statement of defence and counterclaim was
 17  filed in July 2008, the action was settled, apparently,
 18  in September of 2008.
 19                 And for that, Mr. Commissioner, if we
 20  could turn to Exhibit 210.
 21                 I should say, Mr. McCallion, that if you
 22  look at the Murray Cook pleading, you are never mentioned
 23  by name.  It's only by the reference to the other
 24  participant, that we get any context as to the fact that
 25  he's referring to you.


  1                 Do you understand that?
  2                 A:   I believe that.
  3                 Q:   Yeah.  And now we'll turn to the
  4  release, which is at Exhibit 210.  If you'd turn to the
  5  release, please.  The next page.
  6                 And we look at the parties to this release
  7  and we see that Cook means Murray Cook, his heirs,
  8  executors, administrators, and specifically includes
  9  Gordon Cooper and Richard Cooper.
 10                 Do you know who Gordon Cooper and Richard
 11  Cooper are?
 12                 A:   Yes, I do.
 13                 Q:   And who -- and why were they
 14  specifically included in the reference to the release of
 15  whenever Murray Cook is referred to?
 16                 A:   I'm not aware of why.  However, they
 17  are Murray's partners in other businesses.
 18                 Q:   All right.  And then World Class
 19  parties are defined to mean World Class Developments
 20  Limited, it's directors, officers, shareholders, et
 21  cetera, and specifically Leo Couprie, Tony DeCicco, and
 22  Peter McCallion.  Were you aware -- we're -- we're going
 23  to go out to the next one.  We can go to it right now.
 24  Look on the next -- or the last page of this document.
 25  Go down, please.


  1                 Is that -- that your signature, the --
  2                 A:   Yes, it is.
  3                 Q:   -- fourth signature down?  Were you
  4  aware, when you signed this release, that the reason you
  5  were signing it was because you were one (1) of the World
  6  Class Development parties?
  7                 A:   No, I was not.
  8                 Q:   Did you read --
  9                 A:   Also -- 
 10                 Q:   -- this release before you signed it?
 11                 A:   In that last paragraph, we were
 12  looking at it, it also said "agents".
 13                 Q:   All right.  And did you read the
 14  release before you signed it?
 15                 A:   No, I did not.
 16                 Q:   So you didn't know that it said
 17  "agents"?
 18                 A:   Well, I read it five (5) minutes ago.
 19                 Q:   All right.  And when you signed this
 20  release, are you now testifying under oath that you
 21  signed in the capacity not as a principal of World Class
 22  Developments, but as the real estate agent for World
 23  Class Developments?
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   How often, in your extensive career


  1  as a real estate agent, have you had to sign a release on
  2  behalf of one (1) of your clients?
  3                 A:   Very seldom.
  4                 Q:   Ever?
  5                 A:   I don't recall ever signing one.
  6                 Q:   What possible justification or reason
  7  could there be in a fight amongst shareholders, to have
  8  the real estate agent sign the release?
  9                 A:   I cannot answer that.
 10                 Q:   Would you agree with me that that
 11  suggestion is nonsensical?
 12                 A:   No.
 13                 Q:   Then tell me one (1) good reason why
 14  we should believe it.
 15                 A:   It said "agents"in there.
 16                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Now, Mr. Commissioner,
 17  we're going to turn to a chronology.  This is -- has been
 18  handed out to all of the counsel, but it's not intended
 19  to be an exhibit.  It was simply to assist the Commission
 20  and Commission staff so that they could find the
 21  documents quickly, and to save you, frankly, from writing
 22  every one -- reference to all of them.  But, if you wish
 23  it to be an exhibit, that's -- I'll be guided by your --
 24                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   I don't
 25  think it needs to be an exhibit.  If there's any


  1  disagreement I'll consider it.  But otherwise, if it's
  2  going to be of assistance to me, Mr. Lax, I welcome it.
  3                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Thank you.
  5                      (BRIEF PAUSE)
  7                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Thank you, sir.
  9                      (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12                 Q:   If we can start, please, with Exhibit
 13  234, page 1.
 14                 And we've seen this document before, Mr.
 15  McCallion; it was brought to your attention yesterday.
 16  It's a meeting at your mother's home on Wednesday,
 17  February the 12th, 2003, at 6:00 p.m.  There's you and
 18  Mr. DeCicco.
 19                 You said yesterday that this meeting was
 20  arr -- I'm sorry, you -- you -- it indicates that this
 21  meeting was arranged at your request.  You were asked
 22  yesterday if this was about WCD, and you indicated that
 23  it was not.
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   Do I take it that the reason you say


  1  it was not was simply because it's too early in your view
  2  for it to refer to WCD?
  3                 A:   Completely.
  4                 Q:   But we know that you were engaged in
  5  attempts to develop a relationship, at least, with this
  6  land and with -- with the purchasers since as early as
  7  2002.
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   And so by February of 2003, is it
 10  completely unrealistic that this would relate to WCD?
 11                 A:   Completely unrealistic.
 12                 Q:   Only because of the timing?
 13                 A:   Exactly because of the timing.
 14                 Q:   And at that time, in February 12th,
 15  2003, were you the agent for Tony DeCicco with respect to
 16  any other then current transactions?
 17                 A:   None.
 18                 Q:   All right.  So then the question
 19  becomes, if you weren't acting for him as a real estate
 20  agent, what were you doing at a meeting with him and your
 21  mother on February 12th, 2003, that you engaged in?
 22                 A:   I cannot answer that.  I don't
 23  remember what the meeting was about.
 24                 Q:   Were you engaged in any other
 25  business dealings with Mr. DeCicco at that time?


  1                 A:   No, I was not.
  2                 Q:   Please turn then to Exhibit 234, page
  3  3, September the 9th, 2003.  You were taken to this
  4  document yesterday as well.  It's another meeting with
  5  Tony DeCicco, yourself, and your mother, and it's to
  6  discuss the new banquet hall in Mississauga.
  7                 Were you -- what was your role with
  8  respect to the proposed new banquet hall in Mississauga?
  9                 A:   None.
 10                 Q:   Why were you at a meeting then to
 11  discuss the banquet hall in which you had no role?
 12                 A:   It was for dinner.
 13                 Q:   But the dinner was to discuss
 14  potential business.  Why were --
 15                 A:   It was --
 16                 Q:   -- you there --
 17                 A:   -- I believe it was Tony wanting to
 18  introduce to my mother a potential tenant for a business
 19  banquet hall in Mississauga, and I went along.  I had no
 20  business dealings with that at all.
 21                 Q:   Turn now -- turn to Exhibit 234, page
 22  4, November the 12th, 2003, which is a meeting at your
 23  mother's home at 2:00 PM.  The meeting was requested by
 24  you.  Remember, we're still back in 2003.
 25                 A:   Correct.


  1                 Q:   Do you still take the position it has
  2  nothing to do with World Class Developments?
  3                 A:   Absolutely.
  4                 Q:   Were you still, by November 12th,
  5  2003, not engaged in any other business dealings with Mr.
  6  DeCicco?
  7                 A:   No, I was not.
  8                 Q:   Then the question becomes, why were
  9  you there at a meeting at all?
 10                 A:   I cannot answer what the meeting was
 11  about.  That's in 2003.
 12                 Q:   Turn to Exhibit 234, page 5, January
 13  29th, 2004.  This is a lunch meeting with your mother and
 14  Tony DeCicco.
 15                 Was this about World Class Developments?
 16                 A:   No, it was not.
 17                 Q:   Was there any other business venture
 18  that --
 19                 A:   Not that I can re --
 20                 Q:   -- was then active that would require
 21  your attendance at this lunch?
 22                 A:   Not that I can remember.
 23                 Q:   And can you recall now any
 24  justification as to why you were there?
 25                 A:   Other than Tony's a friend of mine


  1  and my mother, I cannot answer what the business was
  2  about.         Q:   We turn now to Exhibit 228, April
  3  24th, 2004.  This is a breakfast meeting with Tony
  4  DeCicco, yourself, and your mother on April 24th, 2004.
  5  It appears that it was at your urgent request.
  6                 What was the --
  7                 A:   I got --
  8                 Q:   -- urgent matter that required you to
  9  have a breakfast meeting with your mother and Mr.
 10  DeCicco?
 11                 A:   I -- you got the wrong document up
 12  there.
 13                 Q:   Sorry, page --
 14                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Are you
 15  talking about Exhibit 234 still, or are you moving to
 16  228?
 17                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Let me just get the
 18  numbering.  Is it 228 or 234 -- 228, Exhibit 228.
 20  begins May 18th, '05?
 21                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   April 24th, '04,
 22  but...
 23                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   April
 24  24th, '04 is Exhibit 228.


  2                 Q:   Yes.  Go to page 19, I'm told.  When
  3  I prepared this cross-examination, it was before I had
  4  the exhibit numbers.  I've added them in.  Page 19.  It's
  5  on the screen.
  6                 We all -- does everybody have the same
  7  thing on the screen, April 24th, 2004?
  8                 A:  Yes, we do.
  9                 Q:   What was the urgent request?
 10                 A:   I do not remember that.  It was in
 11  2004.
 12                 Q:   There's something that was urgently
 13  needed.  By -- by April of 2004, were you engaged in any
 14  other business relationship with Tony DeCicco that would
 15  --
 16                 A:   No, I was not.
 17                 Q:   All right.  The next document, again,
 18  is Exhibit 228, page 20.
 20                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 22                 Q:   This is a meeting of May the 1st with
 23  yourself, Mr. Dave O'Brien, and Silvio de Gasperis.
 24  Silvio de Gasperis, I take it we can agree, is the
 25  principal of TACC.


  1                 A:   Correct.
  2                 Q:   He's the man who ultimately loaned
  3  you the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) that's used as
  4  an injection of capital into WCD.
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And were you in -- on May of 2004
  7  engaged in any other business dealings with Silvio de
  8  Gasperis?
  9                 A:   Possibly.
 10                 Q:   What does that mean?
 11                 A:   He was having me look at some land in
 12  Pickering.
 13                 Q:   In Pickering.
 14                 A:   Pickering.
 15                 Q:   All right.  That wouldn't involve the
 16  Mayor.
 17                 A:   No.
 18                 Q:   All right.  So you're having lunch
 19  with the Mayor with Mr. de Gasperis and Mr. O'Brien.
 20  What was the reason for that lunch?
 21                 A:   I do not remember that specifically.
 22                 Q:   Do you remember why you were there?
 23                 A:   Other than I know everybody there,
 24  no.
 25                 Q:   July 13th, 2004, Exhibit 134, page 7.


  2                 This is a lunch meeting with your mother
  3  and yourself and Tony DeCicco.  By July -- or the -- it
  4  was -- is it possible that that was for the purpose of
  5  discussing WCD business?
  6                 A:   No.  
  7                 Q:   And at the July 13th, did you have
  8  any other business relationship with Mr. DeCicco?
  9                 A:   Not that I recall, no.
 10                 Q:   All right.  Then the question is why
 11  were you there at a lunch between DeCicco and your
 12  mother?
 13                 A:   Why would I not be?
 14                 Q:   Well, there's a constant pattern
 15  here, where you -- that you're attending these lunches,
 16  and Mr. DeCicco may or may not have had reason to speak
 17  to your mother, but, apparently, whatever his reasons
 18  were, they didn't involve you.
 19                 A:   May not be.
 20                 Q:   You can't remember one reason why you
 21  were there.
 22                 A:   Not specifically, no.  I don't know
 23  what was discussed at July 13th, 2004.
 24                 Q:   Would you agree with me that it
 25  appears -- and we'll develop this more -- that -- that


  1  you are there in order to provide an entree for Mr.
  2  DeCicco to have lunch with your mother?
  3                 A:   No, Tony knew my mother very well.
  4                 Q:   All right.  He didn't need you there.
  5                 A:   Didn't need me.
  6                 Q:   We'll kee -- we'll keep on going
  7  then.  September the 14th, 2004, Exhibit 234, page 8.
  8  There's a dinner meeting at a restaurant: yourself,
  9  DeCicco, and your mother.  Had anything changed by
 10  September?  Were there any business dealings between you
 11  and DeCicco which would explain why you were at this
 12  dinner meeting?
 13                 A:   No. 
 14                 Q:   And --
 15                 A:   Remembering he is a family friend
 16  too.
 17                 Q:   And can you offer any explanation as
 18  to why this meeting --
 19                 A:   Other than -- 
 20                 Q:   -- took place --
 21                 A:   Other than for --
 22                 Q:   -- and what --
 23                 A:   -- a dinner.  Other than for dinner.
 25                       (BRIEF PAUSE)


  1                 Q:   Now, just to -- just to ref -- refer
  2  the date; the next date is September the 24th, which is
  3  the barbeque that was the result of DeCicco being the
  4  highest bidder at the -- at the golf tournament.  You've
  5  talked to Mr. McDowell about that yesterday, and it's
  6  just to give it context.
  7                 And if we can then go to October 30th.
  9                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 11                 Q:   Sorry, at the gala not -- yeah.  The
 12  30th of October, which is Exhibit 234, there's a
 13  breakfast meeting between Mr. DeCicco and your mother;
 14  apparently, you're not there.
 15                 But was there any reason to -- to your
 16  knowledge, as to why you were not there?
 17                 A:   No.
 18                 Q:   Did you arrange this breakfast
 19  meeting?
 20                 A:   I don't believe I did.
 21                 Q:   Then turn to January 17th, 2005,
 22  Exhibit 234.  This is a dinner meeting at a steak house
 23  with yourself and Mr. DeCicco and your mother.
 24                 By January 17th, 2005, things are getting
 25  firmed up, because we know that World Class Developments


  1  was incorporated in February of 2005, as I recall it.
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   This lunch -- the dinner meeting
  4  rather of the -- January 17th, did it have anything to do
  5  with World Class Developments?
  6                 A:   No.
  7                 Q:   And why do you say that?
  8                 A:   Mr. DeCicco wasn't involved until
  9  2007.
 10                 Q:   That's -- we know that's when he
 11  becomes involved as an investor, but had you raised with
 12  him the possibility of his becoming an investor in World
 13  Class Developments any earlier?
 14                 A:   Well, not this early.
 15                 Q:   All right.  And in -- as of January
 16  17th, 2005, were you engaged in any other business with
 17  Mr. DeCicco?
 18                 A:   Not that I recall at that time, no.
 19                 Q:   And so other than to have dinner, was
 20  there any other reason why you were there at this -- at
 21  this --
 22                 A:   Other than to have dinner.
 23                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Now, Your Honour, I'm
 24  going to skip -- the next entrance in the chronology has
 25  to do with the mortgage.  I want to come back to the


  1  issue of the mortgage and sale of his house later on.
  3                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  6                 Q:   May 18th, 2005, Exhibit 228, page 13.
  7  This is a meeting with yourself and Murray Cook and your
  8  mother.
  9                 A:   What's the date?
 10                 Q:   May 18th, 2005.
 11                 A:   Okay.  
 12                 Q:   This is before Murray Cook formally
 13  becomes a part -- a shareholder in World Class
 14  Developments.  In fact, just so that you're clear, in
 15  your affidavit, the first one, you said that -- in
 16  paragraph 9 -- and I'll just tell you what you said,
 17  that:
 18                   "Murray Cook was recruited to become
 19                   part of World Class Developments in
 20                   early 2006."
 21                 A:   Okay.
 22                 Q:   But here we have it in early 2005
 23  that Murray Cook is meeting with you and your mother
 24  about World Class Developments.
 25                 I take it this was -- you're still in the


  1  discussion stage of you trying to recruit Murray Cook?
  2                 A:   I would believe that, yes.
  3                 Q:   All right.  And why is Murray Cook
  4  then meeting with you and your mother to discuss your
  5  attempts to recruit him to become part of World Class
  6  Developments?
  7                 A:   I cannot answer that  I don't know.
  8                 Q:   Well, you were there.
  9                 A:   I was there.  I don't remember the
 10  specific topic of the meeting.
 12                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 14                 Q:   Okay.  Do you recall anything about
 15  the meeting and anything about the discussion?
 16                 A:   Other than I discussed World Class
 17  with Murray Cook.
 18                 Q:   Well, what would --
 19                 A:   I -- I can't remember.
 20                 Q:   -- your mother have known about World
 21  -- what would you have told your mother about World Class
 22  Developments as of May 18th, 2005?  And it had only been
 23  incorporated a few months earlier.
 24                 A:   That Murray Cook was going to head it
 25  up.


  1                 Q:   You had had that discussion with her?
  2                 A:   I don't recall having it with her,
  3  no.
  4                 Q:   Well --
  5                 A:   I -- I'm speculating on what we
  6  discussed at that meeting.
  7                 Q:   Let's go to the next document.  It's
  8  August 29th, 2005, Exhibit 228, page 14 and 15.  This is
  9  a meeting with your mother, dinner meeting, and yourself,
 10  John Di Poce, and Tony DeCicco.
 11                 We now know that John Di Poce became an
 12  investor in World Class Developments.  You said yesterday
 13  you didn't know that before.
 14                 A:   No, I did not.
 15                 Q:   You only found out recently.
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   You found out in the course of
 18  preparing for this Inquiry.
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   I take it it came as a complete shock
 21  to you?
 22                 A:   Surprise.
 23                 Q:   Because you knew John Di Poce?
 24                 A:   I know a lot of people.
 25                 Q:   No, but you knew him, obviously,


  1  because you were at dinner with here?
  2                 A:   Correct.
  3                 Q:   And John Di Poce, you say never said
  4  anything to you about being an equity participant in
  5  World Class Developments.
  6                 A:   No, he did not.
  7                 Q:   You did not know that, even as a real
  8  estate agent, one of your ultimate clients was John Di
  9  Poce?
 10                 A:   I did not know that.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  This meeting has a topic.
 12  You were to arrange the dinner, that's what -- what's --
 13  what the note says.  And there's a topic:
 14                   "To meet with the Mayor re. in camera
 15                   issues regarding OMERS that came up at
 16                   the AMO conference."
 17                 That's in the calendar comment.
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21                 Q:   Next page, please.  Yeah.
 22                 Now, does that assist you in recalling why
 23  it was that you had set this meeting up?
 24                 A:   No, I do not recall why I set the
 25  meeting up.


  1                 Q:   And --
  2                 A:   Other than maybe at the request of
  3  Tony or John.
  4                 Q:   All right.  Now, let me understand.
  5  What issues -- what relations with Tony or John have with
  6  in-camera issues regarding OMERS?
  7                 A:   I cannot answer that at the time.
  8  What's the date again?
  9                 Q:   The date of this is August 29, 2005.
 10                 A:   Yeah, I would not know what that's
 11  about.
 12                 Q:   Pardon me?
 13                 A:   I would not know what that's about.
 14                 Q:   Would it be fair to say that -- that
 15  it's possible, at least, that the reference to OMERS is a
 16  reference to the land that WCD hoped to acquire from
 17  OMERS?
 18                 A:   I would say no.
 19                 Q:   Why is it impossible?
 20                 A:   We're not even close to negotiating
 21  anything.
 22                 Q:   Well, let's not be too hasty about
 23  that, right.  You've incorporated World Class
 24  Developments; it exists.  You're looking for a -- for a -
 25  - you've got somebody to run the company, Murray Cook.


  1  And you're looking for financial support, aren't you?
  2                 A:   Not at that point.
  3                 Q:   I see.  And the land that you're
  4  going to want to acquire is land that's owned by OMERS?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And we know that DeCicco and Di Poce
  7  both become equity participants of World Class
  8  Developments, and they both invest a lot of money in it.
  9                 A:   In the end, yes.
 10                 Q:   Right.  So other than the timing,
 11  it's not impossible that the reason that Di Poce and
 12  DeCicco are there, is to discuss the reason that World
 13  Class Developments was incorporated, which was to develop
 14  the hotel site on this land?
 15                 A:   At that time, I would still say no.
 16                 Q:   Will you please turn to February 7th,
 17  2006, Exhibit 228, page 6.
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21                 Q:   This is a meeting at your mother's
 22  house with yourself and Leo Couprie, February 7th, 2006.
 23  Do we agree that the purpose of this meeting is to
 24  discuss World Class Developments?
 25                 A:   It could be.


  1                 Q:   Well, now let's break that answer
  2  down.  This is the first time Mr. Couprie, at least in
  3  your mother's agendas, is meeting wit -- with her, in
  4  your company, correct?
  5                 A:   If that's what the records show.
  6                 Q:   All right.  I can assure you that, to
  7  the best of my knowledge, that's what the records show.
  8  And to the best of your knowledge, had Mr. Couprie had
  9  any other independent relationship with your mother?
 10                 A:   He was trying to work on a Seneca
 11  College, moving them to Mississauga.
 12                 Q:   At that time?
 13                 A:   I don't remember if it was -- that's
 14  exactly at that time.
 15                 Q:   And what was your role in his
 16  attempts to move Seneca College to Mississauga in
 17  February 7th, 2006?
 18                 A:   I had no role.
 19                 Q:   All right.  So there'd be no reason
 20  for you to be there for him to discuss Seneca College
 21  with your mother?
 22                 A:   Other than family friend, no.
 23                 Q:   But we do know that by -- by February
 24  of 2006 you were starting to pay attention to the
 25  organization of WCD.


  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  3                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Just -- just give me a
  4  moment, Mr. Commissioner.
  6                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  8                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Just a moment, I'll...
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 13                 Q:   We know that World Class Developments
 14  was -- when it had been incorporated, but it's not
 15  actively organized.  Do you know what that means?  It
 16  means the lawyers were still incorporating directors.  Do
 17  you -- do you want -- do -- do you realize --
 18                 A:   Well, I'm -- you're telling me.
 19                 Q:   All right.  Well, I'm going to show
 20  you -- okay, it's in their documents.  I'll come back to
 21  this in just a moment.
 22                 But do you recall that -- that Mr. Couprie
 23  gave instructions to the lawyers that since he was going
 24  to be putting up all the money, that he wanted to be the
 25  sole director?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And it's about this time that, in my
  3  recollection -- I'm going to try and find the documents -
  4  -
  5                 A:   Okay.
  6                 Q:   -- that he's meeting with you and
  7  your mother.
  8                 A:   Then that's probably what we're
  9  talking about.
 10                 Q:   All right.  That was in February of
 11  2006.  Would you please turn to May 29th, 2006, Exhibit
 12  228, page 7.
 13                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 15                 Q:   This is a lunch meeting with Murray
 16  Cook and yourself and your mother; can we agree that the
 17  likely discussion was about World Class Developments?
 18                 A:   That is possible.
 19                 Q:   Well, this is the second meeting with
 20  Murray Cook.  The first -- the first meeting was a year
 21  earlier, May 18th, 2005.  At least that's recorded in
 22  your mother's agendas.  There may -- there may have been
 23  other meetings, but we don't know about them.
 24                 And now on May 29th, 2006, there's a
 25  second lunch.


  1                 A:   It's a breakfast.
  2                 Q:   A breakfast.  And I'm suggesting to
  3  you that the likely topic of discussion was World Class
  4  Developments.
  5                 A:   It could be.
  6                 Q:   And by this time, even your affidavit
  7  indicates that you had successfully recruited Murray Cook
  8  to come in with you in World Class Developments.
  9                 A:   To head up the company.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  And we now turn to July 9th,
 11  2006, Exhibit 234, page 15.  This is a barbeque at Mr.
 12  Couprie's house.
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   And you were there with your mother.
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 Q:   And you told us that as far as you
 17  know, that Mr. Couprie's involvement with your mother
 18  could have been with respect to Seneca College, or
 19  alternatively it could have been with respect to World
 20  Class Developments.
 21                 A:   Could have been, but that was a
 22  social barbeque.
 23                 Q:   Yeah.  Turn to Exhibit 228, page 9,
 24  September 22nd, 2006.  This is a meeting at your mother's
 25  house with yourself and Murray Cook.


  1                 I suggest to you that by September 26th
  2  (sic), 2006, the likely top -- topic of discussion would
  3  have been World Class Developments.
  4                 A:   What's the date again?
  5                 Q:   September 22nd, 2006.
  6                 A:   It is likely.
  7                 Q:   Go on, Exhibit 191, the chronology,
  8  January 18th, 2007.  This is a meeting that -- lunch that
  9  you had with Ed Sajecki, and you talked about that lunch
 10  yesterday with Mr. McDowell.
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   January 25th, 2007, Exhibit 228, page
 13  3.  This is a dinner at Pier 4 with Leo Couprie, Leo's
 14  wife, Peter McCallion, and a guest of -- that -- your
 15  guest.
 16                 This is the dinner at which the
 17  declaration of trust was signed?
 18                 A:   I believe.
 19                 Q:   The one that was witnessed by your
 20  mother.
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   Now, I said to you before, and we'll
 23  take a break just after this, but I was going to refer
 24  you to the organization of World Class Developments.  Is
 25  there an exhibit number?


  1                 The -- would you please find document
  2  COM001002766?
  3                 THE COURT OPERATOR:   Can you repeat the
  4  number, please?
  5                 MR. JAMES RENIHAN:   It's 001002766.
  8                 Q:   This is a letter to Mr. Couprie from
  9  the lawyers confirming that the company had been
 10  incorporated on February 22nd, 2005, and that based on
 11  instructions received from Mr. Couprie, they had
 12  reorganized the corporation through filing of articles of
 13  amendment.
 14                 The original directors and officers were
 15  the lawyers, but that on instructions from you and from
 16  Mr. Couprie, the directors and officers and its
 17  shareholders were changed to reflect Mr. Couprie as the
 18  principal of the corporation.
 19                 Stopping there.  Very clearly states that
 20  the organization of this corporation was on instructions
 21  jointly from you and Mr. Couprie.
 22                 What instructions did you give to -- to
 23  the lawyers to organize this company?
 24                 A:   That it was Mr. Couprie's company at
 25  that point.


  1                 Q:   That's not what I said.  The lawyer
  2  indicates in his letter that the instructions on how to
  3  organize the company came from you and from Mr. Couprie.
  4                 What instructions did you, Peter
  5  McCallion, give the lawyers with respect to the
  6  organization of the company?
  7                 A:   That it was Leo's company.
  8                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Commissioner,
  9  there's -- there's a matter that we need to address, can
 10  we take the morning break now?
 12  right.  Fifteen (15) minutes.
 13                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 14  please.  This Inquiry stands recessed fifteen (15)
 15  minutes.
 17  --- Upon recessing at 11:22 a.m.
 18  --- Upon resuming at 11:41 a.m.
 20                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 21  please.  This Inquiry is back in session.  Please be
 22  seated.
 23                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Well, the document,
 24  Madam Registrar, that we had on the screen was 001002766.
 25  Could we just get that back, please.


  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  4                 Q:   All right.  This is the letter that -
  5  - this is the letter now organizing the company.  The
  6  company had been incorporated, just to refresh
  7  everybody's memory, in February of 2005.  And now, in
  8  November of 2006, the -- it's being organized.
  9                 The lawyer reflects that it's being
 10  organized on instructions in part from you; and you deny
 11  giving the lawyer any instructions.
 12                 A:   I didn't deny -- deny that.
 13                 Q:   Oh, I see.  Then what role did you
 14  play in instructing the lawyer as to how to organize the
 15  company?
 16                 A:   To make sure it was in Leo's name.
 17  He was the one with the money.
 18                 Q:   In fact, we know from...
 20                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 22                 Q:   Exhibit 187 --
 23                 A:   Is --
 24                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   If I could -- if
 25  I could rise for a moment.  Before we move on, could I


  1  see the end of this letter?  I can't seem to find it.  I
  2  want to know whether or not this Witness got a copy of
  3  the letter.  It doesn't seem to be -- I -- at least I
  4  can't find it.
  6                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  8                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Can you
  9  bring it up?
 10                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   There's -- the second
 11  page does not appear to be -- the signature page does not
 12  appear to be there; the attachments are all there.
 13                 And to save all the counsel the trouble of
 14  reading it, the attachments indicate the company is
 15  organized, and Leo Couprie is the sole officer and
 16  director.
 17                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   I would ask that
 18  we get the -- this full document --
 20  right.  Maybe over the lunch break, we'll get the -- the
 21  rest of the letter, if we can find it.
 22                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   Thank you.
 24  this letter been marked?
 25                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   No, but the way -- I


  1  thought you were assigning exhibit numbers to everything
  2  afterwards.  But it's up to you.
  3                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   So it
  4  will be assigned a number?
  5                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Yes.
  7  right.
  8                 THE COURT CLERK:   Apparently we can do it
  9  now, Your Honour, so we'll give it Exhibit 291.
 10                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   291.
 12  --- EXHIBIT NO. 291:       COM001002766 - letter - World
 13                             Class Developments Limited -
 14                             corporate matters dated
 15                             November 20, 2006
 18                 Q:   187.  We're going now to Exhibit 187.
 19  The next page, please, and to the bottom of this email
 20  chain if possible.  That's fine right there.
 21                 Now, Mr. McCallion, what we have is Mr.
 22  Couprie's instructions to the law firm; and these
 23  instructions are as of August the 3rd, 2006.  And you
 24  recall that the letter that we just referred to was
 25  November 2006.


  1                 So some months before Mr. Couprie writes
  2  to Mr. Brown, and looking at the email at the bottom --
  3  oh, it's right on the screen:
  4                   "Until such time when WCD firms up the
  5                   deal with OMERS, the corporation will
  6                   be in my name only, as I'm putting the
  7                   seven hundred and fifty thousand
  8                   (750,000) deposit up -- seven hundred
  9                   and fifty thousand dollar ($750,000)
 10                   deposit up."
 11                 Do you see that?
 12                 A:   Yeah, I see that.
 13                 Q:   Fine.  And then that's confirmed the
 14  next day by an email from Mr. Brown to Mr. Couprie, at
 15  the top of the page.  In the third line he says:
 16                   "All existing directors and
 17                   shareholders, Caprara, and myself will
 18                   be scrubbed and replaced with you."
 19                 And that's what happens, when the -- the
 20  letter that we saw in November, in fact, makes Mr.
 21  Couprie the sole officer and director, right?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   So now let's go back to the
 24  chronology,  because we know that at least by August, if
 25  not earlier -- but at least by August -- Mr. Couprie is


  1  confirming that he's going to be the sole officer and
  2  director.
  3                 And I had said to you that I may have been
  4  out by a few months, that in February 7th, 2006, Exhibit
  5  228, page 6, you and Couprie had met with the Mayor.  We
  6  already looked at this.  And I said this was likely about
  7  WCD, and you said, No, it could have been about Seneca
  8  College.
  9                 Do you recall that discussion?
 10                 A:   Yes, I do.
 11                 Q:   Now that we see that in August,
 12  Couprie already knows that he's putting up the money,
 13  he's going to be sole officer and director.
 14                 And assuming that this decision wasn't
 15  made overnight the night before, is it possible that
 16  those discussion had extended back to February?
 17                 A:   It is possible.
 18                 Q:   All right.  And on July the 9th,
 19  again, when -- and this is a document that you've looked
 20  at before, when you and your mother attended the barbeque
 21  at Couprie's house on July the 9th, by that time it was,
 22  I suggest to you, pretty clear that Couprie would be the
 23  sole officer and director of this company.
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   And then we turn to the Pier 1 (sic)


  1  meeting, which is Exhibit 228.  That's where the
  2  declaration of trust is -- is signed.  And by that time,
  3  Couprie already knows that he is the sole officer and
  4  director formally, because he's received the reporting
  5  letter from Ca -- Caprara Brown.  There's no doubt about
  6  that.
  7                 A:   No.
  8                 Q:   And when he signs the declaration of
  9  trust that he is holding 80 percent of the shares for
 10  you, he was already the legal shareholder -- the only
 11  shareholder of WCD at that time.
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   We now get to Exhibit 274.  I hope
 14  it's correct.  Yes, I want the loan agreement.  The next
 15  page, that one.
 16                 Now, you'll have to explain something to
 17  me.  At the time that you enter into the -- into the
 18  trust declaration, you also enter into the loan
 19  agreement, because it's also witnessed by your mother.
 20                 I'm assuming that was -- that both
 21  documents were executed at the same time.
 22                 A:   I would think so, yes.
 23                 Q:   All right.  Mr. Couprie is the sole
 24  shareholder of the company, at least legally.  He's the
 25  sole officer.


  1                 He agrees to lend seven hundred and fifty
  2  thousand dollars ($750,000) to the company on the
  3  condition that the company will repay him twice the
  4  amount that he invests, correct?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And then he gets you to guarantee
  7  that he will be paid back $1.5 million.
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   So I must be missing something.  He's
 10  lending money to the company, of which he is the sole
 11  shareholder and sole officer and sole director, correct?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   But he wants a guarantee from you,
 14  the real estate agent, that the company will repay him
 15  twice the amount of money that he invests.
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   Why does he need a guarantee from you
 18  with respect to a loan from a -- to a company in which
 19  he's the sole shareholder?
 20                 A:   It made him feel comfortable.
 21                 Q:   What was it about your asset base
 22  that gave him any comfort at all?
 23                 A:   Not very good.
 24                 Q:   Pardon me?
 25                 A:   Not very good.


  1                 Q:   Well, you just said it made him feel
  2  comfortable.  Why would your guarantee be of any comfort
  3  to him at all?
  4                 A:   Future income.
  5                 Q:   All right.  And why were you
  6  guaranteeing a loan that he was making to the company of
  7  which he was the sole officer and director and had the
  8  ability to pay himself out in any event?
  9                 A:   I cannot ans -- answer why he did
 10  that.
 11                 Q:   Were you troubled by the fact that he
 12  was asking you, a mere real estate agent, to guarantee
 13  twice the amount of money that he was putting into the
 14  company?
 15                 A:   No.
 16                 Q:   I suggest to you that the reason he
 17  wanted your guarantee was because you were going to be
 18  the beneficial owner of 80 percent of the shares of WCD,
 19  and therefore, you could control the decision of the
 20  company as to whether or not they would pay Mr. Couprie
 21  $1.5 million?
 22                 A:   You can suggest that.
 23                 Q:   And that's the reason why you wanted
 24  your guarantee, because then he could force you to effect
 25  the payment that you had agreed to give him?


  1                 A:   But he was in control of the company.
  2                 Q:   All right.  As the beneficial owner
  3  of 80 percent, you could take that back at any time.
  4                 A:   Take what back?
  5                 Q:   Take your shares back.
  6                 A:   I understand that now, not at the
  7  time.
  8                 Q:   Well, apparently Mr. Couprie must
  9  have understood, that mu -- that's -- now appears to be
 10  the reason why he wanted your guarantee.
 11                 A:   That could be, yes.
 12                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Back to the
 13  chronology, Mr. Commissioner, at the bottom of page 8.
 16                 Q:   This agreement was signed on January
 17  the 29th; so was the declaration of trust.  The Agreement
 18  of Purchase and Sale between WCD and Oxford is signed on
 19  January 31, 2007, two (2) days later.
 20                 Please turn to tab -- to Exhibits 217, and
 21  we'll follow it with 218.
 22                 217 is an electronic calender indication
 23  that there was a meeting invitation for February the
 24  15th, a meeting requested by Peter McCallion and agreed
 25  to by Ed Sajecki.  Do you see that?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And we know from the notes of the
  3  meeting, which are found at Exhibit 218 -- they're in Ms.
  4  Ball's notes -- that the purpose of this meeting was to
  5  discuss planning issues surrounding the purchase of the
  6  hotel lands.
  7                 A:   Okay.
  8                 Q:   Do you recall the meeting at all?
  9                 A:   Who was the meeting with again?
 10                 Q:   Yourself, Mr. Cook, Mr. Sajecki, and
 11  Ms. Ball.  And the meeting was arranged at your request.
 12                 A:   I don't really recall the meeting.
 13  If I'd had a meeting it would have been probably with Ed
 14  and Murray Cook.  But I don't recall a specific meeting,
 15  no.
 16                 Q:   Well, fortunately, Ms. Ball's there,
 17  because we have her notes.
 18                 A:   Good.
 19                 Q:   All right.  So, you see that the
 20  reference is, "Hotel/Murray + Peter McCallion"?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   "60 days due diligence."
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   And, "60 days due -- due diligence,"
 25  and to the title issues as part of the Agreement of


  1  Purchase and Sale?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   And you had to do soils analysis
  4  within two and a half (2 1/2) weeks?
  5                 A:   That's what it says.
  6                 Q:   Is that an accurate description of
  7  what your obligations were?
  8                 A:   I don't remember.
  9                 Q:   All right.  And then she records that
 10  there were four (4) months to submit a site plan?
 11                 A:   That's what it says.
 12                 Q:   Do you have any recollection that
 13  that was the obligation of WCD?
 14                 A:   I would have to reread the agreement
 15  at this point.
 16                 Q:   I see.  Are you telling us that --
 17  that you have no recollection of that obligation, as you
 18  sit here today?
 19                 A:   We had many obligations.  I would
 20  have to reread the agreement.
 21                 Q:   All right.  And the next point she
 22  records is there was six (6) months to lift the 'H'
 23  designation.
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   Do you recall that?


  1                 A:   I don't recall the time, but I know
  2  there was a time frame, and it was to lift the 'H'.
  3                 Q:   All right.  And then she records that
  4  after the 'H' designation -- which is a holding
  5  designation, correct?
  6                 A:   That is correct.
  7                 Q:   And after the 'H' designation is
  8  lifted, once the holding designation is lifted, that
  9  WCD's covenant, prior to being able to build any condos,
 10  was to have substantal -- substantial construction on the
 11  hotel?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   So the hotel had to go first, before
 14  you could get to the revenue stream of building the
 15  condominiums?
 16                 A:   Correct.  
 17                 Q:   And then she records that there was
 18  plans to build a temporary sales office -- a sale --
 19  sales centre, after 'H', after the holding clause was
 20  removed for the condominiums.
 21                 Do you recall that discussion?
 22                 A:   Yes, I do.
 23                 Q:   And that the hotel was going to be
 24  approximately two hundred and fifty (250) rooms.  Do you
 25  recall that?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And the first stage -- I'm not sure
  3  what this meant -- was eight (8) to ten (10) stories.  Do
  4  you -- can you assist me in that regard?
  5                 A:   That's probably related to the hotel.
  6                 Q:   All right.  Page & Steele were the
  7  architects on the project, which has the names of the
  8  individuals.
  9                 A:   Well, Page & Steele -- Mark Sterling
 10  (phonetic), I think, was with different company.
 11                 Q:   All right.  But these are individuals
 12  who had been retained by WCD to provide professional
 13  assistance?
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   So there can be no question then that
 16  this meeting is in furtherance of putting into place the
 17  steps necessary to conclude all of the obligations, WCD's
 18  obligations, under the agreement of purchase and sale.
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And that's why you were there?
 21                 A:   Quite possibly.
 22                 Q:   Well, you weren't there as a
 23  spectator.  This is not --
 24                 A:   No, I wasn't.
 25                 Q:   -- this is not a spectator sport.


  1                 A:   I didn't say I was there as a
  2  spectator.
  3                 Q:   All right.  So what other reason
  4  could you have been there?
  5                 A:   For that specific topic.
  6                 Q:   Okay.  Now, just going on with the
  7  chronology, I take it that, and we don't need to go to
  8  these documents, but you had submitted an application to
  9  become appointed to the Committee of Adjustment for the
 10  City of Mississauga.
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   And you withdrew that application at
 13  about this time?
 14                 A:   I don't recall the timing of it.
 15                 Q:   Well, I can save you the trouble.
 16  It's -- you -- your letter withdrawing your application
 17  due to a business opportunity, that's what your letter
 18  said, was in March 27th -- March 20th, 2007.
 19                 A:   Okay.
 20                 Q:   So the reason that you couldn't
 21  devote your attention to the Committee of Adjustment was
 22  really because of WCD?
 23                 A:   No, it was not.
 24                 Q:   What else was there?
 25                 A:   It was related to -- my mother could


  1  not make a decision on who would be on the committee if I
  2  was applying for it.
  3                 Q:   So it wasn't because of a business
  4  opportunity at all?
  5                 A:   No, it was not.
  6                 Q:   So you just used that as a convenient
  7  way of withdrawing your application.
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   Now turn to Exhibit 223.  This is a
 10  luncheon meeting you had with Mr. Sajecki at Canyon Creek
 11  on June 21st, 2007.
 12                 Was WCD discussed at that meeting?
 13                 A:   It may have been.
 14                 Q:   And --
 15                 A:   As well as other items.
 16                 Q:   Well, when you say "it might have
 17  been," surely there could be little doubt.  You were
 18  active --
 19                 A:   I could say --
 20                 Q:   --  or WCD was very active in this.
 21                 A:  -- a little doubt that did not come
 22  up.
 23                 Q:   Pardon me?
 24                 A:   I can say it's a little active --
 25  it's little chances that it did not come up.


  1                 Q:   And if it did come up, do you rec --
  2  well, or when it did come up, do you recall what it was
  3  that you discussed with Mr. Sajecki --
  4                 A:   No, I do not remember.
  5                 Q:   Exhibit 234, please.  This is an
  6  indication that you and Mr. DeCicco...
  8                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 10                 Q:   Page 19, I apologize.  July 18th,
 11  2007, you and the Mayor attend a barbeque at Mr.
 12  Couprie's house.
 13                 Now, as of that date, other than WCD, to
 14  the best of your knowledge, did Mr. Couprie have any
 15  other active business ventures on -- und -- underway in
 16  Mississauga?
 17                 A:   Not that I'm aware of at that time.
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21                 Q:   I'm told, in fairness, that the word
 22  "post" means that your mother was invited to attend this
 23  barbeque at Mr. Couprie's house.
 24                 Do you know whether or not she attended
 25  it?


  1                 A:   I don't recall.
  2                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   All right.  Mr.
  3  Commissioner, I wasn't aware that that was the meaning of
  4  the word, and so, in the chronology, if that makes a
  5  difference, then you can please enter...
  7                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 10                 Q:   We come to July 27th, 2007, and that
 11  is the date in which you signed the promissory note for
 12  TACC for the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).  That's
 13  Exhibit 196.
 14                 The curious thing about this promissory
 15  note, Mr. McCallion, is is that it had a very short time
 16  before it became due; it was due on November the 1st,
 17  2007.  What's that make it?  October, September -- about
 18  three (3) or four (4) months away.
 19                 How did you tell Mr. -- or indicate to Mr.
 20  de Gasperis that you were going to raise the money to pay
 21  this note off in three (3) or four (4) months?
 22                 A:   Well, I thought we'd have a financial
 23  partner.
 24                 Q:   Well, you knew you were going to have
 25  a financial partner because Mr. DeCicco is coming in as


  1  of August the 1st.
  2                 A:   It wasn't confirmed.
  3                 Q:   It wasn't confirmed on -- on January
  4  the 27th -- I'm sorry, July 27th -- that he was going to
  5  be in three (3) or four (4) days later?
  6                 A:   Nothing had been signed.
  7                 Q:   Well, all right.  Did you tell Mr.
  8  DeCicco -- did you tell Mr. De Gasperis that you're going
  9  to have Mr. DeCicco in or you hoped to have him in as a
 10  partner within three (3) or four (4) days?
 11                 A:   No, I did not.
 12                 Q:   Well, did Mr. de Gasperis ask you how
 13  did -- you proposed to be able to pay him back the fifty
 14  thousand dollars ($50,000) in three (3) of four (4)
 15  months?
 16                 A:   He did not.
 17                 Q:   In fact, I think you've indicated
 18  that you did not have the money available to you to pay
 19  him back at that time.
 20                 A:   That is correct.
 21                 Q:   And when the time came on November
 22  the 2nd when the note was due, you still didn't have the
 23  money?
 24                 A:   No, I did not.
 25                 Q:   And the note remains unpaid, as of


  1  the present time?
  2                 A:   As of the present.
  3                 Q:   And when Mr. DeCicco put the -- his
  4  money into the company and Di Poce and -- and Bisceglia,
  5  et cetera, did you try and get them to repay this fifty
  6  thousand dollars ($50,000) to TACC on the basis that it
  7  was money that had been advanced as a loan that was due
  8  and had been used for the company's purposes?
  9                 A:   I did ask, yes.
 10                 Q:   And what was their response?
 11                 A:   Not now.
 12                 Q:   Okay.  And do you know if they ever
 13  dealt directly with Mr. de Gasperis to indicate that they
 14  were not prepared to pay the debt then but perhaps at a
 15  later stage?
 16                 A:   I'm not aware of that.
 17                 Q:   You've indicated that the money had
 18  to come from you because the site plan application was
 19  going -- had to be submitted by July 31st; is that
 20  correct?
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   If it didn't come from you, it wasn't
 23  coming from any other source?
 24                 A:   That is correct.
 25                 Q:   Mr. DeCicco invested -- be -- became


  1  an investor in this company on August the 1st; did you
  2  tell him that the monies were needed to file the site
  3  plan application as of July 31st, the day before?
  4                 A:   I may have, but not prior to this.
  5                 Q:   And did you attempt to get him to put
  6  the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) up one (1) day
  7  earlier so that the site plan application could be filed
  8  without the necessity to borrow the money from TACC?
  9                 A:   No, I did not.
 10                 Q:   Why not?
 11                 A:   I had the money at that point.
 12                 Q:   You what?
 13                 A:   I had the money at that point.
 14                 Q:   Well, you had money that you had
 15  borrowed and you couldn't afford to repay, and you had a
 16  financial partner coming in within twenty-four (24) hours
 17  who had the ability to write the cheque for fifty
 18  thousand dollars ($50,000); and you say you didn't ask
 19  him?
 20                 A:   I did not ask him, no.
 21                 Q:   And I ask you:  Why not?
 22                 A:   Because we hadn't finalized his
 23  agreement.
 24                 Q:   Please turn to Exhibit 219.  This is
 25  a meeting between City staff and yourself and Murray


  1  Cook, Scott Walker, who's from your planning depar --
  2  from your planning consultant, Barry Lyons (sic), and
  3  others, to discuss the site plan approval and other
  4  matters.
  5                 Do you recall that meeting?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   And why were you there?  Why were you
  8  at a meeting in which the issue of approving the site
  9  plan and Section 41 of the Planning Act was being
 10  discussed.
 11                 A:   I was representing Leo Couprie.
 12                 Q:   You were representing Leo Couprie,
 13  who was holding his shares in trust for yourself?
 14                 A:   At that time, I was representing him
 15  as him owning the shares.
 16                 Q:   But if the Commission finds that you
 17  knew, or likely knew, that you were the beneficial owners
 18  of the shares, you'll agree with me that you were there
 19  not to represent Leo Couprie, but you were there to
 20  represent Peter McCallion.
 21                 A:   At the time, I believed I was
 22  representing Leo Couprie.
 23                 Q:   Was there any reason why Mr. Couprie
 24  couldn't attend?  He had seven hundred and fifty thousand
 25  dollars ($750,000) invested in this deal.


  1                 A:   He has other businesses to run.
  2                 Q:   As a matter of fact, we're going to
  3  go through these meetings, I don't think he attended any
  4  of them.
  5                 A:   No, he did not.
  6                 Q:   But you attended almost all of them?
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   Please go to Exhibit 216.  October
  9  the 4th there's a meeting of the development and design
 10  people at the City of Mississauga, and you attend that
 11  meeting along with Scott Walker, the planner, and Mr.
 12  Mansoor; is that correct?
 13                 A:   Correct.
 14                 Q:   Mr. Mansoor's also with the planning
 15  -- consulting firm?
 16                 A:   No, he's with Page & Steele.
 17                 Q:   All right.  And I take it you're
 18  going to tell me that you were there representing Mr.
 19  Couprie?
 20                 A:   Correct.
 21                 Q:   Now, if we could turn, please, to
 22  November the 5th, these are telephone messages, Exhibit
 23  235, 236, and 237.
 24                 On November the 5th, Mr. McCallion, Mr.
 25  DeCicco calls the mayor three (3) times.  The first time


  1  is at 8:52 a.m., and he says, or this is what the note
  2  says:
  3                   "I spoke with Barry at length."
  4                 I take it that's Barry Lyons (sic)?
  5                 A:   I would guess that, yes.
  6                 Q:
  7                   "And he and I will be able to resolve
  8                   this."
  9                 Do you recall what the issue was that
 10  required resolution?
 11                 A:   What's the date again?
 12                 Q:   This is November the 5th, 2007.
 13                 A:   No, I don't.
 14                 Q:   Okay:
 15                   "Will reconvene the meeting either
 16                   today or tomorrow, and when Peter comes
 17                   back..."
 18                 Peter being you?
 19                 A:   I would assume, yes.
 20                 Q:   There is no other Peter in...
 21                 A:   Not involved, that I'm aware of.
 22                 Q:
 23                   "...will look at the budget, and move
 24                   forward."
 25                 Do you recall if you were away in November


  1  of 2007?
  2                 A:   Quite possibly.
  3                 Q:   And do you recall coming back, and
  4  looking at the budget?
  5                 A:   No, I do not.
  6                 Q:   But did you reca -- do you recall
  7  ever sitting down with Mr. DeCicco and reviewing the
  8  budget for World Class Developments?
  9                 A:   No, I did not.
 10                 Q:   Do you have any idea why he'd be
 11  telling your mother that he intended to review the budget
 12  with you, since you never did it at all, ever?
 13                 A:   I cannot answer that.  I never looked
 14  at the budget.
 15                 Q:   The next sentence is:
 16                   "I told him..."
 17                 I told Barry, I think:
 18                   "...that John and I want to pay our
 19  bills."
 20                 John would be Mr. Di Poce?
 21                 A:   I cannot answer that.
 22                 Q:   Is there another John in -- that you
 23  know of in WCD?
 24                 A:   No.
 25                 Q:   All right.  It says:


  1                   "Thanks for your help.  It's just that
  2                   based on the information I had, I
  3                   thought we were being ransacked."
  4                 Did he ever tell you who he thought was
  5  ransacking WCD?
  6                 A:   No.
  7                 Q:   Did he ever accuse Barry Lyons (sic)
  8  of ransacking WCD?
  9                 A:   I don't recall that at all.
 10                 Q:   Do you know -- do you have any
 11  recollection of him having a discussion with you about
 12  paying bills that he thought were legitimate, and not
 13  paying bills that you thought were overstated?
 14                 A:   No, he did not.
 15                 Q:   All right.  Could we please go to the
 16  next exhibit, 236.
 17                 So the first call was at 8:00 -- what'd I
 18  just say -- 8:00 something in the morning, and now within
 19  an hour, at 9:03 a.m., is a second call.  This --
 20                 A:   The same day?
 21                 Q:   The same day.  This time, Mr. DeCicco
 22  asks your mother:
 23                   "Were you able or have you considered
 24                   getting Murray..."
 25                 That's Murray Cook?


  1                 A:  Yes.
  2                 Q:
  3                   "...to sign the agreement terminating
  4                   the call?"
  5                 We know what that refers to, because there
  6  was an agreement that's been entered as an exhibit -- I
  7  don't have the exhibit number right now -- in which the
  8  ho -- the -- the shotgun provisions of the agreement were
  9  terminated, Put-and-call (phonetic) between the
 10  shareholders were terminated.  Do you recall that?
 11                 A:   I recall that, yes.
 12                 Q:   It'd be important to you, because
 13  what he was terminating was the agreement between Murray
 14  Cook and Leo Couprie.
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 Q:   And Leo Couprie was holding his
 17  shares in trust for you, so therefore, you would be
 18  affected if Murray Cook called on your shares.
 19                 A:   On Leo's shares at the time.
 20                 Q:   That he was holding for you.
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   All right.  And you say to your
 23  mother that -- was she able to get Murray to sign the
 24  agreement terminating the call.
 25                 To your knowledge, what was her role to


  1  being -- get -- convincing Murray Cook to enter in to the
  2  agreement that terminated the share -- the call on your
  4                 A:   Other than she knows Murray, and Tony
  5  as well.
  6                 Q:   And why -- why would you ne -- need
  7  to involve the Mayor of Mississauga for what is
  8  essentially a private issue?
  9                 A:   I didn't.  Tony did.
 10                 Q:   I see.  And he says:
 11                   "The sooner we get it, the better off
 12                   we are."
 13                 Did you agree that it was necessary to get
 14  Murray to sign off earlier rather than later?
 15                 A:   It didn't matter when he signed off,
 16  just as long as he signed off.
 17                 Q:   All right.  Now we'll go over to
 18  Exhibit 237.  The same day, 11:36 a.m., text.  The
 19  message is:
 20                   "I just wanted to keep you updated on
 21                   this, because I have just -- I -- I
 22                   just spoke with Saul."
 23                 S-A-U-L.  Who is Saul?
 24                 A:   I don't remember who he is.
 25                 Q:   Could I suggest he was a bookkeeper


  1  of some sort?
  2                 A:   I don't remember who he is.
  3                 Q:   Is see.  He said:
  4                   "We had a good discussion.  There was a
  5                   lot of miscommunication.  But the thing
  6                   I wanted to know was if Murray knew
  7                   about the outstanding amount."
  8                 He's asking your mother if Murray Cook
  9  knew about the outstanding amount.  Murray said he did,
 10  and he believes there's a letter telling him there's a
 11  hundred and sixty-one thousand (161,000) outstanding
 12  rather than sixty-one (61) outstanding.
 13                 What do you know -- what -- what do you
 14  understand this to mean?
 15                 A:   I'm not familiar with it.
 16                 Q:   Well, it was important to you to get
 17  Murray to sign off.  And apparently, it was important to
 18  -- to Mr. DeCicco to find out if Murray knew about an
 19  outstanding amount.
 20                 A:   In reference to?
 21                 Q:   He's asking your mother about that.
 22                 A:   I don't know what that's about.
 23  Outstanding with who?
 24                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   Excuse me.  If I
 25  could just stand up for a moment.  It seems -- Mr.


  1  Commissioner, it seems to me that while it's very
  2  difficult to translate somebody else's message, it would
  3  appear that the miscommunication -- the request was made
  4  by Mr. DeCicco to Saul, and not to the Mayor, as to the
  5  question as to whether Murray knew about the un --
  6  outstanding amount.
  7                 Obviously, we're going to have Mr. DeCicco
  8  himself here to testify, but -- but that characterization
  9  of the message, I would suggest, is -- is not necessarily
 10  the correct one.
 12  right.
 15                 Q:   And do you know, Mr. McCallion, why
 16  it was that Mr. DeCicco was sharing any of this
 17  information with your mother?  What was --
 18                 A:   I'm not aware of why.
 19                 Q:   Thank you.  Can we please turn now to
 20  the next exhibit, 224, which is November the 13th, 2007.
 21  This is the meeting you had at 4:30 in the afternoon at
 22  the Canyon Creek -- sorry, go back up -- Canyon Creek
 23  Restaurant with Mr. Sajecki.
 24                 And we'll hear evidence about this, but we
 25  believe it says, "P. McCallion/AR."  We believe that's a


  1  reference to Alberta Revenue, or AIM, as they're known in
  2  this -- in these proceedings.
  3                 Do you recall who else was there at this
  4  meeting?
  5                 A:   I don't recall who AR is.
  6                 Q:   Yeah.  Do -- were -- were you at the
  7  meeting?
  8                 A:   We met for drinks.
  9                 Q:   Well, is there a Mr.  Robeznieks that
 10  -- that this could refer to?
 11                 A:   It was just me an Ed.
 12                 Q:   Do you know an Agris Robeznieks?
 13                 A:   Oh, Agris.  Yes, I do know an Agris.
 14                 Q:   And is it a he or a she?
 15                 A:   He.  He.
 16                 Q:   And was Mr. -- was Agris there at
 17  this meeting as well?
 18                 A:   I don't remember the specific
 19  meeting.  I can't say if he was or was not there.
 20                 Q:   And would it be fair to say that the
 21  meeting would have had to deal, at least in part, with
 22  the World Class Developments?
 23                 A:   It's not impossible.
 24                 Q:   Okay, is it extremely likely?
 25                 A:   If the topic didn't come up, I would


  1  be surprised, correct.
  2                 Q:   All right.  Please turn to Exhibit
  3  228, page 4.  You and Mr. Couprie are requesting a brief
  4  meeting with the Mayor at the Mayor's house at 3:45 that
  5  day.
  6                 A:   What's the date again?
  7                 Q:   November the 20th, 2007.  Do you
  8  recall why it was that you were requesting a meeting with
  9  the Mayor on November 20th, 2007, with Mr. Couprie?
 10                 A:   I can speculate.
 11                 Q:   Yes.
 12                 A:   It could have been about Murray.
 13                 Q:   Murray Cook?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   Well, that was a hot issue, because
 16  you wanted him out of the picture, right?
 17                 A:   Well, he wasn't putting any money in.
 18                 Q:   And if we go to Exhibit 224 for a
 19  moment.
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 23                 Q:   That's not correct.  I'm sorry.  I've
 24  given you the wrong number.


  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  3                 Q:   All right, let's skip on, because
  4  I've -- and why would Mr. -- we've -- we've seen Mr.
  5  DeCicco speaking to your mother about Murray Cook, or you
  6  could speak to your mother about Murray Cook.
  7                 Why would Mr. Couprie want to meet with
  8  your mother about Murray Cook?
  9                 A:   I can't exactly say why, but that's
 10  most likely the topic at the time.
 11                 Q:   Pardon me?
 12                 A:   That is most likely the topic at the
 13  time.
 14                 Q:   And do you recall what the discussion
 15  was?
 16                 A:   No, I do not.
 17                 Q:   Now, Exhibit 256, please.  November
 18  21st, 2007.  This is the minutes of the meeting that were
 19  held at Page & Steel on November the 21st.
 20                 And I'm told that Page & Steele resigned
 21  their retainer the following day, November 22nd, 2007.
 22  Does that accord with your memory?
 23                 A:   What did they do the next day?
 24                 Q:   They -- they quit.
 25                 A:   Oh, they quit.  At one point, Tony


  1  asked them to quit, yes.
  2                 Q:   And I'm told that they ceased working
  3  for WCD after this meeting?
  4                 A:   I was told that by Tony, yes.
  5                 Q:   So what we have here are some
  6  minutes.  Could we just go back up to the very top,
  7  please, for a moment.  These are minutes now by Mr.
  8  Walker.
  9                 And you can see that Mr. DeCicco is one of
 10  the people to whom it's addressed.  Mr. Bisceglia is one
 11  of the people to whom it's -- it's addressed.  And then
 12  if we go down to -- just -- no, no, you're going too far.
 13  Yeah, where is it?  Okay.  Now, if we go back up, please,
 14  on the screen.
 15                 In the second to the last line of the "to"
 16  category, worldclass@primus.ca, that's -- that's your
 17  address?
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   All right.  I take it that you were
 20  there at that meeting on the same basis as Mr. Bisceglia
 21  and Mr. DeCicco?
 22                 A:   What basis is that?
 23                 Q:   Well, whatever they were there for,
 24  you were there too.  They --
 25                 A:   I was representing Leo Couprie at


  1  that time.
  2                 Q:   I see.  All right.  We'll just -- he
  3  was too busy to come to this meeting?
  4                 A:   He came to no meetings.
  5                 Q:   And this is an important meeting,
  6  because Page & Steele was owed a lot of money, and there
  7  were trouble with -- there was trouble with Page &
  8  Steele, because, as -- as we -- as I said, they -- they
  9  stopped working on this file immediately thereafter.
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   Was that not important for Mr.
 12  Couprie to know?
 13                 A:   Yes, and I probably conveyed it.
 14                 Q:   Now, at this time, were you trying to
 15  get Mr. Couprie to put any more money into the project to
 16  assist its -- to relieve its financial pressures?
 17                 A:   No.
 18                 Q:   Go to Exhibit 212.  Now, sorry, the -
 19  - don't go there.  That's -- that's your -- that's your
 20  affidavit, Mr. McCallion.
 21                 The important date, Mr. Commissioner, is
 22  December the 4th, 2007.  That's when WCD submits a
 23  revised site plan application to the City.  The support
 24  for that is in his -- in Mr. McCallion's affidavit.
 25                 Exhibit 228, page 5, December 14th, 2007.


  1  This is a luncheon meeting with yourself, Mr. DeCicco,
  2  Mr. Di Poce, and the Mayor.  This is the second time now
  3  that Mr. Di Poce has met with the Mayor in your presence
  4  and the presence of Mr. DeCicco.
  5                 I take it that this meeting is to discuss
  6  WCD.
  7                 A:   I would say no.
  8                 Q:   Why would you say that?
  9                 A:   Because Mr. Di Poce was there.
 10                 Q:   That answer makes no sense to me,
 11  because we know that Mr. Di Poce became -- was an
 12  investor in WCD.  He'd have every reason to be there.
 13                 A:   He would if that was the topic, but I
 14  was not aware that he was a partner.
 15                 Q:   Whether you were aware or not, was
 16  WCD the topic of discussion?
 17                 A:   I would have said, for there, for
 18  sure not.
 19                 Q:   But you have no recollection.
 20                 A:   Of?
 21                 Q:   Of that, of what the discussion was
 22  in Nove --
 23                 A:   No, I do not.
 24                 Q:   -- on December the 14th, correct?
 25                 A:   But because Mr. Di Poce was there, it


  1  was not WCD.
  2                 Q:   All right.
  4                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  6                 Q:   On December the 19th, 2007, you sold
  7  your house to Mr. Couprie.
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   We're going to come back to this
 10  transaction in a moment, Your Honour.
 11                 On December 21st, 2007, would you please
 12  look at Exhibit 238.
 13                 Mr. DeCicco calls the Mayor at 3:24 p.m.,
 14  asking her to call him regarding Murray Cook.
 15                 A:   Okay.
 16                 Q:   And he suggested to you that it would
 17  be good if the three (3) of you met the following day.
 18  Do you recall your discussion with Mr. DeCicco with the
 19  need to meet with the Mayor the following day about
 20  Murray Cook?
 21                 A:   I don't recall that now.
 22                 Q:   Well, was there -- was there anything
 23  about the Murray Cook dispute which involved a larger
 24  public issue for the City of Mississauga?
 25                 A:   Not that I'm aware of.


  1                 Q:   Was it purely a personal fight,
  2  private fight, between Mr. DeCicco and you and Mr. Cook?
  3                 A:   I would say it was between Mr.
  4  DeCicco and Mr. Cook.
  5                 Q:   Mr. Couprie, who was the nominal
  6  plaintiff, but he really wasn't the person making the
  7  decisions; the person making the decisions was Mr.
  8  DeCicco and you, correct?
  9                 A:   Mr. Couprie had the shares.  He made
 10  decisions.
 11                 Q:   He had the shares, holding them in
 12  trust for others.  People who were the beneficial owners
 13  were the real people making the decisions, isn't that
 14  correct?
 15                 A:   Mr. DeCicco made all those decisions.
 16                 Q:   So these discussions that Mr. DeCicco
 17  was having with your mother is simply to enlist her
 18  support in trying to bring pressure to bear on Mr. Cook.
 19                 A:   I would assume that.
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 23                 Q:   Please turn to Exhibit 227, March the
 24  6th, 2008.  You have a meeting with Ed Sajecki, four
 25  o'clock in the afternoon.   Was that a meeting in his


  1  office?
  2                 A:   I don't recall where that was.
  3                 Q:   And was the topic of discussion the
  4  World Class Development?
  5                 A:   I would say at that time, most
  6  likely.
  7                 Q:   And what was it -- and what was it
  8  that you discussed?
  9                 A:   I don't remember what we discussed.
 10                 Q:   And would you have gone with
 11  instructions from Mr. DeCicco as to what it was he wanted
 12  you and Mr. Sajecki to discuss?
 13                 A:   I don't remember.  It could have
 14  been.
 15                 Q:   But you don't recall what your
 16  instructions were?
 17                 A:   No, I do not.
 18                 Q:   And you don't recall what the
 19  discussion was?
 20                 A:   No, I do not.
 21                 Q:   And you don't recall what outcome, if
 22  any, was the result of that discussion.
 23                 A:   No.
 24                 Q:   Exhibit 246, please.  May 13th, 2008.
 25  Now these -- this is an email from Mr. Kitt to Mr.


  1  Filipetti.  Go down, please, to the lower of the page.
  2  Yes.
  3                 So we understand the whole thing, we start
  4  off with the email that says, "How did it go" -- subject,
  5  "How did it go?"
  6                 There's -- can you -- can you see that,
  7  Mr. --
  8                 A:   Yeah.
  9                 Q:   All right.  And then we go above
 10  that, refer to the paragraph higher on the page, it says:
 11                   "Okay.  I think we came to an
 12                   agreement.  Basically, our letter, plus
 13                   has additional six (6) months to start
 14                   and finish the hotel.  They're going to
 15                   send a revised letter, and we'll see.
 16                   Hazel's son did show up later and asked
 17                   for more."
 18                 Now, do you recall attending this meeting
 19  on that date?
 20                 A:   I don't recall the meeting, but if I
 21  had been there, I was asking for more time.
 22                 Q:   You were asking for more time.
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   And who else was at the meeting on
 25  behalf of WCD?


  1                 A:   Like I said, I don't remember the
  2  meeting.  It could have been Tony.
  3                 Q:   And if he had had discussions, and
  4  you showed up later and asked for more, was that part of
  5  a -- of a -- of a -- of -- of a plan, that you would
  6  split your -- your proposals to OMERS, and he'd ask for
  7  six (6) months, and then you'd ask for more?
  8                 A:   Not that I recall, no.
  9                 Q:   Turn, please, to Exhibit 239.  This
 10  is May 22nd.  Mr. DeCicco calls your mother, and in about
 11  the fifth line down, he says:
 12                   "I got your message.  I think we should
 13                   get together.  There's a lot happening
 14                   with Murray that we need to speak
 15                   about.  We can get together tonight any
 16                   time at your convenience.  I'll be busy
 17                   over the next few days, but I'll
 18                   obviously make time for you.  Let me
 19                   know if you're available tonight.  I'm
 20                   giving Peter a call to see what his
 21                   schedule is like."
 22                 Do you recall attending a meeting at your
 23  mother's home that night --
 24                 A:   No, I do not.
 25                 Q:   -- with Tony DeCicco to discuss


  1  Murray Cook?
  2                 A:   No, I do not.
  3                 Q:   Do you recall Mr. DeCicco calling you
  4  --
  5                 A:   Well, I don't --
  6                 Q:   -- to see what your availability was
  7  for such a meeting?
  8                 A:   -- I don't recall that on that date.
  9                 Q:   Exhibit 204, please.  This is June
 10  the 5th, 2008.  Mr. DeCicco calls your mother and says:
 11                   "I spoke to Peter this morning, and he
 12                   spoke to David."
 13                 Who was David?
 14                 A:   Well, what is this topic about?  It
 15  could have been David Toor.
 16                 Q:   That's who we think it is.
 17                 A:   That's who I think it is.
 18                 Q:   All right.  And what was David Toor's
 19  involvement with respect to WCD?
 20                 A:   He was a hotelier.
 21                 Q:   Okay.  And what had you -- what
 22  approach had you made to David Toor?
 23                 A:   To operate and manage the hotel, and
 24  build it.
 25                 Q:   And to pay something for that


  1  privilege?
  2                 A:   Well, to buy the land.
  3                 Q:   I see, okay.  And so this is
  4  important, because it's in June of 2008, which is also
  5  the time that we've seen the document from Ernst & Young,
  6  where you're out looking for financing.  Do you recall
  7  that document?
  8                 A:   I'm not aware of that document until
  9  this --
 10                 Q:   I know, but you've seen it now,
 11  correct?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   The document that describes you as
 14  one of the principals.
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 Q:   And, at the same time, who had made
 17  the approach to David Toor?
 18                 A:   Well, he was a past customer of mine.
 19                 Q:   So was it you that approached David
 20  Toor?
 21                 A:   I introduced him to Tony, yes.
 22                 Q:   And the purpose of that was to see if
 23  he would pay for the land.
 24                 A:   To pay for the land and build a
 25  hotel.


  1                 Q:   This message comes back to your
  2  mother from Mr. DeCicco saying that:
  3                   "As you suspected, he [being David
  4                   Toor] was not ready to pay for anything
  5                   at that stage."
  6                 A:   Correct. 
  7                 Q:   And "Peter" -- this -- I'm looking at
  8  the message now.
  9                   "Peter agrees that he may or -- that he
 10                   may not pay for it at all."
 11                 Correct?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   That you didn't think he was really
 14  interested in it.
 15                 A:   He was interested if you gave him the
 16  land.
 17                 Q:   Yeah.  Well, most people are
 18  interested in things that don't cost very much.
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   Okay.  And so he says:
 21                   "Peter agrees we should send the
 22                   paperwork, agree to sell at that
 23                   price."
 24                 What price is it that you agreed that you
 25  should send out the paperwork?


  1                 A:   I believe, as I recall, I think it
  2  was 3 million.
  3                 Q:   He says:
  4                   "I have a strong suspicion that they
  5                   will not come on this -- on this deal."
  6                 This is Toor won't come through on the
  7  deal.
  8                 A:   That's what Tony's opinion was, yes.
  9                 Q:   All right.  And he says:
 10                   "At least we can -- then we can start
 11                   negotiations on getting them out at a
 12                   reduced price."
 13                 I don't understand how that follows.
 14                 A:   I don't either.  I don't know who
 15  "them" is.
 16                 Q:   He never discussed this with you?
 17                 A:   I don't recall who "them" is.
 18                 Q:   And when he says, "I spoke to Peter
 19  this morning," did he talk about getting somebody out of
 20  the deal at a reduced price?
 21                 A:   Not -- I'm -- I'm not aware of that.
 22                 Q:   Just turn, please, to Exhibit 240.
 23  This is June the 6th.  The other message was June the
 24  5th, the one we just looked at.
 25                 Mr. DeCicco says:


  1                   "I just spoke with Peter again, and we
  2                   confirmed the deal is not coming
  3                   through, as I suspected.  I'd like to
  4                   meet with you tonight, if possible, any
  5                   time at your house."
  6                 Is that the deal with Toor, or is that the
  7  deal with somebody else?
  8                 A:   I'm going to assume that's the deal
  9  with Toor. 
 10                 Q:   And what was the reason that you
 11  wanted to meet with your mother that night, if possible,
 12  now that you knew that -- that Toor wasn't going to make
 13  an offer?
 14                 A:   I wasn't requesting a meeting with my
 15  mother.
 16                 Q:   Well, he just said, I just spoke with
 17  Peter, and we would like to know if you're available.
 18  That we --
 19                 A:   No.
 20                 Q:   -- would like -- well, I guess you're
 21  right, "I'd like to meet with you tonight."  You're --
 22  you're quite right.  You weren't going to be part of that
 23  meeting, as far as you know.
 24                 A:   I wasn't invited.
 25                 Q:   July the 4th, 2008, Exhibit 241.


  1  July the 4th, 2008, Mr. DeCicco says to your mother:
  2                   "I just spoke with Peter.  If you get a
  3                   chance, please give me a call."
  4                 Do you know what it was that he wanted to
  5  discuss with your mother that he had just discussed with
  6  you as of that date?
  7                 A:   I do not recall that. 
  8                 Q:   Please go to Exhibit 249.
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12                 Q:   Go down to the bottom of this page,
 13  please.
 14                 Now, this -- just so you understand the
 15  sequence of this, Mr. McCallion, this is the letter that
 16  had been received from the lawyer at McCarthy, saying
 17  that the -- this -- that -- that World Class Development
 18  -- they did not consider that the hotel proposal for
 19  World Class Developments was a four-star proposal, and
 20  that the agreement would be in -- it would be held in
 21  breach of the agreement.  Go up, please.
 23                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 25                 Q:   The -- the note says:


  1                   "We're putting them on notice to live
  2                   by the terms of the deal."
  3                 And then he said:
  4                   "We have a surprise meeting requested
  5                   by Peter McCallion tomorrow.  I will
  6                   report afterwards."
  7                 What was that request about?
  8                 A:   The hotel.
  9                 Q:   And what was it that you were hoping
 10  to get them to do about the hotel as of Wednesday,
 11  October the 8th?
 12                 A:   Well, due to the economic times at
 13  the time, we needed more time for the hotel, for
 14  completion.
 15                 Q:   And you were approaching them with
 16  the approval of Mr. DeCicco?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   Go to Exhibit 242, please.  Mr.
 19  DeCicco calls your mother the next day after you had the
 20  surprise meeting.
 21                 And the point of this call was for her to
 22  call him about, "How we can move forward."
 23                 "We" being WCD can move forward.  Did you
 24  report it to your mother on the discussion that you had
 25  had the day before with Oxford?


  1                 A:   No, I reported to Tony.
  2                 Q:   What was it that you and Tony thought
  3  you mother could do to assist you in moving forward with
  4  Oxford?
  5                 A:   I'm unaware of that.
  6                 Q:   So you have no idea what Tony's
  7  referring to on "how best to move forward"?
  8                 A:   No, I do not.
  9                 Q:   Please turn to Exhibit 247.  This is
 10  October 23rd, 2008.  Down at the bottom, please.  Yes.
 11  Top paragraph on the screen now -- no, just leave it the
 12  way it is.
 13                 This is a meeting of October 23rd that
 14  apparently, these notes suggest that you suggested that
 15  WCD might agree to increase the selling price by $2.5
 16  million if the hotel conditions were dropped.  Was that
 17  accurate?
 18                 A:   No, it is not.
 19                 Q:   You never made that suggestion?
 20                 A:   No.
 21                 Q:   Okay.  And --
 22                 A:   Mr. Kitt made that suggestion.
 23                 Q:   Okay.  And you could see that Mr.
 24  Filipetti attributes it to you?
 25                 A:   I understand that.


  1                 Q:   But that's just dead wrong?
  2                 A:   Completely.
  3                 Q:   All right.  And then in the last
  4  paragraph it says:
  5                   "Peter has advised us that he has
  6                   spoken to the [quote] 'key people in
  7                   the City,' who are apparently okay with
  8                   these restrictions being removed."
  9                 That's the -- that's the hotel
 10  restrictions:
 11                   "We will do our own checking on this if
 12                   this is our agreed direction."
 13                 And I think yesterday you told Mr.
 14  McDowell that you had checked with Ed Sajecki?
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 Q:   And how had you done that, with a
 17  meeting or a telephone call?
 18                 A:   Most likely either I met him at a
 19  function or a phone call.
 20                 Q:   You have an email address, but we
 21  haven't seen any emails produced by you.  Is there a
 22  reason for that?
 23                 A:   I gave them all over to Emilio.
 24                 Q:   To who?
 25                 A:   Emilio.


  1                 Q:   Including the emails that you would
  2  have sent out?
  3                 A:   I didn't send very many emails out.
  4                 Q:   Did you send any?
  5                 A:   Very, very few.
  6                 Q:   But we haven't seen any.
  7                 A:   Mr. Emilio (sic) has them.
  8                 Q:   I see.  And in terms of -- can you --
  9  maybe I didn't understand this.  Why was it that you gave
 10  the -- the emails that came to your address, or that you
 11  sent from your address, to Mr. Bisceglia?
 12                 A:   Because of the lawsuit back in August
 13  of 2009.
 14                 Q:   Go, please, to Exhibit 245.  This is
 15  the letter from DeCicco to Kitt, which follows up, in
 16  effect, with the -- or -- or it doesn't follow up; it --
 17  it sets the stage for your request.  Go down to the
 18  bottom, please.
 19                 Whereby the suggestion being that they
 20  delete the requirement for the hotel, correct?
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   And that's what you were proposing,
 23  or that's what the email says you were proposing on
 24  October the 23rd, and if they would go along with it,
 25  that they would increase the purchase price by $2.5


  1  million.
  2                 A:   They suggested that if they were to
  3  delete the hotel, that we would have to increase the
  4  purchase price.
  5                 Q:   And who's -- who suggested the $2 1/2
  6  million adjusting number?
  7                 A:   Mr. Kitt.
  8                 Q:   Not you.
  9                 A:   Not me.
 10                 Q:   We turn, please, to Exhibit 250.
 12                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 14                 Q:   We know that Mr. DeCicco had asked by
 15  letter that the hotel condition be deleted.  We know it
 16  was a matter of discussion between you and Mr. Kitt.
 17                 Now we are in December 2nd, 2008.  This
 18  email reports that Mayor McCallion is calling Mr.
 19  Filipetti, as Michael Kitt was out of town.  The purpose
 20  of her call was that she wanted Oxford to relax the hotel
 21  requirement because of economic conditions.
 22                 Were you aware that your mother was
 23  following up on the very same topic that you had raised,
 24  and that Mr. DeCicco had raised, with Oxford?
 25                 A:   No, I did not.


  1                 Q:   Weren't aware of it.  So until --
  2  these proceedings, it was the first you'd heard that she
  3  was making the argument on your behalf.
  4                 A:   Yes.
  6                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  8                 Q:   Exhibit 243, please.  Sorry, just one
  9  (1) minute, please.
 11                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 13                 Q:   I'm almost finished.  Exhibit 276.
 15                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 17                 Q:   It was a message from you to your
 18  mother on December the 11th, asking her to call Tony
 19  DeCicco, as Tony DeCicco had information for your mother.
 20                 Well, what was -- why were you asking your
 21  mother to call Tony DeCicco, and what was the information
 22  that he had for her?
 23                 A:   I don't know what the information
 24  was, but sometimes Tony would call my mother and make
 25  several calls, and she wouldn't necessarily return them.


  1                 Q:   Could it be that what he's calling --
  2  what -- you had some further discussion about what the
  3  negotiating position was that -- between World Class
  4  Developments and Oxford --
  5                 A:   I can --
  6                 Q:   -- over this issue about deleting the
  7  hotel condition?
  8                 A:   I can speculate on that, but, no, I
  9  do not know.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  You have no recollection.
 11                 A:   No.
 12                 Q:   So far I've asked you about every
 13  meeting, and every phone call, and you've had no
 14  recollection about any of them.  Is it -- is that --
 15                 A:   Those were over two (2) years ago.
 16                 Q:   I see.  We turn, please, to Exhibit
 17  215.  These are Ms. Bench's notes of her discussions with
 18  Dave O'Brien, who had been the City Manager.
 19                 And Mr. O'Brien says that he met with Mr.
 20  DeCicco and with you at the request of the Mayor.  Do you
 21  recall meeting with Mr. O'Brien at the request of the
 22  Mayor?
 23                 A:   I recall the meeting, but I didn't
 24  know who requested it.
 25                 Q:   You what?


  1                 A:   I recall the meeting with Mr. O'Brien
  2  and Mr. DeCicco, but it was -- it was me who set that
  3  meeting up --
  4                 Q:   All right.  You --
  5                 A:   -- at the request of Mr. O'Brien.
  6                 Q:   He -- you set the meeting up with Mr.
  7  DeCicco at -- at Mr. O'Brien's request?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   All right.  And did O'Brien say that
 10  he was getting involved because his -- your mother had
 11  asked him to?
 12                 A:   No, he did not.
 13                 Q:   Did he indicate that he had read your
 14  affidavit --
 15                 A:   M-hm.
 16                 Q:   -- and he had concerns about
 17  conflicts of interest?
 18                 A:   No, he did not.
 19                 Q:   Did he ever indicate to you in that
 20  meeting that he had authority from Oxford to try and
 21  negotiate a settlement with WCD?
 22                 A:   Yes, he did.
 23                 Q:   And then how did you come to
 24  understand that Mr. O'Brien had gotten in the middle of
 25  this at all?  He wasn't the City Manager any longer.


  1                 A:   He volunteered.
  2                 Q:   Did -- did he volunteer at your
  3  mother's request or --
  4                 A:   I cannot --
  5                 Q:   -- to your understand --
  6                 A:   -- answer that.
  7                 Q:   Pardon me?
  8                 A:   I cannot answer that.
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12                 Q:   Now, I just want to go back for just
 13  a moment, please.
 15                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 17                 Q:   213.  Exhibit 213.  This is the
 18  mortgage that you gave on your house on Durie Road to Mr.
 19  Couprie in 2005.
 20                 Is there an issue with it?  Okay.
 21                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Mr. Commissioner, I
 22  rise because we're now in an area that I alerted my
 23  friend and, of course, you to at the end of the day
 24  yesterday.  It might be appropriate for Mr. McCallion to
 25  be excused at this moment.


  2  right.  We're getting close to the luncheon break, so Mr.
  3  McCallion, you may step out if you would --
  4                 THE WITNESS:   Okay.
  5                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   -- and
  6  we'll see you at 2:15.
  8                     (WITNESS RETIRES)
 11  right.  Mr. Gover, we know that Mr. McCallion sold his
 12  house to Mr. Couprie for eight hundred thousand
 13  (800,000).
 14                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Yes.
 15                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   And it
 16  looks as though there was a mortgage involved?
 19                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   That's right.  And at
 20  this point, I return to my submission at the end of the
 21  day yesterday pertaining to the scope of cross-
 22  examination by the City's counsel.
 23                 And you'll recall that yesterday, I
 24  referred to standing having been granted, of course, to
 25  the City, and the City being an important party, but that


  1  the right of cross-examination being limited to cross-
  2  examination to the extent of the interest of the
  3  Corporation of the City of Mississauga.
  4                 And I won't repeat what I said, Sir, but
  5  what I did say yesterday at the end of the day is found
  6  at pages 2000 through 2003 of the transcript.
  7                 You will recall that yesterday I submitted
  8  that the interest of the Corporation of the City of
  9  Mississauga would become engaged if the conduct of one of
 10  its elected or non-elected officials was called into
 11  question or if the appropriateness of some process of the
 12  Municipality was called into question.
 13                 And this morning, of course, we've --
 14  we've heard cross-examination that has related to a
 15  series of meetings or invitations to meetings, at least
 16  where the Mayor was attending meetings or invited to
 17  meetings, where there meetings with non-elected
 18  officials, et cetera, and I haven't risen at this point.
 19                 I do rise now, though, because in my
 20  submission, we're now getting squarely into an issue
 21  where the City really has no valid interest and where, in
 22  fact, there has been inquiry by your counsel.
 23                 And of course, this morning, you received
 24  Exhibit 289, which is the transcript of the cross-
 25  examination, which was conducted by Mr. McDowell on April


  1  23rd.  And in my submission, it was fair enough for
  2  Commission counsel to enter into the examination of that
  3  issue.
  4                 I referred you yesterday, very briefly, to
  5  Justice Cory's comments in the -- what I call the Krever
  6  Commission case, and that's the case that's also known as
  7  the case dealing with the Commission of Inquiry on the
  8  Blood System.
  9                 And I've cause to be handed up to you,
 10  sir, that case.  And the well-known passages to which I
 11  had in mind, are found at pages -- pardon me, paragraphs
 12  31 and 55.
 13                 My point yesterday was that the Commission
 14  and Commission counsel, in conducting the process, are
 15  required to safeguard the fairness of what is, after all,
 16  an inquisitorial process.
 17                 And of course, Justice Cory, at paragraph
 18  31, referred to the great importance of the Inquiry's
 19  roles of investigation and education, but said that:
 20                   "Those roles should not be fulfilled at
 21                   the expense of the denial of the rights
 22                   of those being investigated."
 23                 Continued:
 24                   "The need for the careful balancing was
 25                   recognized by Justice Decary when he


  1                   stated at paragraph 32, 'The search for
  2                   the truth does not excuse the violation
  3                   of the rights of the individuals being
  4                   investigated.'  This means that no
  5                   matter how important the work of the
  6                   Inquiry may be, it cannot be achieved
  7                   at the expense of the fundamental right
  8                   of each citizen to be treated fairly."
  9                 And at paragraph 55, which you will find
 10  at page 35, you'll see that Justice Cory then referred to
 11  the findings of fact, which may be made at the conclusion
 12  of an Inquiry, but pointed out that:
 13                   "Procedural fairness was essential for
 14                   the findings of Commissions may damage
 15                   the reputation of a witness.  For most,
 16                   a good reputation is their most highly
 17                   prized attribute.  It follows that it
 18                   is essential that procedural fairness
 19                   be demonstrated in the hearings of the
 20                   Commission."
 21                 Now, I also refer to -- to the Consortium
 22  Developments case, and in particular, to paragraph 41.
 23  And I won't read this entire passage.  I side-barred it
 24  in what I've provided to you, Sir.
 25                 But you'll see that Justice Binnie there


  1  recognized that a judicial inquiry often resembles a
  2  giant, multi-party examination for discovery, with no
  3  pleadings, minimal pre-hearing disclosure, and relaxed
  4  rules of evidence.
  5                 He referred to the glare of publicity and
  6  that the Inquiry necessarily moves forward in some sort
  7  of convoy fashion, carrying participants of widely
  8  different interests, motives, information, involvement,
  9  and exposure.
 10                 He said in the passage, which -- which I
 11  will conclude:
 12                   "It is a tall order to ask any
 13                   Commissioner to orchestrate this
 14                   process to further the public interest
 15                   in getting at the truth, without
 16                   risking unnecessary, unavoidable, or
 17                   collateral -- [pardon me] wrongful
 18                   collateral damage to the participants."
 19                 Now, yesterday I referred, as well, to the
 20  role of Commission counsel as the guardians of the public
 21  interest, which in my submission, impacts on the role of
 22  other participants in the process.
 23                 And to that end, I've provided you with
 24  excerpts from Professor Ratushny's book, which was
 25  published just last year, The Conduct of Public


  1  Inquiries, Law, Policy, and Practice.
  2                 And in particular, in the excerpt that
  3  I've handed up to you, Sir, I would refer you to page
  4  217, where the -- the tole of Commission counsel was
  5  examined.
  6                 And -- and by the way, I -- I don't
  7  question the manner in which your counsel has conducted
  8  this Inquiry at all.  It's in keeping with all of what is
  9  said here by Professor Ratushny, where he refers to the
 10  need for Commission counsel to take a part -- an
 11  impartial and balanced approach to the case.  Also to
 12  conduct a thorough investigation to gain the confidence
 13  of the public about the process itself.
 14                 Professor Ratushny referred to the fact
 15  that in a ruling in the Air India inquiry, Commissioner
 16  Major -- and this is at page 218 -- ruled that:
 17                   "The pubic interest in the full
 18                   exploration of all the facts would be
 19                   adequately addressed by Commission
 20                   counsel's responsibility to act on
 21                   behalf of that public interest."
 22                 Now, the role of counsel for other parties
 23  is dealt with by Professor Ratushny at page 258.  And I
 24  really will only take you to this excerpt.  I've added,
 25  in what you have there, Sir, the portion that he refers


  1  to toward the bottom of the page, from section (d) of
  2  chapter 7.
  3                 Suffice to say this, that -- that
  4  Professor Ratushny refers to section 5 of the Ontario
  5  Public Inquiries Act as identifying the proper scope of
  6  examination by counsel for other parties, and refers to:
  7                   "The ability to examine or to cross-
  8                   examine witnesses personally, or by
  9                   counsel, on evidence relevant to that
 10                   person's interest."
 11                 Now, I've referred to your rule, Rule
 12  32(b), which captures precisely what section 5 of the
 13  Ontario statute says.  Now par -- pardon me, section 5 is
 14  found in part 1 of the Ontario Act.  Part 2 is applicable
 15  to your proceeding, but part 1 isn't.
 16                 My submission is that what we have there
 17  in section 5, as reflected in this excerpt from Professor
 18  Ratushny's book, is simply a statement of the law
 19  relating to the scope of examination by counsel for other
 20  parties, which of course, quite appropriately, found its
 21  way into the rules of this Commission.
 22                 Then we see in the further excerpt that I
 23  -- or further portion that has been side-barred from page
 24  258, Professor Ratushny says this:
 25                   "Apart from the legislation, the


  1                   principle of fairness would establish
  2                   some procedural rights for everyone
  3                   with a direct and substantial interest
  4                   and for some witnesses as well.  The
  5                   extent of the right to participate
  6                   depends on the extent to which their
  7                   interest might be affected.  The right
  8                   to be heard does not necessarily
  9                   include the right to call or cross-
 10                   examination witnesses or be represented
 11                   by counsel."
 12                 And then refers to the principle of
 13  fairness in greater detail.  And as I have said, I've
 14  included that portion for the sake of completeness.
 15                 My point is that the -- the principle to
 16  which Professor Ratushny refers recognizes that counsel
 17  for other parties do not have an unbridled right of
 18  cross-examination.
 19                 Now, I've taken into account a portion of
 20  Justice Bellamy's report in the Toronto Computer Leasing
 21  Inquiry that Mr. McDowell was kind enough to provide to
 22  me this morning.
 23                 I recognize that at page 75 -- I'm -- I'm
 24  now told you may not have a copy, so we'll provide that
 25  to you now, Sir, if I might take a moment.


  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  3                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   And I was referring,
  4  Commissioner, to page 75.  This is under the heading
  5  "Examinations," and it's an excerpt from the Inquiry
  6  process portion of the report.
  7                 Toward the bottom of the page, you'll see
  8  that Justice Bellamy said:
  9                   "I wanted to give all counsel a chance
 10                   to explore any avenue that was relevant
 11                   or helpful to me in fulfilling my terms
 12                   of reference, especially considering
 13                   the investigative nature of a public
 14                   inquiry."
 15                 Now, I would point out that on the next
 16  page, Justice Bellamy was quick to add:
 17                   "I was vigilant, however, in ensuring
 18                   that cross-examinations did not become
 19                   repetitive.  Given the many parties
 20                   withstanding, some with similar
 21                   interests, there was great potential
 22                   for overlapping.  I continually
 23                   reminded counsel of the need to confine
 24                   themselves to questions that had not
 25                   already been sufficiently explored, and


  1                   counsel were generally cooperative in
  2                   avoiding unnecessary repetition."
  3                 Of course, Justice Bellamy did observe
  4  that the inquiries took two hundred and fourteen (214)
  5  days in that instance.
  6                 My -- my point is that there has to be a
  7  limit on the scope of cross-examination.  And what we're
  8  about to hear, or what is proposed by Mr. Lax on behalf
  9  of the Corporation of the City of Mississauga, in my
 10  submission, does not relate to the interest of the
 11  Municipality, as I've endeavoured to understand it and
 12  explain it in the course of these submissions.
 13                 At -- here at its highest, this would be
 14  cross-examination going to credibility.  You have the
 15  benefit of the transcript already, where your counsel
 16  engaged in a probing examination of this issue, in
 17  Exhibit 289.  And I would submit, that if reference is
 18  made to the terms of reference contained in the
 19  resolution which constituted this Inquiry, that it would
 20  be appropriate to interpret those terms of reference by
 21  referring to Section 274 of the Municipal Act, under
 22  which the -- the resolution was purportedly passed.
 23                 If I might have a moment.  It's hard to
 24  carry all of these things around.
 25                 Section 274, of course, sir, provides


  1  that:
  2                   "If a municipality so requests, by
  3                   resolution, a judge of the Superior
  4                   Court of Justice shall..."
  5                 And then of course we see (a), (b) and
  6  (c):
  7                   "Investigate any supposed breach of
  8                   trust [et cetera];
  9                   (b) inquire into any matter connected
 10                   with the good government of the
 11                   municipality; or (c) inquire into the
 12                   conduct of any part of the public
 13                   business of the municipality, including
 14                   business conducted by a commission
 15                   appointed by the council or elected by
 16                   the electors."
 17                 So I submit, in this respect that while
 18  you may have an expansive interpretation of the terms of
 19  reference contained in the resolution, urged upon you by
 20  Mr. Lax, that in any event you must interpret the
 21  resolution in light of the section in the Municipal Act
 22  under which it was purportedly passed.
 23                 Those are my submissions.  Thank you.
 24  Subject to any questions, of course, sir.


  1  right.  Thank you.  I think what we'll do is break now
  2  and I'll hear any further submissions -- I suppose Mr.
  3  Lax will want to make some submissions, Mr. McDowell may
  4  well as well.  And we'll come back at 2:15.
  5                 MR. JOHN FINNIGAN:   Mr. Commissioner,
  6  just before you rise, just a point for clarification and
  7  perhaps direction.  We have other witnesses scheduled for
  8  this afternoon, including Michael Latimer --
  9                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Right.
 10                 MR. JOHN FINNIGAN:   -- who is the Chief
 11  Investment Officer of OMERS and the former President and
 12  CEO of Oxford Properties.
 13                 Now, I know that we have -- Mr. Lax has to
 14  finish; we have other counsel who want to examine this
 15  Witness; then we have another witness before Mr. Latimer;
 16  so I'm wondering whether it's necessary for us to bring
 17  him out here this afternoon?  So I just want to lay that
 18  on the table.
 19                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Yeah.
 20                 MR. JOHN FINNIGAN:   I don't know exactly
 21  how long people are going to be.
 22                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   I think
 23  the first witness is fairly brief if I'm not mistaken.
 24  Is that correct, Mr. McDowell?
 25                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   That's right.  We


  1  just had Ms. McIntyre -- we have some indication from
  2  her; I'm pretty confident we can actually get Mr. Latimer
  3  on and off today.
  4                 MR. JOHN FINNIGAN:   If -- if that's the
  5  belief then we'll --
  6                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Sure.
  7                 MR. JOHN FINNIGAN:   -- certainly have him
  8  out here.
  9                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Let's -
 10  - let's try and do that.
 11                 MR. JOHN FINNIGAN:   Thank you.
 12                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thanks.
 13  See you all at 2:15.
 14                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 15  please.  The Inquiry stands recessed until 2:15.
 17  --- Upon recessing at 1:05 p.m.
 18  --- Upon resuming at 2:18 p.m.
 20                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 21  please.  Good afternoon, Your Honour.  This Inquiry is
 22  now in session.  Please be seated.
 24  Ms. McIntyre.


  2                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   Mr.
  3  Commissioner, without repeating any of the submissions
  4  made to by Mr. Gover, I would like to adopt those
  5  submissions.
  6                 Clearly you have broad discretion to set
  7  your own procedure, guided by the principles of fairness
  8  and expedition.
  9                 But I would submit to you, it's important
 10  that counsel for the City be restricted from going into
 11  areas that are beyond the City's interest and that they
 12  not be allowed to usurp the role of Commission counsel.
 13                 That's why I'm supporting Mr. Gover's --
 14                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 15  you.
 16                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   -- submissions.
 19                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Sir, I -- I think
 20  that Mr. Gover has -- has, as usual, very fairly stated
 21  the law to you.
 22                 In my submission, you have to bear in mind
 23  the nature of the public purpose in relation to the land
 24  transaction that the Mayor was ostensibly promoting.  And
 25  the evidence is, as we've heard it so far, that the Mayor


  1  -- it would appear on the evidence that we've heard over
  2  the last couple of days, employed her office in the
  3  promotion of this transaction, the development, but also
  4  the particular developer.
  5                 And so as in many of these municipal
  6  inquiries, either a central or a subsidiary question
  7  becomes, How did we become, as a City, enmeshed with
  8  these people, and what are the relationships among these
  9  people, as we saw in the Consortium Developments case.
 10                 So when you look at the public purpose, or
 11  the public dimension to the transaction in that way, and
 12  you hear the evidence that I -- that I think you would
 13  hear if this line of questioning were permitted, it's
 14  well within the -- the boundaries of what other
 15  commissions of inquiry have heard.
 16                 So for example in Waterloo, Waterloo was
 17  at the other end of an improvident transaction with MFP.
 18  The details of -- of the transaction weren't the only
 19  subject of inquiry.  I've got an excerpt from the report
 20  that -- that will show you that, in fact, the internal
 21  processes of MFP were the subject of a lot of
 22  examination, including as a -- I was one of the counsel
 23  on that inquiry -- including by counsel for the City.
 24                 So Mr. Lax, so far, has, I think, done a
 25  very thorough job examining in -- in some areas without


  1  any objection.  I leave it to you whether to allow this
  2  area of inquiry.  I would say that if it went too much
  3  further, we do hit the outfield fence.  I mean, I know a
  4  bit of -- of where this is going, and I think that he's
  5  really at the limit.
  6                 I would be inclined to think that he could
  7  ask a limited number of questions on this topic.  And
  8  then it would be my submission, if he seeks to go beyond
  9  that, I would be objecting as well.
 11  know more than I know about where Mr. Lax may be going
 12  with this line of questioning, and perhaps Mr. Lax will
 13  tell me.  But I agree, and I'll deal with this after I
 14  hear from Mr. Lax.
 15                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Right.
 18                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Well, I don't intend
 19  to make it a secret.  I've told co-counsel.  What we're
 20  about to go into is a situation in which Mr. McCallion,
 21  at least initially, grants a mortgage on his house to Mr.
 22  Couprie.
 23                 And we have to understand that Mr. Couprie
 24  is not a third-party lender.  He is very, very involved
 25  in this entire picture.  And how he -- how he is


  1  involved, with great respect, is one of the most
  2  important questions that has to be determined, because it
  3  doesn't appear to me, at least, and -- and this will be
  4  my submission, that he has any real interest himself.
  5                 He's only there, frankly, in a
  6  representative role for others.  Who the others are at
  7  the time of the mortgage remains to be determined.
  8                 But then we move forward, when Mr.
  9  McCallion has already indicated that he was out of money.
 10  And what happens is is that a sale of his house is
 11  arranged to Mr. Couprie.
 12                 Mr. McCallion's a real estate agent.  One
 13  would have thought that a real estate agent would have
 14  been interested in obtaining the highest price for his
 15  house with the broad -- with the broadest exposure to the
 16  market possible, but that's not what happens.  What
 17  happens is that there's an arranged sale to Mr. Couprie.
 18                 Now, who is Mr. Couprie at the time of the
 19  sale?  Mr. Couprie is a plaintiff, not a nominal
 20  plaintiff because he does have legal title to the shares,
 21  but he doesn't have the beneficial interest in the
 22  shares.  He is a plaintiff in the lawsuit in which Mr.
 23  DeCicco is giving the instructions.
 24                 And I want to know more about who was
 25  behind that purchase of that -- of that property and why


  1  that happened.
  2                 I believe that that's relevant to the
  3  terms of reference of this Commission, where you were
  4  specifically asked to investigate and inquire into the
  5  relationships between the existing and former elected and
  6  administrative representatives of the City of Mississauga
  7  and the existing and former principals and
  8  representatives of WCD -- you can stop there -- and its
  9  affiliate companies and the context of the transactions
 10  and matters described in the recitals to this resolution.
 11                 When you look at the recitals to the
 12  resolution, you will -- it will include the -- the
 13  Agreement of Purchase and Sale with WCD.  It includes the
 14  lawsuit involving Leo Couprie as a notional, if not
 15  nominal, plaintiff.
 16                 So I -- I suggest that -- I understand the
 17  -- the point that if this was a sale to a third party, I
 18  wouldn't be entitled to look into it.  But it's not a
 19  sale to a third party.  It's a sale to a person who's
 20  very intimately involved in the factual matrix of this
 21  case under circumstances, which I say are -- are relevant
 22  to the determination of those relationships.
 24  you.  Mr. Gover, anything further?


  2                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Yes, I can be very
  3  brief, Mr. Commissioner.  As Mr. Lax has endeavoured to
  4  justify this line of cross-examination, you'll -- you'll
  5  appreciate that it relates to a mortgage and sale
  6  relating to Mr. McCallion's house, a mortgage to Mr.
  7  Couprie and a sale to Mr. Couprie.
  8                 Mr. Lax seems to think there's some
  9  significance to this Inquiry of the fact that the house
 10  was sold privately, that it wasn't, in his words,
 11  "exposed to the market."
 12                 In fact, Mr. Lax's interpretation of the
 13  terms of reference are precisely of the nature that I
 14  warned about in the course of my main submissions, and
 15  that is an expansive interpretation of, it would appear
 16  in particular, item 2 of the terms of reference, which
 17  goes far beyond what section 274 of the Municipal Act
 18  authorizes.
 19                 This is -- this is an inquiry, in my
 20  submission, into the transaction -- the failed
 21  transaction involving OMERS and WCD, and ultimately the
 22  transaction between OMERS and the City of Mississauga,
 23  with, as we know, a long-term lease to Sheridan College.
 24                 And yesterday I warned about the,
 25  obviously, political character of this particular public


  1  inquiry.  And, in my submission, that engages a -- a
  2  strong concern that, in fact, the Inquiry is being used
  3  to go far beyond something that's properly within the
  4  realm of an investigation that can be caused by a
  5  municipality.
  6                 In fact, I respectfully submit that --
  7  that really there's a -- sort of a zone of relevance here
  8  that's established by the terms of reference, and that
  9  there comes a point when -- when it's appropriate to draw
 10  a line.  And here, when we think of some unrelated --
 11  apparently unrelated transaction between Mr. McCallion
 12  and Mr. Couprie, leading to what your own counsel has
 13  said will be a line that Commission counsel will feel
 14  must not be crossed, I submit that -- that the safest
 15  course is to end the Inquiry now; that this doesn't
 16  relate to an interest, a proper interest of the
 17  municipality, and that, in fact, the line of cross-
 18  examination should be foreclosed.  Thank you.
 20  RULING:
 21                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 22  you, Mr. Gover.  Well, I'll be very brief in my -- in my
 23  reasons.
 24                 As has been pointed out, the role of a
 25  commissioner in an inquiry such as this is something of a


  1  balancing act.  On the one (1) hand, I have to be mindful
  2  of procedural fairness, as it relates to those witnesses
  3  who are called before the Inquiry, and against that I
  4  have to balance the right of the public to get at the
  5  truth; in other words, as Mr. Justice Binnie put it, "The
  6  investigation and education of the public."
  7                 Now, Mr. Lax represents the City of
  8  Mississauga.  No doubt he is receiving his instructions
  9  from the City Solicitor.  But the sol -- the City
 10  Solicitor will no doubt be receiving her marching orders
 11  from council; not just the seven (7) counsellors who
 12  voted for this Inquiry, but all of council, so that
 13  ultimately, Mr. Lax represents the citizens of
 14  Mississauga, whom council represents.  And in my view,
 15  the citizens of Mississauga have a right to know, and a -
 16  - have a right to get at the truth.
 17                 The question for me, of course, is, how
 18  does the proposed evidence assist me in fulfilling my
 19  mandate?  In other words, how does it tie into the City's
 20  particular interest in this Inquiry, given the terms of
 21  reference that I'm dealing with?
 22                 Inquiries such as this are investigative
 23  in nature, but I always must be mindful of relevance, as
 24  has been pointed out by Mr. Gover in his concluding
 25  submissions.  Relevance really is something that I have


  1  to determine as we move along.
  2                 Having heard the submissions of counsel on
  3  this issue, and being assisted by Commission counsel, I'm
  4  satisfied that this line of questioning, this proposed
  5  line of questioning, involving Mr. Couprie, who, the
  6  evidence is clear, was sufficiently involved in various
  7  transactions; that I am satisfied that this proposed line
  8  of question is relevant -- questioning is relevant, and
  9  that ultimately it will assist me in my determination of
 10  -- in my various findings, fact, and my conclusions at
 11  the end of this Inquiry.
 12                 I'm mindful of the -- the limit to which
 13  counsel other than Commission counsel ought to be allowed
 14  to -- to go in examining and cross-examining witnesses,
 15  but I'm satisfied, at this time, on this proposed line of
 16  question -- questioning, that Mr. Lax is within the
 17  bounds, so I'm asking that Mr. McCallion return to the
 18  courtroom and that cross-examination continue.
 19                 And, Mr. Lax, I think you were at Exhibit
 20  213.
 21                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Yes.
 23  April 25, 2005, Madam Clerk.
 24                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Yes.  I hadn't asked
 25  any questions yet and phoom (phonetic) --


  1                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Right.
  2                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:  -- there was an
  3  objection.
  5                 PETER MCCALLION, Resumed
  8                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, on the screen there
  9  should be a -- an abstract of the mort -- of the charge
 10  that was placed on your property at 5404 Durie Road, D-U-
 11  R-I-E Road, Mississauga, Ontario, on April 27th, 2005.
 12                 Do you see that?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   This is the mortgage to three (3)
 15  people.  Leo Couprie, who we know; that's the same Leo
 16  Couprie who was involved with you in WCD?
 17                 A:   Correct.  
 18                 Q:   And, actually, as of this date he had
 19  not yet assumed the position of -- of a shareholder?
 20                 A:   I'm not sure.
 21                 Q:   All right.  But he was going to
 22  become one?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   Yeah.  And -- and Sam Singal and Joe
 25  Pasternak -- and who are Singal and Pasternak?


  1                 A:   Friends of Mr. Couprie.
  2                 Q:   And what involvement did you have
  3  with them?  Why were they lending you any money?
  4                 A:   They -- I guess Leo asked them to
  5  share in the loan.
  6                 Q:   Okay.  There is a note, and frankly,
  7  I don't know whose handwriting it is, on the abstract
  8  indicating that their interests, Singal and Pasternak's
  9  interest was transferred to Leo Couprie.
 10                 Do you have any knowledge of that?
 11                 A:   I'm not initially aware of that.
 12                 Q:   Now, this mortgage was outstanding, I
 13  take it, until the property was sold; is that correct?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   And could you tell us, at the --
 16  during the time between April the 27th, 2005 and the date
 17  of the sale which was on March the 7th, 2008, was this
 18  mortgage in good standing?
 19                 A:   I believe so.
 20                 Q:   It never fell into arrears?
 21                 A:   Not to the best of my knowledge, no.
 22                 Q:   All right.  I don't need to know all
 23  the uses of the funds that of -- that this mortgage
 24  represented, the four hundred and fifty thousand
 25  (450,000), but was any part of the four hundred and fifty


  1  thousand dollars ($450,000) invested in the WCD deal --
  2                 A:   None of it was.
  3                 Q:   Pardon me?
  4                 A:   None of it was.
  5                 Q:   It was used for other purposes?
  6                 A:   Other purposes.
  7                 Q:   All right.  Now, when we get to the
  8  sale of your property and the --
  9                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Just one (1)
 10  second here.  I want -- this is a clarification.  Our
 11  understanding is that the two (2) other names were an
 12  administrative error; that it was just a mistake made in
 13  the lawyer's office and we've accepted that for our
 14  purposes.
 15                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   All right.
 17  right.
 20                 Q:   Please go to the Robins Appleby
 21  reporting letter, COM001002846.  I don't have an exhibit
 22  number for it.
 24                       (BRIEF PAUSE)


  1                 Q:   Turn, please, to the letter of May
  2  14th.  It appears that your house was sold to Mr.
  3  Couprie, pursuant to an agreement of purchase and sale
  4  that was dated November -- December the 19th, 2007; and
  5  the closing date was March 2008 sometime?
  6                 A:   I believe so, yes.
  7                 Q:   All right.  And how was it that you
  8  came to sell your house to Leo Couprie at this time?
  9                 A:   To help him recover some of the money
 10  for loan that he made me.
 11                 Q:   What do you mean?
 12                 A:   Well, he had security then.
 13                 Q:   Yes, but the mortgage was in good
 14  standing; you were making all the payments?
 15                 A:   Not at that point.
 16                 Q:   Oh.  I thought I asked you if -- if
 17  during the time between the granting of the mortgage and
 18  the sale of the house the mortgage was in arrears.
 19                 A:   At the point of the sale of the house
 20  it was, yes.
 21                 Q:   And how long had it been in arrears
 22  for?
 23                 A:   Probably six (6) months.
 24                 Q:   Okay.  And did he approach you then
 25  with respect to the sale?


  1                 A:   Well, I believe it was mutual.
  2                 Q:   And was there any consideration given
  3  to offering the sale -- the house for sale to the public
  4  with a listing, as real estate agents typically do?
  5                 A:   No.
  6                 Q:   Why not?
  7                 A:   When you --
  8                 Q:   You could have sold the house and pay
  9  -- paid off the mortgage.
 10                 A:   Could have.  I didn't really want to
 11  sell it.
 12                 Q:   Well, but you did sell it.
 13                 A:   I did sell it so he had security.
 14                 Q:   Yes, but you could have sold it to
 15  anybody.  Why did you sell it to him?
 16                 A:   Could have.  I didn't.
 17                 Q:   Pardon me?
 18                 A:   But I didn't.
 19                 Q:   Why did you decide to sell it to him
 20  in effectively a private sale?
 21                 A:   It was mutually agreed to.
 22                 Q:   Why though did you agree to do that,
 23  you, Peter McCallion, the real estate agent?  Why did you
 24  not seek to sell -- to offer the house for sale to the
 25  public and see what the best price was?


  1                 A:   I believe that was a good price at
  2  the time.
  3                 Q:   Yes.  And is that the only reason?
  4                 A:   That's the only reason.
  5                 Q:   Now, Mr. Couprie was then going to
  6  take over the house and he'd own the house.
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   And you had to vacate the house?
  9                 A:   No, I did not.
 10                 Q:   You could say -- you could sell the
 11  house but live in it.
 12                 A:   I'm paying -- yeah, I'm paying rent
 13  on it now.
 14                 Q:   And that's the way you continue to
 15  live there at the present time.
 16                 A:   Currently.
 17                 Q:   Now, we know in 2008, you've told us
 18  before, that Leo Couprie, for example, in the Murray Cook
 19  litigation, was a plaintiff, but the instructions were
 20  coming to Mr. Bisceglia from Mr. DeCicco.
 21                 Was Mr. DeCicco the effective purchaser of
 22  your house and Leo Couprie was acting as a notional
 23  planti -- purchaser?
 24                 A:   Not at all.
 25                 Q:   Not at all.  How do you know that?


  1                 A:   Well, it has nothing to do with Mr.
  2  DeCicco.
  3                 Q:   Now, on the second page of the
  4  letter, of the reporting letter, three (3) pages in --
  5  yes, the next page.  Keep going.  Keep going.  Yes.
  6                 Yes, now -- okay.  "Direction refunds,"
  7  that paragraph.  Thank you.
  8                 Here's how that -- from the purchase price
  9  of eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000), two hundred
 10  and forty-three thousand seven seventy-one (243,771) was
 11  paid to the Toronto Dominion Bank.
 12                 And is that where the Couprie mortgage
 13  ultimately ended up?
 14                 A:   What are you asking again?
 15                 Q:   There was two hundred and forty-three
 16  thousand seven seven one (243,771) paid to the Toronto
 17  Dominion Bank?
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   I can't see any other payments that
 20  are discharged to the mortgage to Leo Couprie; I'm asking
 21  you is the Toronto Dominion Bank entry the same thing as
 22  the Leo Couprie mortgage?
 23                 A:   No, it is not.
 24                 Q:   All right.  You had another mortgage
 25  to the Toronto Dominion Bank?


  1                 A:   It doesn't show up there.
  2                 Q:   The last line is -- indicates that --
  3                 A:   Well, that's Toronto Dominion Bank.
  4                 Q:   -- two hundred forty-three thousand
  5  (243,000) was paid to the Toronto Dominion Bank.
  6                 A:   Correct.
  7                 Q:   Did you have another debt to the
  8  Toronto Dominion Bank for two hundred and forty-three
  9  thousand seven seventy one (243,771)?
 10                 A:   That was the original mortgage on the
 11  house.
 12                 Q:   All right.  And so Mr. Couprie's
 13  mortgage then was no -- in no way discharged by -- by the
 14  sale.
 15                 A:   It was discharged and I paid him from
 16  the five hundred thousand (500,000).
 17                 Q:   I see.  So part of the five hundred
 18  and two thousand (502,000) went to Mr. Couprie?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   And what's the evidence of that
 21  payment?
 22                 A:   It went directly to him from Robins
 23  Appleby.
 24                 Q:   From Robins Appleby, okay.  So there
 25  should be a statement of adjustments here then; I may


  1  have missed it.  I'll have somebody...
  3                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  5                 Q:   And how much were you left with at
  6  the end of the day?
  7                 A:   Not very much.
  8                 Q:   We have -- we do have a statement of
  9  adjustments, Mr. McCallion.  It's found at page 860,
 10  001002860.
 12                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 14                 Q:   And so what this shows is that Robins
 15  Appleby was holding eight hundred thousand dollars
 16  ($800,000) in trust after the closing or as further
 17  directed.  They were waiting for further directions with
 18  respect to what -- what was to happen to the money.
 19                 A:   I don't see that here.  
 20                 Q:   You don't see that?
 21                 A:   No.
 22                 Q:   Do you see the statement of
 23  adjustments at the top of that page?
 24                 Oh, no, you've got the wrong page, sorry.
 25  What's -- what's the page number?


  1                 MS. NAOMI LOEWITH:   Fifteen (15).
  4                 Q:   Fif -- page 15 of the document.
  5  Okay.
  6                 This is called a statement of adjustments;
  7  you're aware of that -- what that is?
  8                 A:   Yeah.
  9                 Q:   And so at the end of the day, Robins
 10  Appleby & Taub were holding in trust seven hundred and
 11  ninety-five thousand (795,000), plus the deposit of five
 12  thousand (5,000), for a total of eight hundred thousand
 13  (800,000)?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   For further directions?
 16                 A:   I see that, yes.
 17                 Q:   Okay.  And then...
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21                 Q:   Turn back to page 7, under the
 22  heading "Mortgages to be Discharged After Closing."  Go
 23  down please on the page.  Okay.
 24                 The first was the Toronto Dominion Bank
 25  mortgage, which is the one (1) we see on the prior page


  1  of two hundred and forty-three thousand seven seventy-one
  2  (243,771).
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   Okay.  And then we get to the Couprie
  5  mortgage.  And do you know how much that was, as of the
  6  date of closing?
  7                 A:   I believe -- well, it was four fifty
  8  (450) plus any outstanding --
  9                 Q:   But you had already paid for a few
 10  years, too.
 11                 A:   Yeah, but there was no  --
 12                 Q:   No principal.
 13                 A:   -- principal.
 14                 Q:   All right.  So it was four fifty
 15  (450) plus the arrears?
 16                 A:   I would suggest, yes.
 17                 Q:   And you don't know what the arrears
 18  were.
 19                 A:   No, I do not know now.
 20                 Q:   Okay.  So by this account, it would
 21  have taken up pretty much all of the eight hundred
 22  thousand dollars ($800,000)?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   It must have left you with something?
 25                 A:   Very little.


  1                 Q:   And when you take the agreement, was
  2  it more or less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)?
  3                 A:   Oh, a lot less.
  4                 Q:   A lot less.  Now, at that time, we
  5  know that -- that -- well, let me just understand.
  6                 So then you stay in the house, and now you
  7  -- and you pay rent?
  8                 A:   I pay rent, yes.
  9                 Q:   And that's the pos -- that's the
 10  situation you're in today?
 11                 A:   Correct.
 12                 Q:   And is there a term on the lease
 13  whereby at some stage you have to get out of that house,
 14  and it can be sold?
 15                 A:   When I stop paying the rent.
 16                 Q:   So that you could live in that house
 17  for the rest of your life as long as you pay the rent?
 18                 A:   I suspect that won't ever happen that
 19  long.  Who knows.
 20                 Q:   But there's no -- but there's no --
 21                 A:   There's no --
 22                 Q:   -- term in the lease that can force
 23  you out?
 24                 A:   No.
 25                 Q:   Just a moment, please.


  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  3                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   All right, sir, thank
  4  you very much.  I've no further questions.
  6                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  9  McIntyre...?
 12                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, you know that my name
 13  is Elizabeth McIntyre, and I act on behalf of the Mayor.
 14  And I would like to ask you a few questions, starting
 15  with your relationship with your mother.
 16                 You told us that during the relevant
 17  period that you were in contact with your mother on an
 18  almost daily basis.
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And I take it that your mother is a
 21  single woman living on her ho -- on her own since the
 22  death of your father?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And that you do assist her in a
 25  variety of -- of jobs around the house?  Like, you said -


  1  -
  2                 A:   I do.
  3                 Q:   -- cleaning her pond, driving her to
  4  functions.  I understand that you had to take squirrels
  5  out of her fireplace recently?
  6                 A:   Yes.  That's not an easy job.
  7                 Q:   I also understand that your mother
  8  has a dog, a German Shepherd.
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   And that you are -- you assist your
 11  mother with respect to the care of that dog, letting the
 12  dog out in the yard, feeding the dog.
 13                 A:   Yes, I do.
 14                 Q:   And that you have frequent telephone
 15  calls with her with respect to what her schedule is, and
 16  whether you need to --
 17                 A:   Absolutely.
 18                 Q:   -- go and let the dog out?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   And I take it that, from what you've
 21  told us yesterday, that in the course of your discussions
 22  with your mother, that she often asks you what you're
 23  doing work-wise?
 24                 A:   Yes. 
 25                 Q:   And you answer her in general terms?


  1                 A:   In general terms, yes.
  2                 Q:   It will be her testimony that it is
  3  your habit not to provide her with a lot of detail with
  4  respect to what you're doing.
  5                 Would you agree with that?
  6                 A:   Totally.
  7                 Q:   In fact, she will testify that you're
  8  not at all good at sharing personal information.
  9                 A:   No, I'm not.
 10                 Q:   For example, I take it you didn't
 11  tell her that you lost your real estate licence for two
 12  (2) to three (3) months in 2007, and for six (6) months
 13  in 2009?
 14                 A:   No, I did not.
 15                 Q:   And I take it you did not share with
 16  her the financial difficulty you were in in 2007 and
 17  2008?
 18                 A:   No, I did not.
 19                 Q:   The bottom line, Mr. McCallion, is, I
 20  take it, that you only tell your mother what it is you
 21  would like her to know.
 22                 Is that fair?
 23                 A:   Fair.
 24                 Q:   So now let's talk about what your
 25  mother knew about World Class Developments.  And we all


  1  know a lot now, having poured over thousands of
  2  documents, and trying to guess what people were thinking
  3  by reading their cryptic emails, but let's go back and
  4  try to understand what your mother knew at the relevant
  5  time.
  6                 So, first of all, your role in the hotel
  7  project.  I take it you told your mother about some of
  8  your early attempts to find an investor --
  9                 A:   Yes. 
 10                 Q:   -- for the hotel project?  She knew
 11  about your contact with Mr. Shim, for example?
 12                 A:   Yes, she did.
 13                 Q:   And then in 2006/2007 you told her
 14  that Mr. Couprie had agreed to be the investor for the
 15  project?
 16                 A:   I probably did, yes.
 17                 Q:   And your mother will testify that
 18  that didn't come as any surprise to her; she knew he was
 19  a partner of Mr. Shim --
 20                 A:   Yes. 
 21                 Q:   -- in the importing business?
 22                 A:   Yes, in the importing.
 23                 Q:   And she would have understood that
 24  Mr. Couprie had significant financial resources?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   It will be her testimony, in fact,
  2  that she went -- she understood throughout, up until the
  3  time this Inquiry commenced, that it was Mr. Couprie who
  4  was the investor in the project?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And you never told her anything that
  7  would make her think any different than that, correct?
  8                 A:   No, nothing.
  9                 Q:   And with respect to your role, you
 10  told her that you were the agent and representative of
 11  Mr. Couprie?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   And she will say that made sense to
 14  her, because that's the only job you ever had, was as a
 15  real estate agent, correct?
 16                 A:   Yes. 
 17                 Q:   You'd never worked as a developer or
 18  an investor?
 19                 A:   Never.
 20                 Q:   She will testify that she knew that
 21  you would need an investor, and that she knew that you
 22  would need people with expertise in development, and that
 23  you would need consultants?
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   And she did not think that you had


  1  the means or the experience to do any of those things?
  2                 A:   I would suggest that's right.
  3                 Q:   On the expertise side, your mother
  4  will testify that it was you who recruited Murray Cook to
  5  join -- join the project?
  6                 A:   Yes. 
  7                 Q:   And that it made sense to her that he
  8  be involved, because she knew he was somebody with the
  9  expertise in that area?
 10                 A:   Yes. 
 11                 Q:   Let's talk about what she didn't
 12  know, Mr. McCallion.  I take it that you never told her
 13  that you loaned money to WCD in the spring of 2007,
 14  either the thirty thousand dollar ($30,000) loan in
 15  March, or the seventy-three thousand five hundred dollar
 16  ($73,500) loan in May?
 17                 A:   No, I did not.
 18                 Q:   In fact, you never told her, sir,
 19  that WCD was having difficulty meeting its payment
 20  obligations --
 21                 A:   No.
 22                 Q:   -- either to the City or to OMERS?
 23                 A:   No, I did not.
 24                 Q:   She wouldn't have been happy to hear
 25  that, would she?


  1                 A:   No, she would not be.
  2                 Q:   You also, sir, did not tell her about
  3  the fifty-thousand dollar ($50,000) loan that you
  4  arranged through TACC, is it, in July of 2007?
  5                 A:   Yes, I did not tell her that.
  6                 Q:   And you certainly didn't tell her
  7  that you signed a promissory note that you gave to secure
  8  that loan.
  9                 A:   No, I did not.
 10                 Q:   No, you didn't show her that, the pro
 11  --
 12                 A:   I didn't talk about it.
 13                 Q:   You kept that from her?
 14                 A:   Oh, yes.
 15                 Q:   She wouldn't have been happy about
 16  that, either?
 17                 A:   No, wouldn't have been happy.
 18                 Q:   So when she had lunch, or dinner, or
 19  whatever it was, with -- with Mr. de Gasperis she didn't
 20  know anything about that loan?
 21                 A:   Nothing.
 22                 Q:   and it was never discussed with her
 23  in your presence?
 24                 A:   Not in my presence.
 25                 Q:   By the way, sir, I take it that when


  1  you signed that promissory note, it was your intention to
  2  repay that loan at some point?
  3                 A:   At some point it was to be repaid,
  4  yes.
  5                 Q:   Now, we've just gone through the
  6  transactions.  Mr. Lax has taken you through -- you
  7  through the transactions involving your home.  You also
  8  didn't tell your mother about that, did you?
  9                 A:   No, I did not.
 10                 Q:   And you certainly did not tell your
 11  mother that you were receiving W -- money from WCD for
 12  living expenses?
 13                 A:   No.
 14                 Q:   So now let's talk about the financial
 15  arrangements for WCD.  We've already agreed that your
 16  mother was led by you to believe that Leo Couprie was the
 17  investor throughout, and you did not advise her
 18  otherwise?
 19                 A:   No, I did not.  
 20                 Q:   So she did not see the incorporation
 21  documents of WCD, correct?
 22                 A:   No.  I didn't even see them.
 23                 Q:   And she understood, sir -- she will
 24  testify, that she never thought you were a shareholder,
 25  director, owner, in any way, of WCD?


  1                 A:   In any way.
  2                 Q:   And that's consistent, I guess, with
  3  your own understanding --
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   -- of your -- of your role?  So with
  6  respect to the investment, she knew that Mr. Couprie was
  7  an investor, but you never advised her, nor did Mr.
  8  Couprie advise her in your presence, of how much money he
  9  put in?
 10                 A:   No.
 11                 Q:   Nor of how much money he was entitled
 12  to get out?
 13                 A:   No.
 14                 Q:   And when you brought Murray Cook into
 15  the project you did not discuss with her what the
 16  arrangements for that were?
 17                 A:   No, I did not.
 18                 Q:   How he was going to be compensated?
 19  Whether he put money in?
 20                 A:   Never.
 21                 Q:   And you did not advise her, sir, that
 22  Mr. Couprie agreed to transfer to Mr. Cook 20 percent of
 23  his shares?
 24                 A:   No, I did not.
 25                 Q:   And, again, she didn't see that


  1  document?
  2                 A:   She didn't see that.
  3                 Q:   And then when you brought Mr. DeCicco
  4  into the project -- and to be clear here, this was your
  5  initiative to bring Mr. DeCicco in.  It was not the
  6  suggestion of your mother, correct?
  7                 A:   No, definitely not.
  8                 Q:   You did not discuss with the Mayor
  9  what the financial arrangements were between Mr. DeCicco
 10  and WCD?
 11                 A:   No, I did not.
 12                 Q:   And I take it that you did not
 13  discuss, nor did anyone else, while you were there, the
 14  declaration of trust and shareholder agreement between
 15  Mr. Couprie and Mr. DeCicco?
 16                 A:   No.
 17                 Q:   And I take it at no time did you
 18  advise your mother that Mr. Di Poce was the investor --
 19  was an investor in World Class Developments?
 20                 A:   I couldn't discuss it because I
 21  didn't know it at the time myself.
 22                 Q:   So, at the end of the day, the only
 23  pieces of paper that your mother actually saw at the
 24  time, with respect to World Class Developments, were the
 25  trust declaration and the loan agreement signed at Pier -


  1  - Pier 1?
  2                 A:   Pier 4.
  3                 Q:   Pier 4.  Correct?
  4                 A:   Correct.
  5                 Q:   In -- in January of 2007?
  6                 A:   Correct.
  7                 Q:   Those would be the only -- of all
  8  those legal documents we've gone through, those would the
  9  only -- be the only ones that she laid eyes on, correct?
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  And you've already testified
 12  about her involvement in those, and how they came to be
 13  signed.  It's Exhibits 189 and 190.  I don't think we
 14  need to look at them.
 15                 But the Mayor will testify that she was
 16  invited out to dinner by you and Mr. Couprie, prior to a
 17  trip you were making to Asia; and I think you've told us
 18  that --
 19                 A:   Yeah.
 20                 Q:   -- correct?
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   And she will say the reason for the
 23  invitation, and the reason for the dinner, is because you
 24  and Mr. Couprie wanted to get her ideas regarding hotel
 25  operators in Asia that might be interested in developing


  1  the hotel next to the Living Arts Centre?
  2                 Do you remember that?  Does that bring it
  3  back?
  4                 A:   That does bring it back, yes.
  5                 Q:   And that she recommended to you that
  6  you talk to the operators of the Shangri La --
  7                 A:   Correct.  I do recall that now.
  8                 Q:   -- because she'd been to that hotel.
  9  She was impressed with that chain.  At the time, there
 10  was not a Shangri La in -- in Canada, and she thought it
 11  would be a real coup for Mississauga to get the first
 12  one.
 13                 A:   Correct.
 14                 Q:   Does that bring it back?
 15                 A:   Yes, it does bring it back.
 16                 Q:   That was the focus of the discussion
 17  --
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   -- at that dinner?  And is it fair to
 20  say that your mother, at that point, was excited about
 21  the prospect that finally a hotel was going to be built,
 22  or could be built, at -- at -- next to the Living Arts
 23  Centre?
 24                 A:   Correct.  Very excited.
 25                 Q:   For your mother, this was the jewel


  1  in the crown, wasn't it, Mr. McCallion?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   She had devoted her -- her -- much of
  4  her time as mayor to developing the city core of
  5  Mississauga, and this was one (1) of the last remaining
  6  pieces that she wanted to put in place in her lifetime,
  7  correct?
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   So the focus of that dinner in the
 10  dark at Pier 4 was figuring out which hotel operators
 11  might be able to fulfill that dream?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   And by the way, during the course of
 14  the dinner you asked the Mayor -- you and Mr. Couprie, to
 15  witness your signatures on some documents?
 16                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Just -- just a
 17  moment.  Excuse me.
 18                 Professor Ratushny, in his book, The
 19  Conduct -- or The Conduct of Public Inquiries, says at
 20  the conclusion of a paragraph on page 321:
 21                   "Cross-examination by successive
 22                   parties should not be permitted, nor
 23                   should sweetheart questioning, where
 24                   parties with similar interests attempt
 25                   to place the Witness in a more


  1                   favourable light."
  2                 So I -- I guess I make two (2) points.
  3  First, it'll be for you to decide whether this is
  4  sweetheart questioning, or a blistering cross-
  5  examination, but secondly, I really -- if this is the way
  6  it's going to be conducted, I really wonder what weight
  7  one would assign to it at the end of the day.
  9  much.
 12                 Q:   I take it, Mr. McCallion, that the
 13  Mayor did not read those two (2) documents during the
 14  course of the dinner?
 15                 A:   No, she did not.
 16                 Q:   Nor was there any further
 17  conversation about their content?
 18                 A:   There was no conversation about them.
 19                 Q:   Nor have you reviewed them with the
 20  Mayor since that time?
 21                 A:   No.
 22                 Q:   Let's talk about what benefit you
 23  would have gotten if the WCD deal with OMERS had been
 24  completed.  Your mother will testify that she understood
 25  throughout that you would be compensated as an agent in


  1  the usual course with a commission on the completion of
  2  the sale if it closed?
  3                 A:   Originally, yes.
  4                 Q:   And she will testify that you never
  5  told her that the co-owners had said they would not pay
  6  you a commission?
  7                 A:   No, I did not.
  8                 Q:   Nor did you tell her that Tony
  9  DeCicco wouldn't pay you a commission?
 10                 A:   No, I did not.
 11                 Q:   And there was no discussion between
 12  you and the Mayor regarding your hopes that you would get
 13  to be the signing agent for the sale of the condos?
 14                 A:   No, I did not.
 15                 Q:   And you never discussed with her the
 16  conclusion, which you now seem to have reached, that you
 17  might be entitled to some part of the shares of WCD?
 18                 A:   No.
 19                 Q:   The Mayor will testify that she
 20  assumed that your interest in the WCD deal died when it
 21  was terminated by the co-owners of January, 2009?
 22                 A:   That would be correct.
 23                 Q:   We've -- we've talked about the other
 24  -- Mr. DeCicco and the fact that -- that -- that it was
 25  you and not your mother who suggested bringing him into


  1  WCD.
  2                 A:   It was me.
  3                 Q:   And, in fact, I take it that you did
  4  not ask the Mayor to vouch for his financial status with
  5  the co-owners?
  6                 A:   No, I did not.
  7                 Q:   And with respect to the disputes
  8  between Mr. Cook and the WCD, you said your mother tried
  9  to act as a peacemaker between the two (2) of them?
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   I take it she wasn't successful in
 12  that?
 13                 A:   No, she was not.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  You've been asked Mr. Lax,
 15  he's taken you through a long list of phone calls and
 16  meetings and I don't proposed to do that, but with
 17  respect to meetings betwe -- well, first of all, let me -
 18  - let me ask you this:  I take it that -- that the Mayor
 19  has a very busy schedule?
 20                 A:   Oh, very busy.
 21                 Q:   And for you to have lun -- and she,
 22  in fact, has a full-time scheduling clerk that works for
 23  her?
 24                 A:   Yes, she does.
 25                 Q:   And for you to have lunch or dinner


  1  with her you actually have to make those arrangements
  2  through the scheduling clerk?
  3                 A:   Always. 
  4                 Q:   And you have had many dinners with
  5  her and others, including, not only Tony DeCicco and Leo
  6  Couprie, but many developers, many business people?
  7                 A:   Many different business people.
  8                 Q:   I take it she eats many of her meals
  9  in restaurants with a variety of -- of people, including
 10  yourself and many others?
 11                 A:   Many others.
 12                 Q:   What we're seeing in this Inquiry,
 13  this list is -- is just a small sample of the lunches and
 14  dinners she would have?
 15                 A:   Oh, very small.
 16                 Q:   And now you've told us that you
 17  cannot remember what was discussed at many of these
 18  lunches and dinners.
 19                 A:   Well, we're talking over a period of
 20  eight (8) years.
 21                 Q:   I take it, sir, that you don't have a
 22  particularly good memory; is that fair?
 23                 A:   Well, she might say that, yes.
 24                 Q:   With respect to Mr. DeCicco, in
 25  particular, it was put to you with -- that many of those


  1  discussions would have involved WCD and you said you
  2  couldn't remember any other business transactions.
  3                 I would suggest to you that there was --
  4  that Mr. DeCicco owned a property on Derry Land Road
  5  (phonetic) where there was an issue with respect to
  6  easement over another property, a restaurant next door.
  7                 A:   Oh, yes.  Grill One.
  8                 Q:   And that there were a number of -- of
  9  lunches or discussions between Mr. DeCicco and the Mayor
 10  where you were present that may have involved the
 11  resolution of -- of that problem?
 12                 A:   That could be, yes.
 13                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   I just -- I just rise
 14  because I'm not going to have the opportunity to cross-
 15  examine, and obviously what's going on right now isn't
 16  exactly a cross-examination, it's purportedly a re-
 17  examination, but I asked those questions and got answers.
 18  I can't reopen the issue.
 20                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 23                 Q:   Now, I'd like to take you to the --
 24  the interactions between your mother and the co-owners,
 25  with respect to the WC proposal, and ask you whether you


  1  can recall, in the period leading up to the -- the
  2  agreement of purchase and sale in January of 2007, do you
  3  recall whether or not you advised the Mayor that there
  4  was difficulty in setting up a meeting with the co-
  5  owners?  Do you have --
  6                 A:   No, if I -- 
  7                 Q:   -- any recollection of that?
  8                 A:   -- made any comment, it would have
  9  been it's just taking a long time.
 10                 Q:   And with respect to the nex -- my
 11  next question is:  Did you ask her to set up any meeting
 12  or to --
 13                 A:   No, I did not.
 14                 Q:   -- intervene on behalf of WCD?
 15                 A:   I did not do that.
 16                 Q:   Okay.  And we've -- we've heard a --
 17  a number of references to WCD being the Mayor's preferred
 18  group.  Do you have any recollection of her saying that
 19  WCD was her preferred group?
 20                 A:   I never had any recollection of that.
 21  I believe that was the only group.
 22                 Q:   That was my next question.  Were you
 23  aware of any other group that was -- that was
 24  interesting, or came forward in -- to develop the hotel?
 25                 A:   No.  Nobody else, that I'm aware of.


  1                 Q:   Okay.  And you suggested, Mr.
  2  McCallion, that it was -- it was your idea to develop a
  3  hotel.  I take it you know that this was ot -- at that
  4  location, at the Living Arts Centre?
  5                 A:   It was odd?
  6                 Q:   It was your idea?
  7                 A:   Oh, correct.
  8                 Q:   I take it that this was actually the
  9  idea of the City of Mississauga, and had been their idea
 10  for a number of years?
 11                 A:   I believe it was a -- I believe it
 12  was an idea of a lot of people.
 13                 Q:   Well, I would like to take you to
 14  Exhibit number 275.  I've got the wrong exhibit number.
 15  This is, I had thought, the exhibit number for the
 16  brochure that -- that was put on the system from 1991.
 17  Perhaps I could...
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21                 Q:   Thank you.  This -- and if we could -
 22  - this is a -- a marketing brochure from the Mississauga
 23  City Centre from 1991.  And if we could get a closeup.  I
 24  believe it's the next page.  It's hard to read this
 25  document.  That says that they're -- I guess we don't


  1  have the original here.  This is one (1) of the documents
  2  that's difficult to put on the system.
  3                 But I put to you, sir, that as far back as
  4  1991, that Mississauga was putting out a brochure
  5  suggesting that a luxury hotel with conference facilities
  6  was planned by the City of Mississauga?
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   Okay.
  9                 A:   I'm familiar with the document.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  And if we could go then to
 11  Exhibit 181.
 13                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 15                 Q:   This is a document entitled,
 16  "Mississauga City Centre 1998 Marketing Group Partners."
 17  There's a -- a list of -- of partners down the left
 18  there, including Hammerson and Oxford Properties.
 19                 Are you familiar with this?
 20                 A:   Yes, I am.
 21                 Q:   And the Living Arts Centre is
 22  identified on -- on this document.
 23                 How do we do the pointer?
 25                       (BRIEF PAUSE)


  2                 A:   I see it.
  3                 Q:   Yes.  And north of that then would be
  4  the land in question, right --
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   -- correct?  And if we go to the next
  7  page, we can see that being number 3, which at the time
  8  was owned by Hammerson Canada Limited?
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   And that's 4.37 acres.  Would also
 11  contemplate a hotel at the south end to displace the
 12  residential?
 13                 A:   Correct.
 14                 Q:   So again, this is put out by the
 15  Mississauga -- City of Mississauga, and in conjunction
 16  with marketing partners?
 17                 A:   Yes, I -- I -- 
 18                 Q:   And --
 19                 A:   -- sat on that.
 20                 Q:   You sat on that.  So you were well --
 21  it was well known to everybody that the City's vision was
 22  to put a hotel on that site?
 23                 A:   Yes. 
 24                 Q:   And then if I could ask you to look
 25  at Exhibit 182.  This is a document from the Economic


  1  Development office of the City of Mississauga setting out
  2  a development opportunity, and here the idea becomes more
  3  specific, for a hotel conference centre.
  4                 Do you see that?
  5                 A:   Yes, I see it.
  6                 Q:   And if you could -- if we could go to
  7  the second page.  So this is a business quality hotel, et
  8  cetera.  If we go to the second page we can see that
  9  there's a long list of hotel developers to whom this
 10  proposal was apparently sent, including Marriott Hotels,
 11  InterContinental, as well as a number of development
 12  companies.
 13                 So this is the -- the very specific idea
 14  of a luxury hotel next to the Living Arts Centre was in
 15  fact the idea of the City of Mississauga?
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   And what you were doing was trying to
 18  implement that idea?
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And I take it that had you been
 21  successful in doing so, that that would have been a
 22  significant benefit to the City of Mississauga, correct?
 23                 A:   Correct.  And the Living Arts Centre.
 24                 Q:   Yes.  The City of Mississauga would
 25  have got a much increased tax base?


  1                 A:   Correct.
  2                 Q:   And it would have been a benefit,
  3  obviously, to yourself?
  4                 A:   Correct.
  5                 Q:   And you've -- you've told us about
  6  what you intended or what you anticipated getting out of
  7  that transaction if it was completed.
  8                 A:   If it was completed, yes.
  9                 Q:   Okay.  Now, turning to the -- the --
 10  your dealings with City staff regarding the -- the WCD
 11  proposal.  And you've testified about meetings you
 12  attended, discussions you had with Mr. Sajecki, Ms. Ball,
 13  and others.
 14                 I take it that your mother didn't attend
 15  any of those meetings?
 16                 A:   I believe not, no.
 17                 Q:   And, in fact, you did not discuss
 18  with your mother what happened at those meetings.
 19                 A:   Oh, definitely not.
 20                 Q:   In fact, I would suggest to you that
 21  at the outset of your proposed project, she told you not
 22  only would she have to declare a conflict if your project
 23  came before council, but that she would not involve
 24  herself in staff diss -- discussions around the
 25  development aspects of your project --


  1                 A:   Correct.
  2                 Q:   And I just want to ask you about the
  3  Peel regional bylaw on development fees.  We've heard the
  4  Peel Region passed a bylaw which changed the development
  5  fees that were applicable to projects, including WCD,
  6  sometime in the fall of 2007.
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   And you were aware of that?
  9                 A:   No, I was not.
 10                 Q:   Okay, are you now aware of that?
 11                 A:   I am now aware of it, yes.
 12                 Q:   And are you now aware that there were
 13  transitional provisions that were included with that
 14  bylaw that had the effect of red circling some projects
 15  that were already in the works?
 16                 A:   At the time I was not, no.
 17                 Q:   Okay.  How did you become aware of
 18  that?  And you apparently now are aware of it, correct?
 19                 A:   Yes, now.  Well, I was aware of it
 20  after the fact, and I was brought -- I was notified of it
 21  by Mr. De Zen because were selling homes in Brampton,
 22  which meant we had to pre-site the homes in order to get
 23  our permits in on time, regarding the development charges
 24  in Brampton.
 25                 Q:   Mr. De Zen, is it?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   Okay, D-E Z-E-N?
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   Did you have any discussions with
  5  your mother about those development fees and how they
  6  would be applied to -- to the WCD project?
  7                 A:   No, I did not.
  8                 Q:   Or the transitional provisions?
  9                 A:   No, I didn't even know about them.
 10                 Q:   With respect to the negotiations with
 11  the co-owners in the fall of 2008, and you've been taken
 12  to -- to various emails and discussions around proposed
 13  amendments to the deal.
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   And there wa -- Mr. Lax this morning
 16  took to you emails appointed to a discussion with respect
 17  to selling -- getting rid of the hotel conditions, upping
 18  the purchase price, and closing the deal.  Remember Mr.
 19  Lax taking you to that?
 20                 A:   Yes, I do. 
 21                 Q:   Did you ever have any discussions
 22  with your mother about the possibility of selling those
 23  lands for the -- for the building of condos without a
 24  hotel being included?
 25                 A:   No, I did not.


  1                 Q:   What would her reaction have been, do
  2  you think, if you had told her that there was a proposal
  3  in the works to sell that land for building condos but no
  4  hotel?
  5                 A:   Not very happy.
  6                 Q:   Would she have agreed with that
  7  approach?
  8                 A:   I can't tell you what she would have
  9  said, but she wouldn't have been happy.
 10                 Q:   But you do not recall having those
 11  discussions?
 12                 A:   I did not have those discussions, no. 
 13                 Q:   And you said that WCD itself never
 14  backed away from the building of the hotel.
 15                 A:   No, we did not.
 16                 Q:   It was a matter of timing?
 17                 A:   Timing only.
 18                 Q:   Now, in terms of -- in terms of the -
 19  - the termination of the WCD deal --
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   -- the Mayor will testify that she
 22  attended at a meeting with Mr. Kitt and Mr. DeCicco on
 23  December 15th of 2008, and at that time was convinced
 24  that WCD could not come through with an appropriate
 25  hotel, and therefore, the deal had to be terminated.


  1                 Did she discuss that with you at the time?
  2                 A:   No, and I was not aware of the
  3  meeting.
  4                 Q:   Did she have any discussions with you
  5  about the impact on you and your -- your anticipated
  6  commission before agreeing that the deal should be
  7  terminated?
  8                 A:   Not with me.
  9                 Q:   The settlement of the WCD litigation
 10  with the co-owners, you have testa -- testified about
 11  Dave O'Brien offering to mediate a settlement and said
 12  that it was raised during a golf Tournament.
 13                 Is it your evidence that Mr. O'Brien spoke
 14  to your mother about it at that golf Tournament?
 15                 A:   I cannot say if he spoke to her.  He
 16  did speak to me, though.
 17                 Q:   You've told us about your attendance
 18  at two (2) meetings between Mr. DeCicco and Mr. O'Brien
 19  and said that you were not part of the final settlement
 20  discussions, and, in fact, you didn't know what they were
 21  until the Inquiry commenced.
 22                 So I take it you never discussed the terms
 23  of the settlement with your mother?
 24                 A:   No, I did not.
 25                 Q:   In fact, I take it that you didn't


  1  discuss the details of these meetings, or really anything
  2  about this, with your mother?
  3                 A:   No.
  4                 Q:   Now, with respect to your interest in
  5  this settlement, I'm a little confused about -- about
  6  your testimony on this.
  7                 You said to Mr. Gover that your -- you
  8  thought your entitlement was limited to repayment of the
  9  loans that you had made or arranged.
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   Presumably plus interest?
 12                 A:   I wasn't expecting interest.
 13                 Q:   Okay.  But minus the monies that you
 14  took out?
 15                 A:   Minus the monies I took out, yes.
 16                 Q:   And you said to Mr. Gover that
 17  ultimately it would be up to Mr. Couprie?
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   No, Mr. Couprie, correct?  Isn't that
 20  what --
 21                 A:   Mr. Couprie.
 22                 Q:   -- you told us?  Yes.
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   That's what you told Mr. McDowell, I
 25  believe.


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   Then you told Mr. Lax that, in fact,
  3  you agreed that you might be entitled to 16 percent?
  4                 A:   I said that that's the way the
  5  agreements read at this point.
  6                 Q:   So I take it that now that you've
  7  been taken through the documents by a number of lawyers,
  8  that that's in interpretation that can be put on those
  9  documents?
 10                 A:   That is correct.
 11                 Q:   But I take it you don't actually feel
 12  you're entitled to any more than what you put into it.
 13  Is that --
 14                 A:   I'm not entitled to any more than
 15  what I put in.
 16                 Q:   And I'd -- I'd actually like to take
 17  --
 18                 A:   I would believe that Mr. Couprie
 19  would be entitled to some of it though.
 20                 Q:   I would like to actually take you to
 21  the documents.  But I know you've been taken to them a
 22  number of times, but if we could look at -- at -- at
 23  Exhibit 190, please.
 25                       (BRIEF PAUSE)


  1                 Q:   And this is the declaration of trust
  2  that is -- that was witnessed by the Mayor at that
  3  dinner.  But it was January 25th through January 29th,
  4  correct?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And it says that -- now going into
  7  this, I take it that Mr. Couprie held 100 percent of the
  9                 A:   I -- 
 10                 Q:   Mr. --
 11                 A:   I believe, yes.
 12                 Q:   Mr. Lax took us through the exchange
 13  with the lawyers this morning that transferred the entire
 14  interest to him.  And this says that he's holding 80
 15  percent of those shares in trust for you, correct?
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   And that he won't deal with them
 18  except with your instructions and consent.  So he could
 19  deal with them if you gave him consent, correct?
 20                 A:   Correct.
 21                 Q:   Okay.  It also says here that you're
 22  to pay him double the amount of money advanced by WCD for
 23  the deposit.  So that's --
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   -- seven hundred and fifty thousand


  1  (750,000), plus seven hundred and fifty thousand
  2  (750,000)?
  3                 A:   Correct.
  4                 Q:   And at this point, as I understand
  5  it, Mr. Couprie has gotten back seven hundred and fifty
  6  thousand (750,000)?
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   But he hasn't got his additional
  9  seven hundred (700) --
 10                 A:   No, he does not have it yet.
 11                 Q:   So whatever -- whatever the -- the
 12  legalities are at the end of the day, he's at least
 13  entitled to another seven hundred and fifty thousand
 14  (750,000)?
 15                 A:   According to that, yes.
 16                 Q:   Okay.  So at this point, he's holding
 17  80 percent of the shares in trust, subject to disposing
 18  of them with your agreement.
 19                 So then we go to 190 -- Exhibit 193, which
 20  is the Shareholders' Agreement with Mr. Cook, where Mr.
 21  Couprie transfers 20 percent of the shares to Mr. Cook,
 22  correct?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And you were aware at that -- of that
 25  at the time?


  1                 A:   I was aware of it.
  2                 Q:   And you agreed with it?
  3                 A:   I didn't sign any documentation, but
  4  I was aware of it, yes.
  5                 Q:   But did you agree with it or
  6  disagree?
  7                 A:   Well, I didn't disagree, so I had to
  8  agree, I guess.
  9                 Q:   And then we've got the agreement in
 10  193 -- sorry, 193, Exhibit 193, which is the trust and
 11  Shareholders' Agreement between Landplex and Mr. Couprie,
 12  which is August 1st, 2007.  Well...
 13                 It is -- I think it's actually, perhaps,
 14  page 23 of the same document.
 16                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 18                 Q:   Can we try 197?  If we can go just
 19  down a bit.
 20                 Now, Mr. Lax suggested to you that you --
 21  whoa, thank you -- that you were the beneficial owner of
 22  80 percent of the shares.  In fact, this document says
 23  that Mr. Couprie is the beneficial owner of 80 common
 24  shares.  Do you see that?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   But in any event, the effect of this
  2  was to transfer to -- to Mr. DeCicco 80 percent of
  3  whatever Mr. Couprie's interest was?
  4                 A:   Correct.
  5                 Q:   And you were in a -- you were aware
  6  of that?
  7                 A:   Yes, I was.
  8                 Q:   And did you agree with it?
  9                 A:   I agreed with it.
 10                 Q:   Okay, you consented to that.  Thank
 11  you.
 12                 I would like to ask -- jump forward to
 13  August/September of 2009 and the issue of the affidavit.
 14                 The Mayor will testify -- and I want to
 15  know if you -- you recall this, Mr. McCallion -- that
 16  prior to any of the affidavits being signed, she was told
 17  by either yourself, or by Mr. DeCicco, or by Mr.
 18  Bisceglia that they would be commencing litigation on
 19  behalf of WCD as against the co-owners.
 20                 A:   Yes.  I don't remember who would have
 21  told her though.
 22                 Q:   But you knew she was aware of that.
 23                 A:   She was aware of it, yes.
 24                 Q:   And she will testify that she was
 25  told that there would be affidavits filed by yourself and


  1  by Mr. DeCicco --
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   -- and that those affidavits would --
  4  would say that she attended a number of meetings in
  5  connection with WCD.
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   Do you remember that?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   And that her response to that was, Do
 10  what you have to do.  Do you remember that?
 11                 A:   I don't remember that, no.
 12                 Q:   I take it that you also don't recall
 13  her actually reviewing any of these affidavits.
 14                 A:   No.
 15                 Q:   But you do recall her calling you up
 16  when she learned that an affidavit had been filed in
 17  court in which you said you were a principal of WCD.
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   And I take it that she indicated to
 20  you in that phone call that she was very surprised that
 21  you were being represented as a principal of a dub -- of
 22  WCD.
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   That it was not her understanding
 25  throughout that that was what you were.


  1                 A:   Exactly.
  2                 Q:   And she said to you, something to the
  3  effect, Are you a principal of WCD.  And you said, no,
  4  you're not.
  5                 A:   Yeah, it is correct.
  6                 Q:   And at the time, you didn't tell her
  7  -- this time, you didn't tell her about the loans, right?
  8                 A:   No.
  9                 Q:   You didn't tell her about the money
 10  you'd put in or taken out.
 11                 A:   No.
 12                 Q:   You didn't tell her any of those --
 13  those transactions that we have reviewed here.  You
 14  didn't --
 15                 A:   No.
 16                 Q:   You told her that your name was on
 17  nothing.  You told her that you weren't a shareholder.
 18                 A:   That is correct.
 19                 Q:   And she said to you -- well, I think
 20  she asked you, did she not, if you had gotten independent
 21  legal advice before you filed the affidavit.
 22                 A:   I don't recall if she asked that.
 23  But if she asked it, I would have answered, no, I did
 24  not.
 25                 Q:   And I take it she encouraged you to


  1  make sure that the documents filed in court were
  2  accurate.
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, I would suggest to you
  5  the bottom line, sir, is that you misled your mother with
  6  respect to your actual role in WCD.
  7                 A:   Misled or I wasn't aware of it at the
  8  time?
  9                 Q:   You led her to believe that your only
 10  involvement with WCD was as an agent.
 11                 A:   Correct.
 12                 Q:   And that when you had the
 13  opportunity, when she confronted you in August of 2009
 14  around the affidavit and what your role was, you again
 15  misled her with respect to your real role in WCD.
 16                 A:   At the time, I expressed what I
 17  thought my role was.
 18                 Q:   Finally, I want to ask you about some
 19  evidence you gave when Mr. Gover was asking you
 20  questions.  You talked about the impact on your real
 21  estate practice and the fact that your mother has been
 22  the Mayor for your entire adult life, and you said there
 23  were some detriments and some benefits.
 24                 In dealing with the City staff of
 25  Mississauga, and I take it you've had to deal with them


  1  in a number of transactions, not just this one?
  2                 A:   Correct.
  3                 Q:   Do you receive any preferential
  4  treatment from the City staff because of your
  5  relationship with the Mayor?
  6                 A:   Absolutely not.
  7                 Q:   Why do you say that?
  8                 A:   Because they're very cautious when
  9  they see me coming.
 10                 Q:   With respect to the WCD deal in
 11  particular, did you get any prefer -- did WCD get any
 12  preferential treatment from the City staff?
 13                 A:   Not at all, in my eyes.
 14                 Q:   And what about from the owners?
 15                 A:   I can't answer about the owners.
 16                 Q:   And what about from your mother and
 17  her interactions with OMERS on behalf of WCD?  Did you
 18  get any prefer -- did WCD get any preferential treatment
 19  because of your relationship with the Mayor?
 20                 A:   I would say, no.
 21                 Q:   Thank you.  I have no further
 22  questions.
 23                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 24  you.  Mr. McDowell...?
 25                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Just a few


  1  questions.
  3                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  6  Gover -- ordinarily I would have asked Mr. Gover --
  7                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   I -- I didn't see
  8  him rise, so I didn't --
  9                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Yeah.  No, fair enough.
 10                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Do --
 11  do you have some re-examination?
 12                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   And -- and I don't, in
 13  fact, and I had just said to Mr. McDowell, ordinarily
 14  there would be a right of re-examination.  I was not
 15  seeking to exercise it, and I was letting him know that -
 16  - that I wasn't holding anyone to that right.  Thank you.
 17                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   I didn't sense Mr.
 18  Gover looming there, so I -- I got up.
 21                 Q:   Just a -- a few questions, sir.  You
 22  gave evidence with respect to the number and frequency of
 23  telephone calls through 2007/2008 from Mr. DeCicco to
 24  your mother, the Mayor.
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   And Ms. McIntyre has elicited from
  2  you that you didn't tell your mother anything about Mr.
  3  DeCicco's role in this company and that effectively, she
  4  knew nothing about his ownership interest.
  5                 A:   Well, she may have, but not from me.
  6                 Q:   All right.  What did you think she
  7  understood to be Mr. DeCicco's role with WCD?
  8                 A:   Owner, manager.
  9                 Q:   Owner.
 10                 A:   Financier.
 11                 Q:   Right.  You told us, or it was
 12  suggested to you, that you never discussed with your
 13  mother the basis upon which you were going to be
 14  compensated, in commissions or otherwise?
 15                 A:   No, I did not.
 16                 Q:   Right.  You don't mean to suggest to
 17  us that your mother thought that getting into the WCD
 18  transaction was just a wholly altruistic act on your
 19  part.
 20                 She understood that you were going to be
 21  compensated in some way, I take it.
 22                 A:   At some way, yes, but I didn't
 23  discuss how or how -- or when.
 24                 Q:   Fair enough.  And you didn't get into
 25  the specifics of the commission arrangements, if there


  1  were any, in fact.
  2                 A:   Exactly.
  3                 Q:   All right.  You discussed this
  4  festive dinner on January the 25th, 2007, down at Pier 4.
  5  And it was suggested to you, and you now recall, that
  6  there were discussions about your mother --
  7                 A:   Suggestion.
  8                 Q:   -- suggest -- suggesting hotels in --
  9  in Asia that you might want to visit, for example, the
 10  Shangri La and others?
 11                 A:   Correct.
 12                 Q:   And did you have any discussions with
 13  these hoteliers?
 14                 A:   We visited them.
 15                 Q:   Did you discuss with the management
 16  of the hotels?
 17                 A:   No, we did not.
 18                 Q:   No.  As I understand it, your mother
 19  will come and testify that you -- that she suggested to
 20  you that having regard to the contents of the affidavit
 21  that you had sworn, it was important that you get
 22  independent legal advise, and you can't recall whether or
 23  not that was something that she said to you?
 24                 A:   I don't recall that specifically, no.
 25                 Q:   You do recall, I take it, that once


  1  you had had a look at the affidavit and the error had
  2  been pointed out to you, that you did get independent
  3  legal -- get you got legal advise from your mother's
  4  lawyer, effectively, Mr. Schwarz, and his firm?
  5                 A:   No.
  6                 Q:   That's who swore -- that's who
  7  commissioned the second and third affidavits?
  8                 A:   They commissioned it.  That's all
  9  they did.
 10                 Q:   They gave you no advice?
 11                 A:   No.
 12                 Q:   Did you seek any advise from them?
 13                 A:   No.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  Thank you, sir.
 15                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 16  you.  Thank you very much, Mr. McCallion.
 17                 THE WITNESS:   Thank you.
 18                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   You may
 19  step down.
 21                   (WITNESS STANDS DOWN)
 23                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Now, we
 24  have a brief witness.  How brief?
 25                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   I would think


  1  about twenty (20) minutes or twenty-five (25) minutes in-
  2  chief.
  4  right.  Well, why don't we take a very brief -- let's
  5  take ten (10) minutes and come back.  I -- I want to get
  6  the final witness on this afternoon if we can.
  7                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Yes.
  8                 THE COURT CLERK:  Order.  All rise,
  9  please.
 10                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Commissioner, just
 11  right before you're leaving, we only have one (1) witness
 12  to do.
 13                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Oh, do
 14  we?
 15                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Yes, we dispensed
 16  with the other one.  Thanks.
 17                 THE COURT CLERK:   The Inquiry stands
 18  recessed for ten (10) minutes.
 20  --- Upon recessing at 3:37 p.m.
 21  --- Upon resuming at 3:50 p.m.
 23                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 24  please.  The Inquiry is reconvened.  Please be seated.
 25                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   If we


  1  could swear Mr. Latimer, please.
  2                 THE COURT CLERK:  Do you wish to be sworn
  3  on the Bible or make an affirmation?
  4                 MR. MICHAEL LATIMER:   The Bible is fine.
  5                 THE COURT CLERK:   Hold the Bible in your
  6  right hand, please, and state your name in full.
  7                 MR. MICHAEL LATIMER:   Robert Michael
  8  Latimer.
  9                 THE COURT CLERK:   Spell your last name
 10  for the record.
 11                 MR. MICHAEL LATIMER:   L-A-T-I-M-E-R.
 13               ROBERT MICHAEL LATIMER, Sworn
 16                 Q:   Mr. Latimer, you are the Executive
 17  Vice President and Chief Investment Officer of OMERS, I--
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   And you have held that position since
 20  January 1st of this year?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   Now, we simply ask everybody this:
 23  Tell us about your education before going into business.
 24                 A:   Oh, well, my education, I'm -- I'm a
 25  graduate -- business graduate from McMaster University


  1  where I currently happen to be on the Board of Governors.
  2                 Q:   And you say that you've got thirty
  3  (30) years of corporate leadership experience in public
  4  and private companies.  Before OMERS just go back a few
  5  years and tell us --
  6                 A:   Sure.
  7                 Q:   -- about your background.
  8                 A:   Maybe I'll take you back as far as
  9  Trizec Corporation where I was the President of the
 10  Canadian office company; Executive Vice President of the
 11  corporation.  From there I went to OMERS Realty
 12  Corporation where I was their Managing Director, and from
 13  there over to Borealis, and then from there to Oxford
 14  Properties as their President and CEO.
 15                 Q:   Right.  So when we're talking about
 16  the City Centre/WCD land deal, what capacity were you in
 17  at that point?
 18                 A:   When I -- during my tenure at -- at
 19  Oxford?
 20                 Q:   Right.
 21                 A:   The President and CEO.
 22                 Q:   Right.  And that's throughout -- if
 23  we just take the years 2005 onwards, is that the position
 24  you held during that --
 25                 A:   Yes, I -- actually since the


  1  beginning of 2004.
  2                 Q:   Right.  Now, we have had fairly
  3  extensive evidence about the -- where the lands were, and
  4  the -- the ownership structure between the -- the co-
  5  owners.
  6                 What was your understanding about the
  7  historical position, if I can put it that way, of the
  8  City and the Mayor, with respect to developing the
  9  downtown core, specifically with respect to a -- to a
 10  hotel complex?
 11                 A:   Well, the -- the City of Mississauga
 12  and their official plan, I mean, they were really
 13  shifting to what I would call more of an -- an urban
 14  orientation, so more like the City of Toronto, quite
 15  frankly, and the -- a hotel was always envisioned as part
 16  of the overall development scheme.  And so we, of course,
 17  with our ownership interest in -- in Square One, had a
 18  pretty significant role as it relates to that.
 19                 So, you know, I mean my view it was that
 20  the official plan was a -- was an evolution that was
 21  there from -- from the day that we bought Hammerson
 22  Canada, which is when we actually picked up our interest
 23  in Square One, and it was always a vision to develop it
 24  beyond a suburban mall environment.
 25                 Q:   And was this goal specific to the


  1  Mayor, or was it more broad than that, as far as you
  2  understood?
  3                 A:   No, it's more broad.  It's -- it's
  4  encompassed in their -- in their official plan.
  5                 Q:   All right.  Now, with respect to the
  6  Mayor, not just with respect to this project, what's it
  7  like -- what was it like being the CEO of Oxford, dealing
  8  with the -- the Mayor of Mississauga?
  9                 A:   Well, you know, my own view of -- of
 10  the Mayor is that she's a very focussed individual.  She
 11  has a desire to see the execution of the official plan,
 12  which is in place in Mississauga, and she was certainly
 13  out there championing the cause to have different things
 14  developed.
 15                 And frankly if you look at it, I mean, you
 16  know, from our perspective, it's the sixth largest
 17  municipality in Canada, it's probably got upwards of
 18  sixty (60) of the Fortune 500 companies situated here,
 19  and so, you know, these things are good for us.  I mean,
 20  we've got $400 million invested in -- at our -- at our
 21  interest in -- in Square One.
 22                 Q:   And does the Mayor deal with things
 23  personally, or does she delegate everything down?
 24                 A:   I'd say it was a combination, but
 25  she's definitely hands-on.


  1                 Q:   Now, in dealing with the City,
  2  obviously from time to time you deal with the Mayor, but
  3  do Oxford officials deal with municipal officials?
  4                 A:   Yes, we would.  I mean, you know,
  5  maybe I'd explain it in this way, we -- we are -- manage
  6  our own -- our -- our money, so our -- we're direct
  7  management.  So when you actually view Oxford, we have --
  8  we don't use third party managers, and so our style of
  9  business would have -- would have us with multiple people
 10  across our organization.  So you would have had exposure
 11  to our development group, as an example.
 12                 Q:   Right.
 13                 A:   And so that development group would
 14  deal with the transportation department, the planning
 15  department, you know, various relationships which would
 16  exist across our organization, and of course, across the
 17  City.
 18                 Q:   And are these relationships ones that
 19  you -- that you -- your officials developed over the
 20  years, but particularly City officials?
 21                 A:   That -- that does take place, and
 22  that's -- frankly, that's beneficial for us to know the
 23  people we're dealing with.
 24                 Q:   Now, talking about third party
 25  managers, do I take it that AIM is set up with third


  1  party managers in Ontario at least?
  2                 A:   They have a different business model
  3  than we do; they utilize third party managers.
  4                 Q:   Right.  So in other words, these are
  5  people who own their own businesses and then provide
  6  advice to AIM.
  7                 Is that a fair way of putting it?
  8                 A:   That's fairly put.
  9                 Q:   Now, in the fall of 2005, I gather
 10  there was some contact with the Mayor in relation to the
 11  notion of a four-star hotel in the City Centre.  I wonder
 12  if we could pull up OMR002002891, which I think is
 13  Exhibit 258.
 15                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 17                 Q:   So there had been an email which
 18  related to the Mayor's contact with Paul Haggis.  And I
 19  know there was some prominence in the media of this email
 20  today.  But the Mayor had been fairly vigorous in
 21  speaking with Mr. Haggis, and this is your email back.
 22  Can you just give us a synopsis of the message in this
 23  email.
 24                 A:   I can.  I -- just -- if I could ask
 25  maybe to centre it.  I just -- there's a portion of it on


  1  my screen that's been just cut off and --
  2                 Q:   Sure.  Can you move that a little bit
  3  -- no?
  4                 A:   It would have to go to the right,
  5  please.
  6                 Q:   I'm not sure we can move that one for
  7  some reason.
  8                 A:   Okay.
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12                 A:   Well, I'll go -- let -- let -- allow
 13  me -- if you can't move it, allow me to attempt to
 14  respond to it then, Mr. McDowell.
 15                 So it's -- you know, there's obviously
 16  some correspondence, which is in discussion, which has
 17  gone on with Paul Haggis, who is the President and CEO of
 18  OMERS, with the Mayor, and with -- with Fred Biro, who
 19  is, I believe, the Chair of the OMERS Board of Directors.
 20                 And this was my response back to Paul, in
 21  wanting to make it perfectly clear how we would conduct
 22  our business and -- and the fact that our responsibility,
 23  specifically, my responsibility on behalf of OM -- OMERS
 24  and Oxford, specifically, as their president and CEO, was
 25  to -- to make sure that we got the right decisions and


  1  the right uses and that we executed things that were
  2  appropriate for us.
  3                 Q:   Right.
  4                 A:   And so respective of what others and
  5  third parties may desire, our focus and responsibility
  6  was to our shareholders.
  7                 Q:   So you say:
  8                   "Our decisions may not always be
  9                   popular.  It may not fit a third party
 10                   agenda."
 11                 So, in other words, that they may or may
 12  not align with the City, I take it?
 13                 A:   In that case, yes, I -- I think I was
 14  making specific reference to the City.
 15                 Q:   And then the next paragraph:
 16                   "We -- we have no intention to
 17                   frustrate the Mayor, nor, frankly,
 18                   would it be in our best interest as you
 19                   would expect in our investments in
 20                   Mississauga."
 21                 So just to pause there, you know, what is
 22  your attitude about getting on with the Mayor of a major
 23  municipality if you've got big land holdings in the -- in
 24  the city?
 25                 A:   It -- it's fundamental.  It's


  1  extremely important at the end of the day.  And so,
  2  whether it's the Mayor's office, Mr. McDowell, what asked
  3  me, or whether it's through the Planning Department or --
  4  or other departments, it's very important to have a
  5  relationship with the party you're doing business with in
  6  the City.
  7                 Q:   Right.  So you set to -- to see
  8  whether your interest can align, but at the end of the
  9  day the interest of your stakeholders, your shareholders,
 10  are -- are paramount.
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   Now, the Mayor had been quoted in the
 13  -- in one (1) of the emails about being frustrated that
 14  there had not been a sale to her preferred group, and I
 15  guess your response to that notion is answered in this
 16  email.
 17                 Were you concerned about Peter McCallion's
 18  involvement of WCD when you learned about it?
 19                 A:   No.
 20                 Q:   Maybe I should start by asking you
 21  when you learned about it.
 22                 A:   I'd say probably right from the --
 23  from the -- the get go.  So let -- let me describe that
 24  as probably late 2005, 2006.
 25                 Q:   All right.  And --


  1                 A:   Early 2006, that's correct.
  2                 Q:   And then I cut you off.  Did that
  3  cause you any concern?
  4                 A:   No.
  5                 Q:   Just explain that for us.
  6                 A:   You know, he was a real estate agent;
  7  we're accustomed to dealing with real estate agents.  I
  8  know that -- that our organization, when we -- there's a
  9  specific document here on May the 1st where -- where the
 10  way we conduct our business, our Executive Committee
 11  would have -- would have reviewed, as a part of our
 12  process, how we were going to view going forward with --
 13  with the WCD.
 14                 So, as part of the normal course, we would
 15  have -- have reviewed any involvement of Mr. McCallion
 16  and the fact whether there was any commission payable.
 17  And, at the end of the day, the agreement of purchase and
 18  sale made specific reference that there would not be.
 19                 Q:   All right.  Is there a distinction
 20  between just -- and I appreciate that you had no notion
 21  that -- that he had any interest apart from being an
 22  agent, but would there have been a distinction between
 23  his commission received from whatever source as an agent
 24  and a shareholding that he had in the proposed purchaser?
 25                 Would that have made any difference?


  1                 A:   I'm sorry, are you asking me would it
  2  have made a difference?
  3                 Q:   Yeah.
  4                 A:   We weren't aware that he was a
  5  shareholder.  We understood him to be an agent.
  6                 Q:   No, I appreciate that.  But -- but if
  7  you had, would that have made any difference?
  8                 A:   We would have taken a different view,
  9  yes.
 10                 Q:   Right.  And why is that?
 11                 A:   Because we would have wanted to make
 12  sure that -- that he was conducting himself accordingly.
 13                 Q:   All right.  Now, dealing with the
 14  negotiations with WCD, to what extent were you involved
 15  in the negotiations after the offer had been received?
 16                 A:   Maybe I can just explain our -- our
 17  business model.  As I --
 18                 Q:   Sure.
 19                 A:   -- as I said, I mean, I have a number
 20  of direct reports.  So, in this particular instance,
 21  between the Executive Vice President of Asset Management,
 22  Paul Brundage, and Ron Peddicord, as our Senior Vice
 23  President of Development --
 24                 Q:   M-hm.
 25                 A:   -- it would have been delegated to


  1  them.
  2                 Q:   All right.  And do you they keep you
  3  aware -- or did they keep you aware, from time to time,
  4  about what was going on?
  5                 A:   They would keep me aware, in
  6  addition, the Executive Committee Group that we have.
  7                 Q:   Okay.  Now, could we pull up
  8  OMR001002395.
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12                 Q:   Two eight two (282) -- two eight two
 13  (280).  Two eighty (280) -- that's two eighty seven
 14  (287).
 16                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 18                 Q:   So this is submitted to the executive
 19  committee of Oxford?
 20                 A:   That would be correct.
 21                 Q:   Right.  Explain to us the approvals
 22  process.  You began to, and I -- I -- I think I cut you
 23  off. But how does this work?
 24                 A:   So this would be the -- the committee
 25  itself, the executive committee, would be represented


  1  with membership, which would include myself and my direct
  2  reports.
  3                 So the sponsorship group would -- would
  4  bring forward a recommendation.  That recommendation,
  5  without seeing the benefit of the entire document, would
  6  capture what that recommendation would entail.
  7                 And as a result of assuming an approval,
  8  then the management would then be responsible to go back
  9  and effect the -- the direction from the committee.
 10                 Q:   Right.  And how much time would be
 11  spent in an executive committee meeting dealing with
 12  this, or is it just -- is it just done on kind of a
 13  negative option basis, if anyone's got an -- an issue
 14  with this --
 15                 A:   Well, there's always -- there's
 16  always discussion.  It depends on -- this could have been
 17  part of a multiple agenda.  We wouldn't necessarily just
 18  deal with one (1) thing at a time.  But there would be
 19  the appropriate amount of time spent to deal with it.
 20                 Q:   Now, the OMERS Investment Committee
 21  was also advised of this, I take it.  If we could pull up
 22  OMR001002225.
 23                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Do you
 24  have a number?
 25                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Just a second.


  1                 THE COURT CLERK:   Two eighty three (283).
  3  eighty three (283), there we go.
  6                 Q:   So this is Oxford passing up the line
  7  the -- the submission with respect to this transaction?
  8                 A:   That is correct.
  9                 Q:   And is that -- again, I -- I don't
 10  want to get too far into this.
 11                 But is this put before the -- the OMERS
 12  investment committee as sort of an information item, or
 13  is there a full discussion there as well?
 14                 A:   It would have been put forward as an
 15  information item, but there would have been -- in this
 16  particular case, I would have been responsible to address
 17  the item, and to deal with any Q&A.
 18                 Q:   Now, I know that in your Will Say
 19  document you speak of protracted negotiations.
 20  Negotiations were carried on with the assistance of -- of
 21  teams of lawyers on both sides, I take it.
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   And we know that these went over a
 24  period of about eight (8) months.  Could you speak to two
 25  (2) issues in the negotiations; one (1) the sale price of


  1  the lands, and two (2) the -- the use that Oxford
  2  envisioned for the lands.  How important is price in the
  3  scheme of things?
  4                 A:   It was secondary.
  5                 Q:   Can you speak to the issue of use and
  6  why use is important, given the Square One landholder?
  7                 A:   Use, at the end of the day, I mean,
  8  actually drives -- drives value.  I mean, if you -- if
  9  you view our business, we're in the value creation
 10  business.
 11                 Our material investment in the City of
 12  Mississauga is Square One, the shopping centre.  And so
 13  where we have an opportunity to actually add
 14  complementary uses, util -- utilizing and letting someone
 15  else put their capital at risk to do that, but it's
 16  complimentary to our shopping centre --
 17                 Q:   Okay.
 18                 A:   -- frankly, at the end of the day,
 19  that's good use of -- of their capital on our behalf for
 20  value creation.
 21                 Q:   All right.  And when you consider the
 22  use of having a -- a hotel, or a high -- and the high-
 23  rise condominium project right next to the Square One
 24  lands, how does that feature in your evaluation of that
 25  as a -- as a -- an ideal use?


  1                 A:   I think it's a very good use.  It was
  2  part of the official plan, and it was seen as something
  3  that was complimentary to the development of a City
  4  Centre.
  5                 Q:   All right.  Would it have been better
  6  to have the thing all condos as opposed to condos and a
  7  four-star hotel, from the point of view of use?
  8                 A:   No.  My -- my view is that that was
  9  an appropriate use.
 10                 Q:   Now, if you're considering a four-
 11  star hotel in -- in this location in Mississauga, how
 12  economically feasible would it have been to put a hotel
 13  there?  You've heard some evidence about that from a
 14  number of people.
 15                 A:   It would have been difficult.
 16                 Q:   And why is that?
 17                 A:   It's just -- it -- it -- it's -- any
 18  hotel takes a period of time to actually mature.  And so
 19  those investment dollars, the initial return probably
 20  would have been reasonably nominal.
 21                 So the -- you know, the mixed use, if you
 22  will, the hotel in -- in concert with the residential,
 23  would have actually helped the economics of an overall
 24  development at the end of the day.
 25                 Q:   And it's our understanding, based on


  1  the evidence we've heard, that that's becoming more
  2  common with high-end hotels, combining them with
  3  condominium projects?
  4                 A:   Yes, it is.
  5                 Q:   Now we won't go into the purchase and
  6  sale agreement, but from your standpoint what were the
  7  principal protections with respect to use in the
  8  agreement of purchase and sale?
  9                 A:   There were multiple conditions that
 10  were in there that were in our favour, so it was a very
 11  vendor favourable document as it related to specifics of
 12  use, time of execution, the amount of deposits that were
 13  required.
 14                 Q:   And the idea, I take it, was to
 15  ensure that WCD, in fact, was carrying forward with its
 16  intention to put a four-star hotel on the property?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   Now, again, you were kept up to speed
 19  in some fashion as proposed changes were made to the
 20  agreement before execution?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   Did you have to sign off on the final
 23  form of the agreement of purchase and sale or was that
 24  entrusted to the lawyers?
 25                 A:   That would have been delegated.


  1                 Q:   To the lawyers or to somebody -- to
  2  your in-house legal staff?  To whom was that delegated?
  3                 A:   To our officers of our -- of -- of
  4  Oxford.
  5                 Q:   Right.  Now were you aware of who the
  6  principal was of WCD at the time the negotiations were
  7  taking place?
  8                 A:   I understood it to be Murray Cook.
  9                 Q:   Did you know Murray Cook?
 10                 A:   I did not.
 11                 Q:   And did you become aware at some
 12  point in 2008 that there had been a change in the
 13  ownership group at WCD?
 14                 A:   At one (1) point I was informed by
 15  our management.
 16                 Q:   And who did you understand to be the
 17  new owner or proponent at WCD?
 18                 A:   Mr. Tony DeCicco.
 19                 Q:   And did you know what his interest
 20  was, whether he was a principal shareholder or a
 21  shareholder, or what was your understanding of his
 22  capacity within the company?
 23                 A:   I -- I was not aware.
 24                 Q:   Now we have heard a fair amount of
 25  evidence about negotiations from February onward with


  1  respect to amendments to the agreement of purchase and
  2  sale and specifically with respect to extensions sought,
  3  some of them contemplated by the original agreement, some
  4  of them outside the agreement.
  5                 What was your attitude generally about the
  6  grant of extensions?
  7                 A:   I -- I was -- I was fine with the
  8  extensions.
  9                 Q:   Now this -- we've heard evidence here
 10  that in the early going, in the fall of 2007 -- or sorry,
 11  the early going in 2006 going into 2007, it had been Ron
 12  Peddicord who had been handling the negotiations.  And I
 13  gather than Michael Kitt joined Oxford in the fall of
 14  2007; is that right?
 15                 A:   Yes, November 2007.
 16                 Q:   And can we just have a look at one
 17  (1) of these emails dealing with extensions, which is
 18  OMR001002339.
 19                 MS. NAOMI LOEWITH:   Exhibit 285.
 22                 Q:   Exhibit 285.  And so the bottom one
 23  there:
 24                   "Hazel [the Mayor] is said to have
 25                   called via Michael Nobrega and asked


  1                   that WCD be given six (6) more months
  2                   to find a hotel."
  3                 Was it your understanding that she had
  4  been put on to Mr. Kitt by Mr. Nobrega about the
  5  extension?
  6                 A:   I don't recall the specifics of -- of
  7  that.
  8                 Q:   And then you indicated your -- your
  9  assent to the extension at the top email there?
 10                 A:   Yes, I did.
 11                 Q:   Was there anything unusual in your
 12  view about the Mayor being in contact with Mr. Nobrega to
 13  get the extension and the -- the developer himself not
 14  calling?
 15                 A:   It wasn't unusual for the Mayor to
 16  contact people across the organization.
 17                 Q:   So that was sort of standard practice
 18  as far as --
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   -- you were concerned?
 21                 Now there had been a clause in the
 22  agreement that allowed for the repurchase of Block 9
 23  apart from the hotel site for ten dollars ($10) if the
 24  hotel was not substantially performed within a certain
 25  period of time, what was the reason for that clause in


  1  the first place?
  2                 A:   It was -- frankly, specific
  3  performance to the extent they weren't -- they weren't
  4  able to execute on the hotel.  We wanted to ensure that
  5  we had the rights to -- to secure our property back.
  6                 Q:   Right.  And you'd have to spend a lot
  7  of money if it was partly completed itself, I take it?
  8                 A:   There would be major complications,
  9  yes.
 10                 Q:   Now, what was your understanding
 11  about the ability of WCD through the fall of 2008 to
 12  actually meet the hotel conditions?
 13                 A:   I -- I would -- I would offer that as
 14  you -- you got to late 2008, it was becoming quite
 15  obvious that they weren't going to be able to meet those
 16  conditions.   Another comment I'd offer is 2008 was a
 17  fairly difficult economic environment.
 18                 Q:   Okay.  So if we could pull up
 19  OMR002002558, this is this memorandum from the 15th of
 20  December 2008.
 22                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 24                 Q:   This sets out, for your benefit, a
 25  chronology for Mr. Filipetti with respect to the progress


  1  on the conditions of the agreement.  And this memorandum
  2  contemplates that the agreement was going to be
  3  terminated?
  4                 A:   Could I just -- 
  5                 Q:   Can you just go up to the top again--
  6                 A:   Can you scroll back up to the top --
  7                 Q:   -- just for a second please?
  8                 A:  -- of that, up to the top.
  9                 Q:   Thank you.
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   You've
 12  got your book there.  It's Tab 8, I think, if you want to
 13  look at it there.  And by the way, I apologize.
 14                 THE WITNESS:   Thank you.
 16  finding it very warm in here, and I know it's -- I'm not
 17  sure why that is, but --
 18                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Nobody else is.
 19                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Yeah.
 20  If anybody out there is watching, if they could do
 21  something about it?
 24                 Q:   So this -- in any event, we know that
 25  the -- the deal was terminated on January the 9th, but --


  1  of the next year.
  2                 But what was your assessment of the
  3  advisability of terminating the Agreement of Purchase and
  4  Sale, as this memorandum seemed to contemplate?
  5                 A:   It would be in concurrence with the
  6  memorandum.
  7                 Q:   What consideration did you give to
  8  the fact that the economy had really slowed down, that
  9  credit was difficult to get, that WCD were looking for
 10  further extensions and so on?
 11                 A:   I think earlier on, we made -- there
 12  was an amendment that was made to -- to the agreement.
 13  But quite frankly, at this juncture, it was pretty
 14  obvious that things weren't going to come together, and -
 15  - respective of the economy.
 16                 Q:   Right.
 17                 A:   Irrespective, I should say, of the
 18  economy. 
 19                 Q:   So let's go to the second page.  So
 20  the Mayor and WCD, Mr. DeCicco -- DeCicco, I'm sorry,
 21  undertook to persuade AIM that a clean sale could be
 22  orchestrated so if the -- if the price was inflated by $2
 23  1/2 million, and then a designation, I guess, registered
 24  on land saying that only a hotel could be built, perhaps
 25  it could be done that way.


  1                 What was your attitude about that way of
  2  modifying the deal?
  3                 A:   It was one way that you could modify
  4  the -- could modify the deal, because in accordance, with
  5  the second bullet, you'd actually be putting it -- you'd
  6  --encumbering title with -- with a restriction, and you'd
  7  actually be putting the onus on the City to live up to
  8  its official plan with a hotel designation.
  9                 Q:   Was there a risk with that that the
 10  City could change its official plan back after you had
 11  actually let title pass?
 12                 A:   There's always a risk.
 13                 Q:   All right.  And so if you're looking
 14  out for the -- the use as the most important feature,
 15  that would disincline you to do that, I take it?
 16                 A:   You'd be disinclined.
 17                 Q:   All right.  And in the end, the --
 18  you know, the deal of course was terminated.  And I take
 19  it that there was no alternate purchaser in -- in view
 20  for this land for some period of time?
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q:   And then I gather that the -- the
 23  prospect of having Sheridan College use the lands for its
 24  purposes came into play.
 25                 When did you learn about that as a


  1  possibility?
  2                 A:   That would have been in -- in the --
  3  probably March or April of -- of 2009.
  4                 Q:   So you've had the prospect of
  5  condominium developments and the four-star hotel, where
  6  do -- having ten (10) or twelve thousand (12,000) college
  7  kids running around, where does that sit in the penumbra
  8  of possible uses for this land?
  9                 A:   To be frank, right at the top.
 10                 Q:   Why is that?
 11                 A:   Well, you know, when you think about
 12  a 24/7 city and you think about what makes the City of
 13  Toronto vibrant, and -- and so if you're trying to
 14  develop an urban environment in an suburban environment,
 15  what makes the City of Toronto vibrant?
 16                 You know, it's hotels.  It's universities.
 17  It's condominiums.  It's rental accommodation.  It's
 18  retail.  It's office.  So quite frankly, the -- the
 19  campus is incredibly complimentary for our -- our
 20  shopping centre.
 21                 Q:   Now, the deal's been terminated with
 22  WCD at this point.  WCD maintains it still has certain
 23  rights to the land.  I take it there was some desire to
 24  settle up whatever -- whatever dispute there was
 25  lingering with WCD.


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And can you just, in overview, walk
  3  us through the positions that had been taken?  I know
  4  that there's been reference in the evidence to date to
  5  the notion of returning about seven hundred and fifty
  6  thousand dollars ($750,000) in refundable deposits, and
  7  then part -- so a 1/4 million of non-refundable deposits
  8  -- in exchange for a release, so putting $1 million on
  9  the table.
 10                 Did that go anywhere?
 11                 A:   Did not.
 12                 Q:   And the negotiations continued for a
 13  number of months with respect to the terms of sale of the
 14  land.  So initially, I gather that you were going to sell
 15  the lands directly to Sheridan?
 16                 A:   I think those were part of the
 17  initial discussions, yes.
 18                 Q:   Right.  And then the deal changed at
 19  some point.  The proposal was then to sell the lands to
 20  the City, which would then lease them to Sheridan?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   There had been discussions, I gather,
 23  between Sheridan and the Federal Government to get
 24  infrastructure financing?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   Now, what part, if we look at coming
  2  up to a closing date, the fact that there's federal
  3  infrastructure money, what was the relevance to the fact
  4  that the Federal Government was putting infrastructure
  5  money into this?
  6                 A:   It would be material.  The -- at the
  7  end of the day, they -- those funds were necessary for
  8  the college to actually be built and...
  9                 Q:   And there are time lines associated
 10  with that, I take it?
 11                 A:   My understanding was that they had to
 12  be substantially completed for March 2011.
 13                 Q:   Which means you have to get the deal
 14  done.  You have to start construction fairly quickly.
 15                 A:   Things had to be expedited, correct.
 16                 Q:   And was there a commencement -- you
 17  may not know this, but was there a commencement deadline
 18  for the construction?
 19                 A:   I -- I don't know the answer to that.
 20                 Q:   Now, as we're approaching the -- the
 21  closing date for the deal, what was your attitude with
 22  respect to settling with WCD?  What -- what were you
 23  prepared to do?
 24                 A:   We're talking about the closing date
 25  with the City?


  1                 Q:   Yes.  Well, let me ask an intervening
  2  question.  I gather there was litigation commenced at
  3  some point to get a declaration with respect to the
  4  rights of WCD.
  5                 So OMERS commenced that litigation?
  6                 A:   Yes, that was in July, I believe,
  7  2009.
  8                 Q:   All right.  So we know that
  9  ultimately there's a settlement.  And why is it decided
 10  that OMERS will try and resolve the issue rather than
 11  just letting the litigation play out?
 12                 A:   There's a number of factors in play.
 13  I mean, July's a pretty -- pretty busy month when you
 14  actually look at -- at what was taking place.
 15                 You know, in July, we're entering into the
 16  Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the City.  We were
 17  sitting with and knew that there was litigation pending.
 18  In fact, I believe there was a court date set for October
 19  of that year on -- on WCD in the Agreement of Purchase
 20  and Sale with the City.  There were conditions that had
 21  to be -- had to be met.
 22                 We knew that Sheridan College was there.
 23  They needed it.  They had timing pressure as it relates
 24  to the infrastructure grant.  So many moving parts.
 25                 Q:   Right.  And so the attempt then was


  1  made to settle without letting the litigation play out?
  2                 A:   There were attempts back and forth,
  3  yes.
  4                 Q:   Now, at some point, I gather from the
  5  evidence that we've heard to date, there was an effort on
  6  the part of WCD's lawyers to offer to settle litigation
  7  by the payment of $3.8 million?
  8                 A:   That was in July, correct.
  9                 Q:   Right.  And then I gather that in
 10  July, as well, there's a conditional Agreement of
 11  Purchase and Sale which is executed so that you know that
 12  there's an agreement which has the potential to close at
 13  some point in the next few months?
 14                 A:   With the City of Mississauga,
 15  correct.
 16                 Q:   And what was the proposed closing
 17  date?
 18                 A:   September the 17th, because I believe
 19  there was a council meeting on the 16th.
 20                 Q:   We can look, it's Exhibit 128, but I
 21  believe that's correct.
 22                 Now, you've got -- you've got the
 23  litigation at this point that is still ongoing.  You're
 24  going to sell to the City, the City is going to conclude
 25  a lease with Sheridan.


  1                 So what do you do to protect the City and
  2  protect Sheridan, having regard to the fact that
  3  litigation is outstanding?
  4                 A:   Well, the City -- so first of all,
  5  the City has conditions in the agreement which we -- will
  6  have to be fulfilled that relate to the environmental and
  7  the ultimate soil conditions.  And then of course there's
  8  an indemnity that -- that exists.
  9                 And so the -- we had filed a notice of
 10  application to have it confirmed that the termination of
 11  the agreement with WCD was -- was -- was concluded.
 12                 Q:   Right.  So in other words, that's on
 13  your desk to get rid of?  Not yours personally, but it's
 14  -- it's up to Oxford and OMERS to -- to somehow deal with
 15  the litigation?
 16                 A:   We are definitely dealing with --
 17  with the litigation, yes.
 18                 Q:   Now, we're into the summer now at --
 19  at this point.  And I gather at some point in the summer,
 20  you had discussions with Mr. Nobrega about -- about
 21  settling the litigation?  What do you recall of those?
 22                 A:   I -- I went to see Michael in, would
 23  have been the end of August, I think the 28th of -- of
 24  August.  I would have gone to see him in the normal
 25  course on a number of different things, but this was


  1  clearly one of the -- the topics.  And, you know, from
  2  the period of July until August, there were a number of
  3  different things that were -- that were moving around.
  4                 And so we discussed the -- Sheridan.  We
  5  discussed the infrastructure grants.  We discussed the
  6  timeliness of it, the City agreement, the soil
  7  conditions, our ability to be able to deliver that so
  8  that we didn't void the arrangement, the indemnity.
  9                 And if I'm forgetting something, I'm not
 10  intentionally doing that.  There are just multiple things
 11  that I would have been reviewing with Michael in and
 12  around the -- the activities there.  It would have been
 13  normal course reporting for me.
 14                 Q:   The possibility, dare we suggest,
 15  that maybe the litigation doesn't go on the -- the
 16  contemplated time line?
 17                 A:   Well, the litigation was a -- was a -
 18  - an important part of that -- that discussion.  I mean,
 19  at this juncture it's -- we know that we have a court
 20  date, which is in October.  It's obviously well known
 21  that we have an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the
 22  City.
 23                 And so, you know, I'm -- I'm -- I'm
 24  concluding at that point that the -- the best thing in
 25  our favour is to actually bring conclusion with WCD --


  1                 Q:   Right.
  2                 A:   -- so that we're in a position where
  3  we actually can find ourself where we can deliver the
  4  title to the City, so that what we don't do is put
  5  Sheridan College in jeopardy and find ourself, frankly,
  6  in a position where we lose both Sheridan College and we
  7  end up in litigation that's protracted.
  8                 You know, my experience has been, given
  9  the number of litigation lawyers in here, the experience
 10  has been that these things never go according with the
 11  original time scra -- time frame.  So my expectation was
 12  that we just would have ha -- we would have lost
 13  everything.
 14                 Q:   That's the risk, anyway?
 15                 A:   That was the risk in my view.
 16                 Q:   Now, looking across the table to Mr.
 17  DeCicco, I take it when there's no other alternate
 18  purchaser there, he has some leverage.  But he has more
 19  leverage once the Sheridan deal is there and there to be
 20  imminently closed?
 21                 A:   I -- I'd say that's a reasonable
 22  comment.
 23                 Q:   Right.  Now, in thinking about
 24  expectations of the range of -- of dollars, if I can put
 25  it that way, that you're going to have to spend in order


  1  to resolve this, what does it tell you when there's been
  2  an offer from Mr. DeCicco for $3.8 million?
  3                 A:   That tells me we know the price to
  4  settle.  So -- give or take.  I mean, I'm not -- but it -
  5  - what it tells me is that -- that we know what -- what
  6  the range of settlement is now.
  7                 Q:   Right.  So that that looks like the
  8  ceiling to you, subject to increased costs or whatever?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   Right.  Now, tell us about the
 11  involvement of Mr. O'Brien in trying to resolve this
 12  litigation.
 13                 A:   Mr. O'Brien became involved, to the
 14  best of my knowledge, when we -- at our pre-IC meeting,
 15  which is an investment committee meeting.  We have Mr.
 16  O'Brien as a member of our -- of our board.  He attends
 17  that meeting.  And so Michael Nobrega briefed, actually,
 18  the group that morning on what was taking place.
 19                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Could
 20  you keep your voice up, sir.
 21                 THE WITNESS:   Oh, I'm sorry.  So do you
 22  want me to go back?
 25                 Q:   Just back up.  Mr. O'Brien became


  1  involved, and then you said that he briefed the group, I
  2  think.
  3                 A:   Yeah, Michael Nobrega would have
  4  brief the -- the pre-IC meeting.  And so David would have
  5  been part of that -- part of that group.
  6                 Q:   All right.  You -- can you fix a date
  7  on that?
  8                 A:   The pre-IC meeting was September the
  9  8th.
 10                 Q:   September the 8th.  And then would
 11  there have been a subsequent meeting after the settlement
 12  was concluded?
 13                 A:   After the settlement was con --
 14  concluded, would --
 15                 Q:   Yeah, where -- where this was
 16  referred to.
 17                 A:   I can't recall specifics.
 18                 Q:   And how -- how do you do these things
 19  -- actually, you know what, I better not ask that,
 20  because I think that's -- I'm going to get into
 21  privileged territory here, so I won't ask that.
 22                 Once it was learned within Oxford that the
 23  litigation had been settled for an all-in price of $4
 24  million, what was the reaction on your part?
 25                 A:   Quite frankly, I thought that was an


  1  appropriate solution.  It's part of the discussion that
  2  I'd had with Michael back in -- on the 28th.  It was my
  3  view that settling at -- at -- on or about $4 million was
  4  the right thing for us to do.
  5                 Q:   All right.  And if you look at that,
  6  I gather that it protects against the downside risk that
  7  you lose the Sheridan deal, that you're still involved in
  8  litigation, that's one feature?
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   The fact that you're getting a
 11  terrific use in the scheme of things, that's another
 12  feature?
 13                 A:   Absolutely.
 14                 Q:   All right.  So if you -- if -- I'm
 15  just going to suggest to you, if you're going to pay
 16  another half million or $1 million from where you sit,
 17  taking the long view, that's --that's just fine.
 18                 A:   Absolutely.
 19                 Q:   Were you aware that Mr. O'Brien
 20  apparently had been contacted by the Mayor, or had
 21  discussions with the Mayor, about taking on the role of
 22  settling this litigation?
 23                 A:   I was not.
 24                 Q:   All right.  Did you ever speak with
 25  him directly, except within the context of this meeting


  1  that you're referring to?
  2                 A:   Well, I would see David at other
  3  meetings, but I've not -- if you're asking me
  4  specifically about this topic, no.
  5                 Q:   All right.  I note for the record
  6  that it is a few degrees cooler now.  So apparently --
  7  apparently this internet thing works.  Those are my
  8  questions.
  9                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 10  you.
 11                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Now, maybe -- I
 12  don't know how many counsel have questions, but if we
 13  could just canvass how long people are going to be.  I
 14  really want to get Mr. Latimer out of here today, if we
 15  can.
 16                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Yeah.
 17  Well, what's the order?
 18                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   I'm prepared to
 19  go next --
 21  right,  Ms. McIntyre.
 22                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   -- we have had
 23  some discussion here with...


  1                 Q:   Mr. Latimer, I introduced myself to
  2  you earlier as counsel for the Mayor.
  3                 So you've -- you've told us that the City
  4  of Mississauga, known to you, was developing a
  5  traditional downtown core as opposed to a suburban-type
  6  environment through its official plan?
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   And you were aware of that.  And that
  9  because OMERS, we've -- we've learned, and its -- and its
 10  partner in Alberta not only owns Square One, but a lot of
 11  property around City core -- the City core, that you
 12  would have been integral to the development of downtown
 13  Mississauga?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   And as part of the City's vision for
 16  the core, you were aware of this plan to develop a hotel
 17  convention centre in connection with the Living Arts
 18  Centre?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   And you knew that the Mayor was a
 21  vocal supporter of the official plan generally and of
 22  that hotel development in particular?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   And in that context, I take it that
 25  it was not unusual to -- to you that the Mayor would


  1  communicate with Oxford with respect to her vision of the
  2  development of the City core?
  3                 A:   Correct.
  4                 Q:   And in fact, in your experience, the
  5  Mayor had been very active in communicating her views
  6  with a wide range of matters with respect to the City
  7  core and dealt with employ -- various employees of
  8  Oxford?
  9                 A:   That is correct.
 10                 Q:   And in particular, with respect to
 11  Square One.
 12                 A:   That is correct.
 13                 Q:   So I take it that there was nothing
 14  unusual, in your view, about her contact with yourself
 15  and Mr. Nobrega and Mr. Haggis, with respect to the WCD
 16  project.
 17                 A:   Correct.
 18                 Q:   That would be in keeping with her
 19  usual manner of dealing with things?
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   And I take it that Oxford deals with
 22  a number of mayors in a number of jurisdictions; is that
 23  fair?
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   I believe the same co-owners also own


  1  Yorkdale and Scarborough Town Centre; is that right?
  2                 A:   That is correct.
  3                 Q:   And with respect to this particular
  4  mayor, she's known to be an enthusiastic promoter of her
  5  city?
  6                 A:   Yes, she is.
  7                 Q:   And I think that -- or I would
  8  suggest to you that -- that she is very strategic and
  9  that her knowledge of the management of the city goes
 10  very deep, in part because of those very close
 11  relationships she forges with individuals in various
 12  businesses, including yours?
 13                 A:   Yes, she's had many years to develop
 14  those relationships.
 15                 Q:   And as a result, Mississauga has
 16  grown and developed in a way that's really unparalleled
 17  really with respect to other similar cities; is that not
 18  correct?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   And that development is a significant
 21  benefit, not only to -- to the City of Mississauga but
 22  also to Oxford and AIM, correct?
 23                 A:   We've been a -- we have been a
 24  beneficiary.
 25                 Q:   So now we have -- we have heard some


  1  suggestion that with retect -- with respect to the sale
  2  of -- the sale of these lands to WCD that the co-owners
  3  were reluctant sellers.
  4                 And I want to ask you about that because
  5  obviously -- obviously, when it came to the spring of --
  6  of 2009, the same owners were prepared to sell the
  7  property to Sheridan, ultimately to the City, but to
  8  Sheridan, correct?
  9                 A:   Yeah, that's correct.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  So with respect to moving
 11  backwards in the time frame that you were negotiating
 12  with WCD, I take it that the property was sitting there
 13  vacant and not being used for any purposes, correct?
 14                 A:   It was vacant property.
 15                 Q:   And -- and we heard from Mr. Lusk
 16  that pension funds prefer income-producing investments
 17  but, ultimately, it was decided that a tenant-based use
 18  was not something that was feasible for that property?
 19                 A:   I'm --
 20                 Q:   That's what he told us.
 21                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Rental.
 24                 Q:   Rental.  Rental properties was not --
 25  was not a -- a complementary use for that particular


  1  piece of property?
  2                 A:   I can't comment on what -- what Mr.
  3  Lusk opined on. 
  4                 Q:   Fair enough.  You have told us that -
  5  - that using the property for condos in conjunction with
  6  a hotel was a complementary use from OMERS' point of
  7  view?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   And ultimately, as long as the -- the
 10  price was right and the use was right and all of the
 11  other terms and conditions were right then, in fact,
 12  OMERS was a willing seller for the WCD project, correct?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   And, in fact, if that deal had been
 15  completed as agreed, it would have been a very good
 16  project for the co-owners in terms of the vibrancy of the
 17  city core and -- and your other investments in -- in the
 18  city core, correct?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   And it would have -- it would have
 21  increased activity and a convention hotel would have
 22  increased activity in the city core, correct?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   And it would have had shoppers like
 25  myself and other women going into -- into -- into the


  1  mall to generate revenue, correct?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Affluent women.
  6                 Q:   And it would also have been good for
  7  the City of Mississauga, correct?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   Because not only would it have
 10  achieved the -- a step towards achieving the City's
 11  vision for the city core with the hotel convention centre
 12  but that also the condos would have generated significant
 13  property val -- or property tax revenue, correct?
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   Now the next thing I wanted to ask
 16  you about was WCD as the Mayor's preferred group, and I
 17  keep reading about that in the newspaper, so I want to
 18  ask you about that.
 19                 I take it that Mississauga had been trying
 20  for some time to get someone to build a hotel beside the
 21  Living Arts Centre, is that fair?
 22                 A:   That would be my understanding.
 23                 Q:   And, in fact, we've looked at several
 24  promotional pieces that were put out, and I want to show
 25  you one (1) of those, which is Exhibit 182, to ask you if


  1  you're familiar with this.  This is from July of 2005,
  2  which I think falls within the time frame that you would
  3  have been with -- with Oxford.
  4                 And this is something put out by the
  5  economic development office of the City and is a --
  6  listed as a development opportunity for a hotel
  7  conference centre.  And we know that's it's been sent to
  8  quite a long list of hotel developers.
  9                 Were you familiar with this?
 10                 A:   I haven't -- I'm familiar with this
 11  document.
 12                 Q:   But you did know that economic
 13  development office of the City was promoting the idea of
 14  this hotel conference centre?
 15                 A:   We were aware in general that the
 16  City was promoting the -- the hotel conference centre.
 17                 Q:   And I take it that other than the WCD
 18  proposal, which came forward, that there were no other
 19  developers that approached OMERS, Oxford, AIM to your
 20  knowledge with respect to a proposal for a hotel
 21  conference centre on that site?
 22                 A:   They were the party we were dealing
 23  with.  We weren't pursuing any other partners.
 24                 Q:   And you weren't aware of any other
 25  parties that were pursuing you?


  1                 A:   I should have said parties.  I meant
  2  -- I said "partners."  I was not.
  3                 Q:   Thank you.  Now I did want to ask you
  4  a question about the documents to which Mr. McDowell took
  5  you, and, first of all, Exhibit 283.  If this is the --
  6  it's difficult when you can't see the actual document.
  7  You may have it the binder in front of you, I understand.
  8                 This is the report to the Investment
  9  Committee, Mr. Latimer, on May 18th, 2006.  And --
 10                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   Tab 3 of your
 11  binder.
 14                 Q:   Tab 3 of your binder, apparently.
 15  Thank you.  And this -- this is a report on the -- on the
 16  proposal, and it goes through the background, and then
 17  has a number of next steps.  Do you see that?
 18                 And if you go on to the third page,
 19  there's a point there which I wanted to ask you about,
 20  which -- where it says:
 21                   "WCD is committed to provide a letter
 22                   from the Mayor's office affirming
 23                   support for WCD in the development."
 24                 Do you see that?
 25                 A:   I see that.


  1                 Q:   And do you know if that was ever
  2  provided?
  3                 A:   I do not.
  4                 Q:   Perhaps if you could turn then to
  5  Exhibit 284, which is the report of January 31st, 2007,
  6  tab 4 in your book, sir --
  7                 A:   Thank you.  
  8                 Q:   -- which is -- is another report from
  9  January 31st.  And if you go to the third page, it says
 10  there, on the seventh bullet down --
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   -- that:
 13                   "The City of Mississauga has indicated
 14                   through the Planning Office and Janice
 15                   Baker, CAO of Mississauga, that they
 16                   are in support of this proposed
 17                   development and WCD."
 18                 So I take it that that was received,
 19  although I don't know that I see an actual letter from --
 20  from Ms. Baker.
 21                 A:   I don't.  Unless you can show me in
 22  here the -- the actual letter, I -- I'm not aware of it.
 23                 Q:   I couldn't find it, sir.  But I take
 24  it that, as far as you know, there wasn't an actual
 25  letter from the Mayor's office received, as contemplated


  1  by that earlier report?
  2                 A:   Sorry, are you -- have you now
  3  referenced back to the -- the May 18th report?
  4                 Q:   Yes.  Perhaps you can't shed any
  5  further light on it.
  6                 A:   Well, I -- I think I gave you my
  7  response.  I'm not aware.
  8                 Q:   Thank you.  Now I wanted to ask you a
  9  question about the agreement of purchase and sale.  And
 10  you may well have it there.  I'm not sure that you need
 11  it.  My understanding is that it did not have a change in
 12  management clause, change in control clause?
 13                 A:   I don't recall that it had one.
 14                 Q:   And I take it that that would -- is a
 15  clause that is quite usual in those kinds of agreements?
 16                 A:   Quite -- you know, it depends on the
 17  circumstance, and so, you know, to make -- that's a very
 18  broad statement to make.  It depends on how the agreement
 19  of purchase and sale is constructed.
 20                 Q:   Fair enough.  I think you told us
 21  that this was a very vendor friendly agreement of
 22  purchase and sale?
 23                 A:   I made that comment.
 24                 Q:   I -- do you -- can you recall if
 25  there was any discussion at the time as to whether or not


  1  such a clause should be put in?
  2                 A:   I -- I -- you know, that would have
  3  been delegated -- delegated down at my management --
  4                 Q:   Fair enough.
  5                 A:   -- to my management team.
  6                 Q:   But I take it if there had been such
  7  a clause that would have meant you'd be entitled to --
  8  the vendors would have be entitled to notification of a
  9  change in control at the -- of the purchaser's company?
 10                 A:   Subject to how it's drafted, yes.
 11                 Q:   It might have entitled the vendors to
 12  terminate the agreement, if they weren't happy with the
 13  change in control?
 14                 A:   I -- you know, I -- I won't comment
 15  on that.
 16                 Q:   Okay.  Fair enough.  So back for a
 17  moment to -- you got a call yourself, I take it, from
 18  Mayor McCallion with respect to the WCD proposal?
 19                 A:   I did.
 20                 Q:   And you were aware of two (2) other
 21  calls that she made; one (1) to Mr. Nobrega, and one (1)
 22  to Mr. Haggis?
 23                 A:   I'm aware of the call to Mr. Haggis
 24  because that lead to a response, my response to Mr.
 25  Haggis back in -- in October --


  1                 Q:   Right.
  2                 A:   -- of that period.
  3                 Q:   Right.  And were you also not aware
  4  of the call to Mr. Nobrega?
  5                 A:   Can you reference what call, or what
  6  -- where that is, and -- and what that timing is?
  7                 Q:   There is -- if I could -- I could
  8  refer you to Exhibit 285, and I don't know whether you
  9  have this in your book, but there's an --
 10                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   Tab 6.
 13                 Q:   Tab 6 of your book, sir.  Is a series
 14  of emails, and one (1) of them is from Michael Kitt to
 15  yourself, sent July 9th, 2008.  Do you see that?
 16                 A:   It's 7:18 a.m.?
 17                 Q:   Yes.
 18                 A:   Yes, that's --
 19                 Q:   You start work early, or Mr. -- Mr.
 20  Kitt starts work early.
 21                 A:   M-hm.
 22                 Q:
 23                   "Hazel called me last Friday via
 24                   Michael Nobrega, and asked me to give
 25                   the WCD people six (6) more months to


  1                   find a hotel."
  2                 I'm sorry, so the call -- well, I guess
  3  the call was from -- to Mr. Nobrega.  In any event, she
  4  called to ask that the WCD people be given six (6) more
  5  months to find a hotel.  So you were aware that that call
  6  had been made?
  7                 A:   I had that memorandum, and I
  8  responded to Michael July 9th at 8:58, it appears.
  9                 Q:   And you've told us already that you
 10  didn't think there was anything unusual about the Mayor
 11  calling with respect to this development, or this
 12  development proposal with respect to WCD.
 13                 And I take it that your understanding
 14  throughout that the Mayor's agenda was to get the -- this
 15  hotel built by the Living Arts Centre?
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   And that at no time to your knowledge
 18  did the Mayor ever back down on her focus on getting that
 19  hotel built.
 20                 A:   That's correct?
 21                 Q:   In fact, she was very outspoken about
 22  that, wasn't she?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And that it -- it never occurred to
 25  you that what she was doing was really pushing her agenda


  1  because of her son Peter's interest in the project?
  2                 A:   Would have never -- would have never
  3  contemplated that.
  4                 Q:   Thank you.  I have no further
  5  questions.
  8                 Q:   Good afternoon, Commissioner.  Good
  9  afternoon, Mr. Latimer.  My name is Luisa Ritacca.  I'm a
 10  lawyer for Peter McCallion, and I just have a couple of
 11  questions for you.
 12                 First, in answer to a question that
 13  Commission counsel put to you, you said that you
 14  understood that the economics of developing a four-star
 15  hotel in Mississauga city centre core, were challenging?
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   Okay.  And I -- I take it that part
 18  of what could make the economics challenging is if the
 19  timing isn't right.  Is that fair?
 20                 A:   That would be one (1) element of the
 21  development.  
 22                 Q:   And I also take it from your
 23  evidence, sir, that you certainly have seen an evolution
 24  in the city centre in the time that OMERS has had an
 25  interest there?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   And certainly that over time, the
  3  city centre looks very different ten (10) years ago, for
  4  example, than it -- than it likely will look ten (10)
  5  years from now?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   Okay.  And I -- I take it that OMERS
  8  -- or you would expect over time that a four-star hotel
  9  could be part of the city core?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  Now, sir, in answer to
 12  questions from Commission counsel, you indicated that you
 13  believed you knew about Mr. McCallion's involvement in
 14  the WCD transaction, I think you said from the very
 15  beginning, and I think you narrowed that down to
 16  somewhere between 2005 and 2006?
 17                 A:   I think it would have come to our
 18  attention in, you know, the latter half of 2005, the
 19  beginning of 2006.
 20                 Q:   And -- and you said to Mr. McDowell
 21  that you had no concerns about Mr. McCallion's
 22  involvement?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And you said you had no concerns, as
 25  I understood your evidence, because you reviewed his


  1  involvement and -- and as a result of that review you had
  2  no concerns.  Is that correct?
  3                 A:   That's correct.  I made reference to
  4  the executive committee meeting that we would have had on
  5  the 1st of May.
  6                 Q:   All right.  And -- and how did you or
  7  your group do that?  What review did you undertake?
  8                 A:   We would have taken a review of the
  9  entire agreement.  So you would have an executive
 10  committee made up of all of my direct reports.  They
 11  would have had a presentation.  In this case it would
 12  have been Ron Peddicord, who would have been responsible
 13  to make that presentation.  There would have been
 14  discussion about everything that was going on as it
 15  relates to the transaction.
 16                 Q:   And so you would have gotten your
 17  information about Mr. McCallion's involvement from Mr.
 18  Peddicord, primarily.  Is that fair?
 19                 A:   That is correct.
 20                 Q:   Okay.  And -- and also in answer to a
 21  question from Mr. McDowell, you said that if you knew Mr.
 22  McCallion was a shareholder, then you would have taken
 23  steps to make sure he was conducting himself accordingly?
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   I got that right.  I -- I didn't


  1  quite understand that answer.  What -- what do you mean
  2  by that, sir?
  3                 A:   I think that if -- if we understood
  4  him to be an agent, that's one (1) thing.  If we
  5  understand him to be a shareholder, that's something
  6  else.
  7                 Q:   And how would that have changed
  8  OMERS' conduct in this transaction?
  9                 A:   I think we just simply would have
 10  wanted absolute clarity on what his role was.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  And -- but ultimately, you
 12  were still concerned about making a deal that was
 13  beneficial for Oxford?
 14                 A:   At the end of the day I am
 15  responsible to make sure that we're doing something
 16  that's beneficial for us.
 17                 Q:   Right.  And so you weren't suggesting
 18  that you wouldn't have entered into a transaction if Mr.
 19  McCallion had a -- a different interest other than agents
 20  -- as an agent in the WCD?
 21                 A:   I did not say that.
 22                 Q:   Okay.  And certainly, if -- it
 23  wouldn't -- if Mr. McCallion's involvement was something
 24  different than agent, I -- I take it, it wouldn't alter
 25  the way OMERS or you interacted with the Mayor with


  1  respect to this transaction?
  2                 A:   You're asking me to look back in --
  3  in hindsight.  He was represented as an agent, and that's
  4  what we discussed.  That's how we viewed it.  So quite
  5  frankly I'm -- I'm, you know, a bit -- I'm not sure, you
  6  know, what I can offer on -- on -- that I haven't given
  7  you in an answer.
  8                 Q:   Okay.  Fair enough.  And if we could
  9  just turn very quickly to Exhibit 275, which you've
 10  already been taken to, I believe.
 11                 What tab is that?
 12                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   Tab 8.
 15                 Q:   Your Tab 8.
 16                 A:   Thank you. 
 17                 Q:   And this is a memo, sir, that you
 18  received from Mr. Filipetti, correct?
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And it's an update on the World Class
 21  Development transaction?
 22                 A:   Yes. 
 23                 Q:   And it sets out the fact that World
 24  Class Developments hadn't satisfied conditions that it
 25  was supposed to satisfy?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   Right.  And you already talked to Mr.
  3  McDowell about how it also sets out efforts to modify the
  4  deal, on page 2?
  5                 A:   It's actually covered in there, yes.
  6                 Q:   Yes.  And further down on page 2 it
  7  sets out how your co-vender, AIM, rejected these efforts
  8  to modify the deal?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  And one (1) of the reasons
 11  cited here, as expressed by Mr. Filipetti, and that's at
 12  -- it's the third bullet under the paragraph that starts,
 13  "AIM rejected these arguments."
 14                 In the second sentence in that third
 15  bullet:
 16                   "They are also uncomfortable with the
 17                   involvement of Peter McCallion as an
 18                   apparent principal of WCD."
 19                 A:   I see that.
 20                 Q:   Yeah.  And was that the first you
 21  heard of AIM's concern about Mr. McCallion's involvement?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   And, to your knowledge, did anyone
 24  share these concerns with World Class Development?
 25                 A:   I would be -- no, that would have


  1  been my management dealing with it, so I can't -- I can't
  2  provide a response to that.
  3                 Q:   Did you instruct your management to
  4  share those concerns with World Class Development?
  5                 A:   No.
  6                 Q:   And -- and, to your knowledge, sir,
  7  no one shared these concerns with Mr. McCallion directly?
  8                 A:   Not that I'm aware of.
  9                 Q:   Thank you, sir.  Those are my
 10  questions.  Thank you.
 11                 A:   Thank you.
 14                 Q:   Hello, Mr. Kitt (sic).  We intro -- I
 15  introduced myself to you.  I'm the lawyer for WCD and Mr.
 16  DeCicco.
 17                 If it -- if you would be good enough to
 18  look at Exhibit 282.  I'm not sure what tab number that
 19  is for you.  And it's the second page of that document.
 20  It's your memo of May 1st -- or the memo of the Executive
 21  Committee of May 1st, 2006.  Let me know when you've
 22  found that.
 23                 On the second page of that document, the
 24  fourth -- fifth bullet point:
 25                   "On March 1, 2006, we received from


  1                   Altus Helyar an appraisal of the land
  2                   parcels, supporting a value of nine
  3                   hundred thousand (900,000) to $1.1
  4                   million per acre."
  5                 I'm just curious whether you recall, Mr.
  6  Latimer, whether that appraisal considered whether the
  7  fact that the lands had prepaid parkland fees into
  8  account in doing that appraisal.  Do you remember
  9  anything about that?
 10                 A:   No, I don't.
 11                 Q:   Okay.  I took from your evidence thus
 12  far that Oxford's primary focus when disposing of lands
 13  like these is to ensure that the purchaser developed the
 14  lands in a manner which will increase value to Square One
 15  rather than diminish it.  Is that right?
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   And no question, everyone agrees,
 18  that hotel -- four-star hotel and high end condominiums,
 19  because obviously those things are material, definitely
 20  increase the value for your company and your co-vendor,
 21  correct?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   Okay.  And I understand the notion
 24  that a four-star hotel standing alone increases value.
 25  But in relative terms, do high end condos diminish the


  1  value as compared to a hotel?  I'm a bit confused about
  2  that.
  3                 A:   Are you talking a mixed use project?
  4  I mean, what are you trying to --
  5                 Q:   No, I'm saying if it wasn't mixed
  6  use, if it was all residential condominiums high end?
  7                 A:   End of the day, it wasn't part of the
  8  official plan.
  9                 Q:   Yeah, okay.  So that's -- but that's
 10  the point.  The point is it was part of the official
 11  plan, part of the City's thinking that there had to be a
 12  hotel there.  That's what's significant.  It wasn't a
 13  pure economic decision, is that right?
 14                 A:   Be part of the official plan?
 15  Correct.
 16                 Q:   Okay, got it.  I understand that
 17  Oxford didn't fully understand Mr. DeCicco's role.  I'm
 18  just wondering if you ever made any inquiries of him in
 19  that respect.
 20                 A:   I -- I did not directly.  I can't
 21  speak for my management team.
 22                 Q:   And you don't know of any?
 23                 A:   I'm not aware of any.
 24                 Q:   Okay.  You told Mr. McDowell that you
 25  were fine with the extensions that were granted to WCD


  1  until December of 2008.  Did I understand you correctly?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   Okay.  That was because you
  4  recognized it was a challenge to do this project from the
  5  outset?  That was something you recognized, sir?
  6                 A:   Multiple -- you know, multiple
  7  conditions.  We provided the extension.
  8                 Q:   Yeah.  It beca -- did it become a
  9  greater challenge to do this project with the credit
 10  crisis?  No question.
 11                 A:   Everything became a greater --
 12                 Q:   Okay.
 13                 A:   -- a greater challenge. 
 14                 Q:   And so, to a point, you were
 15  satisfied in your role that WCD had good reason to ask
 16  for more time to put this deal together?
 17                 A:   They asked.
 18                 Q:   And you thought they had good reason,
 19  and you were prepared to go along with it?
 20                 A:   We provided it.
 21                 Q:   Okay.  I'm curious about Exhibit 275,
 22  which I believe is your tab 7.  You've been asked about
 23  this.  I'm going to take you to one  different bullet
 24  point if I may, sir, on page 2.
 25                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   Tab 8.


  2                 Q:   Oh, sorry, I thought it was your tab
  3  7.  Under "Efforts to Modify the Deal":
  4                   "Collateral benefits for Square One, in
  5                   the spirit of increased cooperation
  6                   between Square One and the City,
  7                   matters such as future road conveyances
  8                   and construction and outstanding
  9                   development charge claims dating from
 10                   1997 to be resolved in our favour."
 11                 Development charges are of some interest
 12  to this Inquiry, Mr. Latimer.
 13                 I'm wondering, whether in your experience
 14  as a developer, it's not infrequent for developers to
 15  have disputes with the City about what development
 16  charges are owing at a particular time.
 17                 A:   We have disputes with the City on
 18  many issues.
 19                 Q:   Okay.  Development charges would be
 20  one?
 21                 A:   Sure.
 22                 Q:   And you wouldn't be the only
 23  developer in that category?
 24                 A:   Wouldn't expect so.
 25                 Q:   Okay.  And it's sometimes a dispute


  1  about amount?  Yes?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   And sometimes it's a dispute about
  4  timing?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   Okay.  And until those disputes are
  7  resolved, the charges remain outstanding?  It's an
  8  obvious point.
  9                 A:   Well, let's just say yes.
 10                 Q:   Okay.  Thanks.  And then my last
 11  point, sir, is just about your views as a businessperson
 12  about this settlement.
 13                 I understood you to tell Mr. McDowell that
 14  there were a variety of business reasons which, in your
 15  mind, made this settlement appropriate.  I think you
 16  talked about there being some potential risk in the
 17  litigation, yes?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   Okay.  In assessing that risk -- I
 20  realize that businesspeople don't always care about this.
 21                 I'm curious whether you, sir, in assessing
 22  that risk, read the court applications and counter
 23  applications to come to your own conclusions about how
 24  the claims, the respective claims, of the parties were
 25  being articulated for a court.


  1                 Is that something you did?
  2                 A:   I would have had it represented to me
  3  through our management team.
  4                 Q:   So that was something that you took
  5  into account?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   Thank you.  Those
  8  are all my questions.  Thank you very much, Commissioner.
 10  Jack...?
 11                 MR. DON JACK:   Thank you.
 14                 Q:   Mr. Latimer, I'm Don Jack; I
 15  represent 156.
 16                 If I could direct you, please, to Exhibit
 17  258, which is at your tab 1, I believe, which is your
 18  email, I believe it was, to Mr. Haggis, October 4, 2005;
 19  do you have that?
 20                 A:   I see it on the screen, sir.
 21                 Q:   Yes.  And I'm going to direct you to
 22  a portion which is close to the portion that Mr. McDowell
 23  directed you to:
 24                   "Our decisions may not always be
 25                   popular and may not fit a third-party


  1                   agenda, but they are based upon what is
  2                   best for us."
  3                 That being OMERS.  Do you see that
  4  portion?
  5                 A:   I do.
  6                 Q:   And then what I wish to direct you to
  7  is just below that:
  8                   "Independent of OMERS, Alberta Revenue
  9                   [now AIMCo] our co-owner in the Square
 10                   -- in Square One, is entitled to ensure
 11                   their investment decisions are in their
 12                   best interest."
 13                 Correct?
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   And that, of course, was a true
 16  statement.  And the fact is that OMERS, through Oxford,
 17  had feet on the ground at Square One?
 18                 A:   As it relates to the property
 19  management?
 20                 Q:   Yes.
 21                 A:   Yes, we did.
 22                 Q:   Yes, indeed.  And indeed conducted
 23  the day-to-day management that's -- was the nature of the
 24  arrangement?
 25                 A:   Yes, sir.


  1                 Q:   Yes.  But OMERS/Oxford, by agreement
  2  -- I don't think we have to turn to it because I'm sure
  3  you're familiar with it -- were to consult 156 and AIMCo,
  4  as they now are, on significant matters, correct?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   And decisions on significant matters
  7  were to be jointly made, that was the arrangement?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   Yes.  And indeed, keeping 156 and
 10  AIMCo informed on significant matters was necessary, you
 11  would agree, surely, in order for them -- and I'm now
 12  quoting from your -- your email:
 13                   "...to ensure their investment
 14                   decisions are in their best interest."
 15                 Correct?
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   In other words, it's difficult to
 18  make those decisions without adequate information,
 19  correct?
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   Right.  And you were aware that Mr.
 22  Nobrega -- I believe you were aware that Mr. Nobrega
 23  asked Mr. O'Brien to try to settle the WCD litigation?
 24                 A:   I was aware of that, as I referenced
 25  on September the 8th, yes.


  1                 Q:   Yes.  And that's the process that
  2  lead to the $4 million settlement that we've heard of,
  3  perhaps?
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   And neither you, nor anyone else at
  6  OMERS/Oxford consulted 156 or AIMCo regarding that
  7  settlement, did you?
  8                 A:   I'll speak for myself that, no, I was
  9  not in contact with AIMCo.
 10                 Q:   And do you know -- you're not
 11  suggesting that somebody else was; you simply don't know.
 12                 A:   You'd have to look, and -- and I
 13  believe Mr. Nobrega was, at some point, in discussion
 14  with -- with AIMCo.
 15                 Q:   Fine.  Would you accept my suggestion
 16  that that discussion occurred after the fact, after the
 17  settlement had already been done?
 18                 A:   You'll -- I'm not sure I -- I could
 19  concur with that statement, sir.
 20                 Q:   All right.  Do you know -- did you --
 21  did you look into it at the time, or not?
 22                 A:   No.
 23                 Q:   You did not.  Now, that settlement
 24  was concluded on or about September 11, 2009, was it not?
 25                 A:   I believe it was on or around that


  1  date, yes.
  2                 Q:   Around that time.  And about two (2)
  3  months earlier -- and we've seen this document; it's
  4  OMR001002295.  I don't know the exhibit number, but if we
  5  could have that, please.
  6                 There had been -- and perhaps we could
  7  just scroll down so the Witness could see this.
  8                 There had been an offer, and I believe you
  9  have referred to this in your testimony, from WCD to
 10  settle for a lesser amount, $3.8 million, correct?
 11                 A:   A lesser amount compared to?
 12                 Q:   The settlement that actually was
 13  subsequently concluded a couple of months later.
 14                 A:   Well, three point eight (3.8) is
 15  different from four (4), but I wouldn't call it material.
 16                 Q:   All right.  But in any event, my
 17  point is this, you would agree with me that 156 and AIMCo
 18  did not want to settle for the $3.8 million.  That's a
 19  fact, is it not?
 20                 A:   I -- I won't speak for AIM -- for
 21  AIMCo, sir.
 22                 Q:   Well --
 23                 A:   Let AIMCo speak to it.
 24                 Q:   -- well, fine.  They were consulted,
 25  pursuant to the arrangements you've agreed were in place,


  1  and they -- surely you know this -- rejected that
  2  settlement amount.
  3                 A:   Being the -- the document that we're
  4  -- we're currently looking at, sir?
  5                 Q:   Yes.
  6                 A:   Yes, that -- that was never settled.
  7                 Q:   Yes.  And when the $4 million
  8  settlement was concluded, and my clients were eventually
  9  told of it, you'll agree with me that they were unwilling
 10  to contribute anything more than letting the deposits,
 11  which were at McCarthy Tetrault, go over to WCD.  We're
 12  agreed on that?
 13                 A:   Well, I would have seen that in
 14  hindsight, sir, yes.
 15                 Q:   Yes.  And indeed, those deposits --
 16  now this may not be a precise figure -- those deposits
 17  were either 1.4 or 1.5 million, roughly?
 18                 A:   Sounds correct.
 19                 Q:   Yes.  And the balance of the $4
 20  million settlement, which would be either 2.6 or 2.5
 21  million, was funded entirely by OMERS, correct?
 22                 A:   Correct.
 23                 Q:   Not by 156 or AIMCo.
 24                 A:   By OMERS.
 25                 Q:   Yes.  Now, OMERS/Oxford was aware


  1  that 156 and AIMCo were concerned about the involvement,
  2  or possible unclear involvement, of Mr. McCallion in the
  3  transaction.  You would agree with that?
  4                 A:   Our management was made aware of
  5  that, yes.
  6                 Q:   Yes.  And indeed, we don't have to
  7  turn to it, but that was referred to specifically in the
  8  document which is your tab 8, the memorandum of December
  9  15 that we have referred to.  I think it's in the portion
 10  regarding AIMCo rejecting what had been proposed at that
 11  time.
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   Yes.  And would you agree with me
 14  that what my clients were concerned about is that he
 15  might have an interest in WCD itself?
 16                 A:   Again, sir, I can't speak to your --
 17  to your client.  I wasn't dealing with them directly.
 18                 Q:   But you don't dispute what I'm
 19  suggesting, do you?
 20                 A:   I'm -- I'm not responding to it.  I -
 21  - I can't offer a comment on it.
 22                 Q:   Now, could we have Exhibit 144,
 23  please, which is OMR002002757?  That would be, if I've
 24  got my notations correct, Exhibit 144.  And it is an
 25  email from Mr. Kitt to Mr. Nobrega, of December 14, 2008.


  1                 A:   I see that in front of me.
  2                 Q:   Now, just so that we understand, your
  3  organization -- Mr. Kitt reported to you in your capacity
  4  as head of OMERS, correct?  I shouldn't say head of
  5  OMERS; I should say head of OMERS's real estate arm,
  6  Oxford.
  7                 A:   Yes, Michael Kitt reported to me as
  8  the President and CEO of Oxford.  That's correct. 
  9                 Q:   Yes.  And here he was sending an
 10  epail -- email to Mr. Nobrega, who, of course, is CEO of
 11  OMERS itself, correct?
 12                 A:   Yes. 
 13                 Q:   And I'll give you a moment to read
 14  it, but it began -- the portion I'm interested in begins
 15  with:
 16                   "I have -- I had -- have lunch
 17                   scheduled with Hazel tomorrow."
 18                 So that would be the 15th:
 19                   "The important thing is to maintain a
 20                   relationship with the City, and we have
 21                   done this to date."
 22                 And then this, which I'm going to direct
 23  you to:
 24                   "I don't trust the buyer, and there is
 25                   no doubt that they are using Hazel in


  1                   this process.  But it is difficult to
  2                   tell her that, especially with her son
  3                   involved."
  4                 Now, are you prepared to accept that, for
  5  the purposes of this Inquiry, that that summarized
  6  OMERS/Oxford's position on this issue?
  7                 A:   Yeah, I think it summarizes Michael's
  8  position.  He's the one that's originating the -- the
  9  email.
 10                 Q:   Do you disagree with that statement,
 11  or do you accept it yourself?
 12                 A:   Well, I guess -- I guess my comment
 13  to you, sir, it that it's been originated by -- by
 14  Michael.  He's taking a specific view.  And so are you
 15  asking me to comment in -- in hindsight at this juncture,
 16  or what -- what would you like me to do?
 17                 Q:   I want you to -- I want you to state
 18  what your position is for this Inquiry.  Do you accept
 19  that or not?
 20                 A:   I -- I'll accept it.
 21                 Q:   Now, are you aware that on December
 22  16, 2008, in a teleconference, my clients were told that
 23  Peter McCallion was off the file?  Are you aware of that?
 24                 A:   No, I'm not, sir.
 25                 Q:   Could we have Exhibit 141, please.


  1  Now, these are notes, I should advise you, of Mr. Hansen,
  2  who is with AIMCo.  And you will see that on the call --
  3  just bear with me, because we have to read the notes, Mr.
  4  Kitt and Mr. Filipetti are there.  "  THE COURT: ," I
  5  understand, stands for Mr. Coleman.  You know who he is.
  6  "MDB," Mr.  Michael Dal Bello, you know who he is.  "DH"
  7  is Dean Hanson.  And "GC" is Grant Charles.  And you will
  8  see that Mr. Costin is also there.  And then if you look
  9  at the note it says, "Kitt," and then a dash, Peter,
 10  quote, "off the file".
 11                 Do you accept that that is what my clients
 12  were told by Mr. Kitt in that teleconference?
 13                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   I just wonder, Mr.
 14  Commissioner, Mr. Latimer wasn't at this meeting.  You --
 15  you've heard Mr. Costin, and you're going to hear from
 16  the other attendees.  I just wonder what the value is of
 17  asking him, Do you accept?  And accept is a fair
 18  question, but were you told -- oh, sorry.
 19                 Sorry.  I -- I just wondered what the
 20  value is in asking Mr. Latimer these series of questions
 21  of does he accept a position.
 22                 I -- I fully appreciate it's a fair
 23  question to ask him, Were you told or did you know at the
 24  time, that sort of thing.  But when he's being put the
 25  question of, Do you accept --


  1                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Well, I
  2  recognize that it's a difficult question for Mr. Latimer
  3  to answer.
  4                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   Right.
  5                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   And I'm
  6  not sure that it's an entirely fair question.  So I think
  7  I'd reframe the question, Mr. --
  8                 MR. DON JACK:  I shall, sir.
  9                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   -- Mr.
 10  Jack.
 13                 Q:   Are you aware that that statement was
 14  made by Mr. Kitt?
 15                 A:   No.
 16                 Q:   You weren't aware at the time, and
 17  you're not aware now?
 18                 A:   You're asking me at the time.  I've
 19  now seen it in front of me, sir, so I'd say I'd be aware
 20  of it now.
 21                 Q:   You're aware of it now, but this is
 22  the first that you had heard of it, is that -- is that
 23  what you're telling me?
 24                 A:   Yes, sir.
 25                 Q:   Thank you.


  1                      (BRIEF PAUSE)
  3                 MR. DON JACK:   I understand from what Mr.
  4  Barrack had said that we are going to hear from the other
  5  witnesses, which I presume will include Mr. Kitt, and in
  6  those circumstances, I don't have any further questions
  7  of this Witness.
  9  right.  We've already heard from Mr. Costin.  I think
 10  that's correct, is it, Mr. Barrack?
 11                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   Yes, and I think
 12  you're going to hear from Mr. Filipetti too --
 14  right.
 15                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   --  who was there,
 16  as well.
 17                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 18  you.
 19                 MR. DON JACK:   Thank you, sir.
 20                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   That's
 21  fine.
 22                 MR. MICHAEL BARRACK:   I think your
 23  counsel's calling him.
 24                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Anyone
 25  else?  Anything, Mr. McDowell?


  3                 Q:    Obvious question, but in relation to
  4  the que -- the matter of development, you comply with
  5  whatever the law requires you to comply at the time?
  6                 A:   Yes, we do.
  7                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   All right.  Thank
  8  you.
  9                 That's it for today, sir.
 11  right, thank you very much, Mr. Latimer.
 12                 THE WITNESS:   Thank you --
 14  appreciate your help.  Ten o'clock.
 15                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 16  please.
 18  just before we go, Mr. McDowell, what -- what do we have
 19  in store tomorrow --
 20                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   We have Mr.
 21  Hansen.
 22                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   -- and
 23  what is our timing?
 24                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   We have Mr. Hansen
 25  and we have Mr. Dal Bello.  And so I would hope that we


  1  can get through that by mid-afternoon if that --
  2                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  3  you.
  4                 THE COURT CLERK:   All rise, please.  This
  5  This Inquiry stands recessed until tomorrow morning at
  6  10:00 a.m.
  8  --- Upon adjourning at 5:14 p.m.
 12  Certified Correct,
 16  ________________
 17  Sue Kranz, Ms.

Twittering LIVE from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry… Peter McCallion uses David O’Brien’s “I don’t remember” Defense

July 28th, 2010  

Well it had to happen, right? Twitter LIVE from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, so why not make an entire Blog out of your Tweets? Here they are as it happened. Please note that I did take the opportunity to clean up any typos. My eyes on an Android screen creates them aplenty.


Twittering LIVE from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Peter McCallion to testify again. about 10 hours ago


Judge is in. Peter McCallion still under oath. Clifford Lax cross-examining. about 10 hours ago


Peter McCallion hanging TOUGH to “I am just the real estate agent” mantra. about 10 hours ago


Twittering LIVE from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Lots of  “I cannot  answer”s from Peter McCallion. about 10 hours ago


Lax establishes DiCicco and PeterMcCallion had lots of dinner meetings with Mayor. (and a few breakfasts). McCallion can’t explain purpose. about 9 hours ago


Twittering LIVE from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Imagine trying to get a truth from a Reluctant one question at a time… about 9 hours ago


New document has Peter McCallion’s lawyer going YIKES and sudden recess for 15 minutes. about 9 hours ago


Twittering LIVE from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. We’re back in session. about 9 hours ago


Twittering LIVE from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. CLIFFORD LAX is amazing. No wonder Mom McCallion eager 4 hotel in “City’s best interests” about 9 hours ago


WOW! Every lunch/dinner Peter McCallion can’t recall what was said…”I don’t remember I don’t recall” about 9 hours ago


Mississauga Judicial Inquiry televised at ROGERS Cable 10 Mississauga. Peter McCallion testifying. about 9 hours ago


Peter McCallion offers little but stuff like “I’d be surprised if the topic didn’t come up.” about 9 hours ago


March 6, 2008 meeting with Commissioner Sajecki and Peter McCallion and he still can’t recall. Using the David O’Brien defense. about 8 hours ago


Lax observes that so far every dinner/meeting/phone call and Peter McCallion can’t remember anything. about 8 hours ago


Peter McCallion’s lawyer now protesting cross-exam by City of Mississauga. That it’s going beyond City’s interest. Going about fairness. about 8 hours ago


Peter McCallion’s lawyer arguing that Inquiry concern re: Peter McCallion’s reputation… Public interest vs rights of Peter McCallion…. about 8 hours ago


Clearly Peter McCallion’s lawyer going for restrictions of cross-examination of Peter McCallion. “Principle of Fairness”… about 8 hours ag


Twittering LIVE from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. We’re back in session. about 7 hours ago


Cunningham says the citizens of Mississauga are represented by Lax and citizens deserve the truth! about 6 hours ago


Commissioner rules that Mr Lax is within bounds and cross-examination is to continue. about 6 hours ago


Commissioner Cunningham calls Lax not just lawyer for City but also all of Council and therefore Lax represents us-citizens! Lax is OUR GUY! about 6 hours ago


Mayor’s lawyer now up. Establishing relationship with Mother. Mayor will testify Peter McCallion won’t share specifics with her. about 6 hours ago


Mayor’s lawyer says that Mayor says son only tells her what he wants her to know. (Ironic since City of MYTHissauga selectively reports) about 6 hours ago


Peter McCallion confirms he kept Mayor in the dark. Oddly the MAYOR remembers the purpose of meeting and now son “remembers”. about 6 hours ago


Given all the with-holding of info between Peter McCallion and mother I’ve got to question claim of  “close relationship” between them. about 6 hours ago


Whoa! Now I know what “sweetheart questions” are! And why does Mayor remember so well and yet son used Dave O’Brien’s “don’t recall” defense about 6 hours ago


McDowell establishes that Hazel McCallion knew son would be compensated –just not how much. about 5 hours ago


Latimer of OMERS. CEO of Oxford during hotel vision. Direct opposite to Peter McCallion. Clearly fluffing up the Mayor… about 5 hours ago


Latimer’s been up here 3-4 minutes and has said more than Peter McCallion has said all day…. about 5 hours ago


OMERS Latimer confirmed they knew Peter McCallion was involved but as real estate agent. Had he known Peter’s true relationship = different. about 5 hours ago


OMERS Latimer says hotel would’ve been”difficult” re: viability of 4 Star hotel at City Centre. about 5 hours ago


OMERS confirms Sheridan College at City Centre “right there at the top” for complimentary use. And universities make cities vibrant. about 5 hours ago


OMERS made effort to get parties to settle and avoid litigation. (meaning we’d have never known about Peter McCallion’s dealings).. about 5 hours ago


Uh oh Latimer mentions that David O’Brien “briefed” them. (We know how O’Brien “briefs”….) about 4 hours ago


Mayor’s lawyer up. Expecting more “sweetheart” questions. about 4 hours ago


Yep, I was right about sweetheart questions… about 4 hours ago


Truly left to wonder the degree to which OMERS wags the municipal tail… about 4 hours ago

And then there were two Tweets from home.


@phinjogombu re: “Peter McCallion can’t recall anything about any of the meetings he arranged.” I refer to it as the David O’Brien defense. about 3 hours ago via web in reply to phinjogombu


I retract what I said in yesterday’s Twitter about feeling sorry for Peter McCallion. My sympathies were both stupid and misplaced. about 2 hours ago


You can find video archives of today’s hearing at Rogers Cable 10 Mississauga.

News reports on today’s Inquiry.

McCallion’s memory tested

Mississauga News -Joseph Chin
Jul 28, 2010 – 1:34 PM

Testifying for a second day at the Mississauga judicial inquiry, Peter McCallion said he has little recollection of at least half-a-dozen meetings…

Still on the stand. Peter McCallion is testifying today at the Mississauga judicial inquiry. Staff photo by Fred Loek
Related Stories (Mississauga News)

Mississauga inquiry: Peter McCallion ‘misled’ mother on his role in company …

National Post – ‎2 hours ago‎
Peter McCallion, son of Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion arrives at Mississauga’s Ontario Court of Justice where he testified at an inquiry regarding the

Hazel McCallion’s son keeps it under his hat

Toronto Sun – Michel Mandel – ‎2 hours ago‎
For poor Peter McCallion, the divorced real estate agent with a Grade 12 education who’s never risen to the success of his mom

Royson: Ending the state of denial

Toronto Star – Royson James – ‎2 hours ago‎
To the army of Hazel McCallion apologists — many itching to re-elect her Oct. 25 — testimony out of the Mississauga judicial

McCallion met with developers in secret meetings, inquiry hears

Toronto Star – Tannis Toohey – ‎3 hours ago‎
Peter McCallion waits in the witness box while awaiting an end to the mid-morning break Wednesday at the Mississauga judicial inquiry,

Mayor’s lawyer pins the blame on her son
Hazel McCallion’s inquiry defence: Peter ‘misled’ her on his role in the company she backed

Toronto Star -Phinjo Gombu Urban Affairs Reporter
Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer has unveiled her defence at a judicial inquiry