MISSISSAUGAWATCH
MississaugaWatch Mississauga Watch

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

June 17th, 2013  

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

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

 

The Decision released June 14, 2013

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

ELIAS HAZINEH v. HAZEL McCALLION

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

(released June 14, 2013)

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

-2-

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

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

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

[3]   The issues are as follows:

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

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

-3-

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

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

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

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


DID MAYOR MCCALLION HAVE A DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST IN

WCD?

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

-4-

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

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

[7] Having regard to the following:

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

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

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

 

-5-

 

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

COULD WCD QUALIFY UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS?

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

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

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

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

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


-6-

 

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

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

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

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

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


-7-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-8-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-9-

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

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

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

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

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

-10-

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

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

DID MR. HAZINEH COMMENCE THE APPLICATION IN TIME?

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

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

-11-

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

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

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

-12-

CONCLUSION

[31] The application is, therefore dismissed.

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

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Justice Sproat’s Decision


MISSISSAUGAWATCH court notes

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

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

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

June 16th, 2013  

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

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


ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Justice Sproat’s Decision


MISSISSAUGAWATCH court notes

 

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

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

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing. Elias Hazineh’s Testimony. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 15, 2013

April 25th, 2013  

What follows is a summary of notes taken during the Hazel McCallion conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house on April 15, 2013 —Elias Hazineh testifying. If anyone finds any errors I’d appreciate being advised.

COURT NOTES DAY 8 April 15, 2013  Elias Hazineh testimony

10:00 am  Judge John Sproat, like me (and later Hazineh) went to the wrong courtroom…

10:05 am Judge Sproat enters.  He asks for a register of exhibits/documents –an exhibit list.

Thomas Richardson (lawyer for Elias Hazineh) is up first.

Regarding Hazineh’s knowledge of Region of Peel votes refers to the New Castle court case and the issue of conflicting affidavits.

Richardson points out the dispute is between Hazineh evidence in his affidavit versus those in his cross-examination. He points out that affdavit/testimony is not a situation of two or more affidavits conflicting.

Richardson then refers to Imperial Tobacco class action case where the issue turned to “Credibility and Bias”. That case determined that weighing affidavit evidence not as good as actual testimony and looking the witness straight in eye.

Sproat then asks Richardson to finalize his position. Did his client, Elias Hazineh read the National Post article or not?

Richardson says he’ll get to that and returns to credibility being an issue. Richardson reminds Judge Sproat that cross-exam is intended to challenge contradictory evidence.

Richardson says “must have knowledge member was present at a meeting…” etc.

Richardson consents to Hazineh going on stand with his knowledge, attendance at Stephen D’Agostino’s office, attendance at October 3, 2011 Judicial Inquiry report release and his review of Inquiry transcripts. Richardson says they’ll consent to having Hazineh take the stand.

Regarding imputed knowledge by Carolyn Parrish. He reminds Judge Sproat if that the respondent (Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyers) want to explore Hazineh’s relationship with Parrish, that was explored in original cross-examination. Richardson calls this a “fishing expedition”. So he’ll consent to imputed knowledge cross-examination if questions are limited to Hazineh’s knowledge of the Peel vote.

Judge Sproat explores what the procedure would be.

Elizabeth McIntyre (lawyer for Mayor Hazel McCallion) responds, “We appreciate Mr. Richardson’s agreement.”

McIntyre says that she’s “concerned about the limitations” and that once the issue of credibility is raised one would explore impugned knowledge based on his relationship with Parrish.

Judge Sproat asks for an estimate of the time this cross-examination would take. McIntyre says she can’t imagine more than 45 minutes.

Sproat then says to Richardson what harm does it do to restrict McIntyre questioning to the Peel vote. And then suggests such a restriction could be an issue in an appeal.

Richardson says the issue is the National Post article, that is, when Hazineh first had knowledge. And now using the Post thing and using it as a springboard to reopening the entire matter on how Hazineh got his knowledge.

Sproat rules that Hazineh is to give all evidence –and that he will hear that evidence to assess Hazineh’s “credibility and reliability”.

RECESS  UNTIL RECALLED

10:40 am COURT RESUMES

Richardson now calls his client, Elais Hazineh to the stand. Hazineh declines the Bible or any other religious book and instead affirms.

Richardson asks Hazineh what he has with him. Hazineh has his application record, affidavit, Clay Connor’s article and one from National Post.

Richardson gets his client to go to Notice of Application and scan to the word “amended” December 13, 2011.

Richardson asks how Hazineh came to amend it. Hazineh says that new evidence came about. That during investigation, there was discovery of another Peel vote to extend the Development Charges transition provision by 18 months. And that it was discovered by Richardson’s law firm.

Richardson asks Hazineh if at the time he initiated the Application if he were aware of the additional Peel vote. Hazineh responds emphatically, “Absolutely not”.

Richardson refers to par 19 tab b in Hazineh’s affidavit. In there Hazineh states that around October, 2011 in the Mississauga News, he learned that Hazel McCallion may have been in breach of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act in a Peel Region vote. Hazineh says that while reading this article, he also learned that investigating Peel Region was outside the mandate of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

Richardson par 21. states that prior to that October 2011 Mississauga News article Hazineh wasn’t aware of a potential Peel vote conflict.

Richardson refers to page 56 Q 323 in Hazineh’s original cross-examination.

Question: Did you read this article at the time. Hazineh says yes. National Post July 17, 2010.

Richardson tells Hazineh that there’s a conflict between affidavit and cross-examination. Hazineh explains that he read many articles and thought the photo looked familiar. Hazineh then responds, that upon reflection, he does not read the National Post. That Conrad Black takes slanted view of Muslims and Arabs. Particularly Palestinians.

Richardson points out that Hazineh originally suggested that his first knowledge was the National Post article. Hazineh replies that he was obviously mistaken.

Richardson asks Hazineh when he first became aware of potential conflict of interest at Peel Region. Hazineh replies with Clay Connor article. Hazineh points out that he used the $9M development charges figure and not the $11M in his affidavit.

Richardson asks where he got the numbers. Hazineh says Connor’s “McCallion may not be out of woods” article. Hazineh reads “…WCD stood to save roughly $9M”.

Hazineh says in the National Post article, it says “…saved her son’s development company $11M”.

If he read the Post, Hazineh says, he’d have definitely used the $11M figure from the National Post in his application.

Richardson asks if Hazineh if he had seen the Regional Council meeting minutes. Hazineh responds that he saw them in his lawyer’s office and not through the Inquiry.

Richardson points out that the Clay Connor article makes mention of extending the transition provision by 30 days.

Richardson questions Hazineh about a meeting with Stephen D’Agostino. Hazineh says it happened some time in Summer 2011 —either July or August.  Meeting at D’Agostino’s office.

Hazineh says he drove Carolyn Parrish there. Those at the meeting, Parrish, D’Agostino, a young lawyer —and him.

Richardson asks the purpose of the meeting. Hazineh says that Parrish was delivering documents. Explains that he didn’t take part in the meeting.  That he was not party to the meeting. That he sat at one end of the table. And that it was a very short meeting, maybe 15-20 minutes at most.

Richardson asks Hazineh if he were aware of the results?

Richardson then asks if Parrish shared outcome with him.

Richardson again asks if Parrish shared anything about development charges? Hazineh replies that he doesn’t know and wouldn’t have cared at the time.

[Ed. Missed something about two meetings –Toronto, was on summation on recommendations to Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. And something about Parrish and Hazineh left around lunch.]

Richardson explores how Hazineh got his knowledge of the Inquiry. Hazineh explains that he occasionally watched the Judicial Inquiry on TV.

Richardson asks if he got any knowledge through the Inquiry website. Hazineh responds that he didn’t look, that he might have glanced once –but it wouldn’t have interested him.

Richardson asks if he examined any exhibits/transcripts. Hazineh responds, “I glanced”.

Asked if he read the Inquiry Report, Hazineh says yes —says “Yeah, took long time” and adds it was the “most boring thing I’ve ever read”.

Richardson asks how soon after Release of Report did Hazineh read the Connor article? Hazineh says about 8 days later. Richardson asks if any of these sources put Hazineh to file Regional Council. [Ed. Seems I didn't write down Hazineh's answer... ]

Richardson asks Hazineh about his relationship with Carolyn Parrish.

Hazineh says that he first heard about Parrish in 1985. That she ran for school board. That they both served on the Canadian Spectrum Board of Directors.

Then in 1991 he offered to help Parrish run a campaign for City councillor. He says after that they became friends. He adds that Parrish was very upset at the 1991 loss. That it was less than 300 votes separating her from the winner.

Hazineh says that he then suggested Parrish try for the Federal Liberals. She won the nomination and also the election. Hazineh says that he was on the Parrish payroll from 2004 to 2006.

Hazineh says that he also worked on her 2006 municipal campaign and adds, “We were friends, very close friends”.

Hazineh says that Parrish is a good listener but “she knew little about Palestinians –like most Canadians”.

Hazineh says that he went with Parrish to inspect refugee camps and adds “She’s done a great job on the issue of Palestine and I’m grateful for that.”

He says that Parrish was also concerned about the Enersource case. And other issues that came out in the news, like the minutes –that somebody was tampering with those minutes. Hazineh then adds that “Politicians should be held to the highest standards possible”.

Hazineh then says that he got most of his information from news sources. Hazineh insists that Parrish “never” discussed the Regional vote with him.

Richardson then asks the nature of Hazineh’s contact with Parrish at the time of the Inquiry. Hazineh responds that they’d gone to restaurants, dinner at her home –here and there…

Richardson asks if Carolyn Parrish ever discussed the possibility of a McCallion conflict of interest at Peel Region. Hazineh: No.

Richardson asks whether Hazineh was present at the October 3, 2010 press conference. Hazineh replies yes, but that he was on his own and that he later joined her.

Richardson asks whether Hazineh heard anything at the Mississauga Inquiry press conference regarding the Peel vote. Hazineh: No.

Richardson asks whether Hazineh he talked to Parrish about the Inquiry Report. Hazineh says yes, that Parrish was frustrated about the timing. That the release of the Report was delayed until after the vote. That Parrish felt that cost her the election.

Richardson asks whether Hazineh had any inkling prior to reading the October 2011 Connor article that there might be a Peel conflict.

Richardson asks Hazineh what papers he reads. Hazineh replies Globe and Mail and Toronto Star. He says that he also reads the Mississauga News, “when it has something relevant. Most of the times it does not.” Also the New York Times, Israeli and Arab press.

Elizabeth McIntyre, Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer, now up.

McIntyre states that Hazineh helped Parrish in her 2006 and 2010 campaigns and in the 2011 by-election. McIntyre suggests then that he’d be familiar with how municipal councils work.

McIntyre asks Hazineh if he ever attended Council meetings or watched them on TV.  Hazineh replies he only ever watched just one —where they were to name a street after him. That was the only time.

McIntyre says that Hazineh would have understood generally how resolutions, motions and the municipal process worked.

McIntyre goes on to say that she assumes that when he ran Hazineh would know that he’d be bound of Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.  That he would have known a councillor would have to declare conflict.

McIntyre asks whether he aware of development charges. Aware they’d apply to undeveloped land.

McIntyre asks Hazineth whether he knew there was a City Council and Regional Council.  Hazineh: Yes. And that development fees applied at both levels. Hazineh: Yes, but he didn’t know specifics.

McIntyre refers now to his original affidavit. Page 10, par 4. January 18, 2012 where it says that Hazineh “developed an interest in Conflict of Interest and Mayor” McIntyre assumes he read media reports around 2009. And that Hazineh followed at least some of the Inquiry. Hazineh: Yes.

McIntyre par 8. “refers to resolution of City Council requesting Inquiry”. She asks Hazineh if he were aware of this. Hazineh: “Could be”… “At the time, possible, might have, I don’t know”.

McIntyre suggests that Hazineh would have definitely looked at it when preparing his Application. Hazineh: At the lawyer’s office he had all these documents.

McIntyre asks Hazineh if he recalled hearing July 26, 2010 evidence of  John Zingaro (former Assistant City Solicitor).

McIntyre now gives Hazineh Zingaro’s Inquiry transcript.

McIntyre asks if Hazineh if he had a chance to look at Zingaro’s transcript. McIntyre gets Hazineh to look at the mention of development charges and also the reference to the regional charges in Fall 2007.

Exhibit 174 in Zingaro testimony.

McIntyre says that the Zingaro transcript mentions grandfathering. That there’s reference to “long list of site plan applications” and reference to World Class Developments.

Hazineh appears to be seeing this for the first time now.

McIntyre asks when Hazineh reviewed this Zingaro transcript. Hazineh says that he didn’t see it. Either then or after reviewing transcripts.

McIntyre now deals with Hazine’s cross-examination and focuses on Hazineh’s statement today that he made a mistake about having read the National Post article.

McIntyre now refers him to page 51 of his cross-examination. She has Hazineh refer to the July 17, 2010 National Post article. “Mississauga melee nears nadir”.

McIntyre read before that Parrish felt McCallion was replacing councillors with her people. [Ed. Sorry but I can't recall what McIntyre meant by this...] Hazineh says he could have read that from other sources or heard it.

Referring to Hazineh’s January 22 2013 cross-examination, Kristjanson took him through those very paragraphs.

McIntyre reminds Hazineh that not only did he read the reference to Stephen D’Agistino, he attended the D’Agistino meeting. McIntyre says that there are no other articles referring to Stephen D’Agistino.

Hazineh responds saying if McIntyre thinks there is no other article containing reference to D’Agistino she’s wrong. [Ed. I Googled "Stephen D'Agistino" and "Parrish". The only article prior to November 2011 is "Mississauga melee nears nadir"... ]

McIntyre continues reading from the article. It mentions D’Agistino and a motion at Peel Region [Ed. Specifically, "The seven dissident councillors, using this money, have hired lawyer Stephen D’Agostino to work on their behalf. Now Mr. D’Agostino has uncovered documents that, according to Ms. Parrish, fall under the scope of provincial legislation. These documents pertain to a motion Ms. McCallion moved three years ago, asking for a delay in implementing new development charges. That motion would have saved Peter McCallion $11-million on a hotel and conference centre his company wanted to build in the city centre, Ms. Parrish said."]

McIntyre now reads through Hazineh’s January 22, 2103 cross-examination testimony.

She reads:

 Q: Did you read the article at the time?

 A:  I’m sure I did. The picture looked familiar so I probably read it.

In response, Hazineh tells McIntyre, “You are brilliant at deciphering people’s minds”.  Then adds, if he read the July 2010 National Post article, given the relevant Peel information were there, he did not catch it.

McIntyre squeezes Hazineh to talk about time limit and insists that if he read it, his Application is out of time. Hazineh responds that she’s asking him a legal question about term limits.

McIntyre repeats that if Hazineh knew that McCallion had a conflict back in July 2010, his Application is out of time.

Hazineh counters with “I had a perfect explanation for you today and it’s the truth”.

COURT RESUMES AT 12:05

[Ed. I arrive a bit late.]

McIntyre still up and asks Hazineh to refer to the Application record. Tab F. Mississauga News November 17, 2011 “Man to charge Mayor” article.

McIntyre gets Hazineh to admit it’s fair to conclude that he read the entire article. McIntyre now refers to what she said in the article about the Mayor not having a conflict of interest in Peel Region. [Ed. The article actually states, "McCallion's lawyer, Liz McIntyre, said last week that any such conflict charge brought to a judge would have little merit."]

McIntyre also points out that Inquiry Commissioner counsel William McDowell maintained that he and his Staff conducted a thorough investigation and that the development charges transition provision applied to 80 site applications and not just World Class Developments. So even McDowell didn’t think the Mayor could be regarded as in conflict. [Ed. The article actually states, "'(The inquiry's) Commission counsel (William McDowell) and his staff did a thorough investigation regarding the Regional Council vote and concluded that the mayor could not be regarded as having a conflict of interest,' McIntyre said. 'In light of that, one has to question the motives of anyone continuing to pursue the issue.'"]

McIntyre points out that despite this, Hazineh’s January application says the Peel vote/issues “were not considered by Judicial Inquiry”.  Hazineh responds that though Commission Counsel William McDowell may have made that statement, that does not make it true.

Richardson stands up and says that Inquiry didn’t consider the Peel Region vote and it’s unfair to extend William McDowell’s opinion to be that of the Inquiry.

Judge Sproat says it seems to him that there is a distinction between findings/opinions of the Inquiry and William McDowell.

McIntyre continues saying that William McDowell said that he and his Staff conducted an investigation and 2 that he and his staff discovered that what McCallion did or didn’t do couldn’t be regarded as conflict of interest.

Hazineh replies that he has no idea if McDowell’s info was accurate or that his investigation was thorough or that any of it was cross-examined.

McIntyre asks Hazineh if he doubts that McDowell/Staff conducted the Peel investigation. Hazineh responds that the only thing he knows for sure is that McDowell said that he did conducted an investigation. McIntyre then asks Hazineh if he doubted the Peel investigation whether he asked McDowell directly.

McIntyre revisits the July 17, 2010 “Mississauga melee nears nadir” National Post article and now asks “I take it it’s quite possible Carolyn Parrish showed you the article”. McIntyre points out that in July 2010 that he’s running her campaign at that point and that all media reports are a critical part of any election campaign.

McIntyre adds that this National Post article was “that biggest splash” that Parrish had for some time.

Hazineh counters that the “National Post in all of Mississauga doesn’t sell more than a hundred papers”. [Ed. Not the wisest thing to say if you're intent of selling the Judge on your credibility...]

Hazineh adds that “I do not read the National Post period for the reasons I’ve outlined earlier”.

McIntyre continues her pursuit asking whether it’s possible that Carolyn Parrish to have shown it to him at the very time they were involved in the election campaign. Hazineh digs in: “I have not seen it prior to the application. That is the truth.”

McIntyre shows Hazineh a “supplementary application”. Pages 13 and 14. [Ed. I'm not sure what this means.]

McIntyre refers to the October 17, 2011 Clay Connor Mississauga News article and asks Hazineh if he remembers seeing it at the time. Hazineh offers that it’s possible and asks to  read it. Then says that he can’t recall the article –that he doesn’t remember specifically,  yet that he recognizes the information from other articles.

McIntyre now refers Hazineh back to his cross-examination. Article says McDowell conducted a “thorough investigation”. [Ed. Actually when you read the article, it is actually McIntyre who states that McDowell did a thorough investigation!]

McIntyre says that in his cross-examination, Hazineh, when asked if he read the article at the time responded “I’m sure I did”.

McIntyre probes did Hazineh not follow the news on the issue he was interested in. She asks why did you say on January 22, 2013 “I’m sure I did.”

McIntyre doesn’t wait for an answer, rather alleges, “I put it to you these were the honest answers at the time”.

McIntyre now deals with Hazineh’s relationship with Carolyn Parrish. Tab 1 in [Ed. I'm not sure what document].

McIntyre refers to par 10. Six weeks prior to actual election. McIntyre suggests that one of the issues on Parrish’s mind was the Inquiry and whether the Report would be released before the elections.

McIntyre gets Hazineh to admit he was with Parrish a lot during that time —and that Parrish has very few “unvoiced thoughts”.

McIntyre reminds the court that Hazineh drove Parrish down to see D’Agistino.  She asks how much time it takes to drive to Toronto and back. Hazineh replies that at no time was it a one-way conversation. That he and Parrish talk about everything the weather, kids, grand-kids…  [Ed. The weather?...]

Hazineh then says that Carolyn Parrish did a lot of the work on Peel Regional Council. Donated her time. And that he donated hundreds of hours on her campaigns.

McIntyre asks whether Parrish herself contributed money to the cost of this Application.

Judge Sproat objects on behalf of Richardson.

McIntyre says the question is relevant because if Hazineh is not a straw man, then at least he and Parrish are co-venturers in the application.

Judge Sproat admits that he has imperfect recollection of any test cases relating to legal fees/costs what with such a question being under client/solicitor privilege.

McIntyre says she now has only one other document. Blue volume, application record of the respondent. Tab H.

Article Mississauga News Feb 2, 2012. “We’re on the right track” with picture of Hazineh and Parrish. Hazineh says that the purpose of visit to Richardson’s office. That Parrish was with me when he was there. McIntyre observes that the photo shows Parrish leading him about four feet.

McIntyre reads “We’re on the right track” and the part about Hazineh saying “We’re on the right track and we have all the evidence we need to get a conviction.” McIntyre asks if that is a correct quote. McIntyre then asks who is “we”.  Hazineh reponds, “Lawyers”.

McIntyre counters with is “we” not Parrish?

Hazineh replies, “I already responded. Me and my lawyers.”

By now McIntyre is essentially calling Hazineh a liar. Hazineh: “I am not afraid of you.”

And that pretty much ends it.

Richardson will not re-examine.

Judge Sproat says he will look into McIntyre’s financing question about how much Parrish donated to Hazineh’s application.

Sproat says let’s break a bit later, until 2:15, because he has to attend a meeting over the lunch hour.

COURT  RESUMES

Freya Kristjanson, Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer, now up. 

Right off the bat she retracts her question about Parrish’s contribution to Hazineh. [Ed. I suspect McIntyre/Kristjanson just flung "contribution" onto the court floor because they (correctly) expected the media would run with it.]

Content, Kristjanson sits down. Richardson now up.

Richardson starts with supplemental evidence, article by Megan O’Toole, National Post. Richardson says this case requires the Applicant have full and complete knowledge –and reminds the judge that a member of public has a “daunting and risky task” when it comes to laying conflict of interest charges. Richardson insists that the six week time limit should only apply once there’s a degree of certainty.

Richardson points out that otherwise an applicant is required to act on the basis of meager information and even speculation.

Richardson now refers to the July 17, 2010 article, “Mississauga melee nears nadir” and impugned paragraph, “The councillors are alleging a direct violation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, dating back three years, when the Mayor introduced a motion that would have saved her son’s development company $11-million.”

Richardson states that there’s no indication in that sentence whether the violation was City or Region. And the only reference is on the second page, par “Freya Kristjanson, one of Ms. McCallion’s lawyers, disputes any conflict with the 2007 motion, passed by Peel Regional Council. ‘This was a bylaw of general application. It was not targeted at World Class Developments. It affected all development in Brampton, Caledon and Mississauga,’ Ms. Kristjanson said. ‘So it certainly was not targeted at WCD and that would be a most unfair targeting were that not made clear.’”

Richardson maintains that this article is not sufficient here to trigger alarm by a ratepayer of any wrong-doing.

Sproat mentions the paragraph about six weeks, specifically, “Since discovering the latest conflict allegation, councillors have a six-week window in which to launch legal action.” Richardson counters that the sentence refers to Councillors. And that it’s just insufficient information for citizen-watchdogs to respond.

Richardson states, that by contrast, the Connor article has more detail. That we read for first time “transition provisions”. Richardson reads “grandfathering” saving “$11M” [Ed. $11M? not sure...]  and that forms the basis of the application and their case. It’s the information in the Connor article that came to Elias Hazineh’s attention.

Richardson now focuses on the statement “probably read it” that Freya Kristjanson failed to mention.

Richardson reminds the court that Hazineh’s application was modified to address this second amendment. Richardson gets Judge Sproat to look at the application record of the respondent. Refers to application record of Ms O’Connor. Tab 1 page 6.

The characterization of the Peel meeting on September 13, 2007. Richardson says that Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell requests revisiting the transition provision matter. Par G. Fennell moved an amendment seconded by McCallion to extend the provision to May 1, 2008.

Richardson says that’s not correct! That’s not what Fennell and McCallion moved. Richardson explains that when the two mayors initially prepared the application they were not aware of the 18-month transition.

Richardson says he sees no reference indicating that Mayor McCallion was involved in extending provision by 18 months.

Richardson now returns to the July 26, 2010 Zingaro Inquiry testimony. Richardson states that there is nothing in Zingaro’s testimony that identifies that there was conflict of interest in Peel.

Richardson says that there’s no conflict in his affidavit/cross-examination. [Ed –missed it. Talking too fast.]

Richardson now turns his attention to Hazel McCallion. Says he will highlight details not put in affidavit.

Richardson states that:

Richardson says that Peter McCallion was there from the beginning. That he had a relationship with the World Class Developments “characters”.

Richardson then states that it is “beyond belief” that Mayor Hazel McCallion did not know that World Class Developments had a site plan application until the Inquiry.

Richardson continues that it’s unbelievable that McCallion didn’t see that newspaper article that her dream hotel was proceeding. Or that Director of Planning Marilyn Ball offered a briefing but didn’t tell her. Or that McCallion was not aware that Ed Sajecki went on Rogers TV announcing the imminent start of her favourite project. Or, especially, that during all those meetings involving World Class Developments no one told her.

Richardson suggests that one can infer a great deal from the messages left by Tony DeCicco, the meetings entered into her diary, the Agreement of Purchase of Sale, the Marriot viewing. That McCallion had general knowledge of the process and/or knew the process in detail. That World Class Developments would require building permit and payment of development charges.

Richardson submits that the mere frequency of McCallion’s phone messages show that she was well aware (apprised) of the process and status of World Class Developments

Richardson states there’s the “unavoidable conclusion that she (McCallion) was well aware of her dream hotel”, the development charges transition provision and that she the ample opportunity to inform herself. Richardson says that there were enough clues that would trigger the Mayor to investigate and raise questions.

Richardson reminds that court that there is no affidavit of Peter McCallion, nor any effort to involve witnesses from World Class Developments, no effort on the part of the Mayor’s defense team to corroborate her side of the story.

Richardson introduces the concept of an adverse inference.

He says that:

Richardson returns to the defense that the by-law was one of general application. He states that the pecuniary interest of Peter McCallion is deemed to be pecuniary interest of the Mayor. That Peter McCallion’s interest is viable —and that the pecuniary interest of Peter McCallion is not an interest in common “with the electors generally” as defined by the Act.

Richardson finishes.

Freya Kristjanson, Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer, now up.

Kristjanson takes on Issue 1, the interest of Hazel McCallion. She states that the onus on the applicant is to establish that Peter had a pecuniary interest that was known to his mother and that that pecuniary interest was present at Peel Region when matter came up.

Kristjanson explains that the time frame is important. She focuses on September 6, 13 and October 4, 2007. Kristjanson says that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act requires actions to be taken.

Kristjanson addresses the Mayor’s knowledge of son Peter’s pecuniary interest during those times.

Kristjanson says that pecuniary interest will be addressed in three parts.

Did World Class Developments have a pecuniary interest at the time of the Peel votes? Kristjanson says even assuming that Peter was a principal, WCD did not have a pecuniary interest in the transition period in Peel because World Class Developments did not have a complete site plan application within the meaning of the Regional by-law.

Regarding the alleged pecuniary interest in the development charges, Kristjanson states that WCD had filed a master site plan and to their knowledge such a plan did not allow for the issuance of building permits.

Kristjanson states that the Zingaro opinion was incorrect. That Marilyn Ball has testified that his opinion was based on information he acquired after the September/October 2007 Peel votes.

Kristjanson then talks about site plan application [Ed. This going way over my head...] Kristjanson insists that since the site plan application was never paid, there was no complete site plan as of October 4, 2007.

Kristjanson tells the judge that the real consideration was what were Peter’s actual pecuniary interests as to the day of the Peel vote in relation to the development charges. She then insists that Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interests were speculative and “too remote” to be affected by the vote.

Kristjanson states that the “evidence is clear” that Peter did not have an existing real estate agreement.

Kristjanson then goes on to Issue 1C: What did the Mayor know Peter’s pecuniary interest to be. Was his interest known to her.

Kristjanson states that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act Section 3, requires “knowledge of an actual pecuniary interest”. [Ed. "Interest of certain persons deemed that of member 3. For the purposes of this Act, the pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, of a parent or the spouse or any child of the member shall, if known to the member, be deemed to be also the pecuniary interest of the member. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 3; 1999, c. 6, s. 41 (2); 2005, c. 5, s. 45 (3)."]

Kristjanson then asks what the Mayor did for actual knowledge. Kristjanson says Hazel McCallion asked her son and he told her that he was an agent for Leo Couprie. Kristjanson says that this is consistent with what Peter McCallion told both Ed Sajecki (Commissioner of Planning and Building) and Marilyn Ball (Director of Development and Design).

Kristjanson tells the court that Peter McCallion had only ever been a real estate agent. And that the Mayor knew her son didn’t have the financial ability to invest in World Class Developments. And that Hazel McCallion also knew he didn’t have the technical expertise to take on a hotel project.

Kristjanson says that it was only in August 2009 that Hazel McCallion learned for the first time that son Peter was more than an agent. Kristjanson then states that the Mayor has to have knowledge of her son’s actual pecuniary interest for it to be a deemed her interest as well.

Kristjanson then moves to Issue 2 the Exemptions in Section 4 of the Act.

Kristjanson states that if found in violation, they will rely on four of the exceptions in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

  1. Interest in common. Also called “general application”. Kristjanson states that William McDowell used that term as did Mayors Fennell and Morrison.

Kristjanson maintains that the Mayor had an interest in common with other electors. Kristjanson argues that if Peter had an “indirect interest” and it was found to be known to Hazel McCallion, then they argue that the Mayor had an interest in common with all those who had an interest “in stream”.

Kristjanson says there were 80 such site plans –and the Peel transition provision vote affects them all equally.

[Ed. Missed what Kristjanson said. Her drone is getting to me...]

Kristjanson goes on about:

  1. Section 5. Pecuniary interest “common to other persons” offered by municipality or local board.

And that the development charges transition period is a benefit offered to all other persons in the community. That they’re like transit increases, dog licenses….

Kristjanson now address the defense of Remoteness

Kristjanson says that test of remoteness is, would a reasonable elector apprised of all the circumstances conclude the Mayor’s interest was remote. That is, if a reasonable person were informed of everything on October 4, 2007, —remoteness is an objective test.

Kristjanson then introduces Issue 3, the savings provisions under the MCOIA.

Kristjanson defines inadvertence as an oversight of fact or law, and that it is not willful or recklessly blind.

Kristjanson observes that Mayor McCallion didn’t ask Staff about World Class Developments. Kristjanson says that the Mayor could’ve threatened to fire all the staff –stating threat-to-fire “doesn’t seem to be prohibited by this Act.”

Kristjanson then explores whether the Mayor showed a good faith error in judgement.

Kristjanson says McCallion took steps. [Ed. Kristjanson is going too fast...]

Kristjanson now introduces Issue #4. The Time Limitation.

Kristjanson insists that the applicant, Elias Hazineh was out of time. That he applied some five years and two months after the event in question. Kristjanson reminds that Judge that the MCOIA states that there is a six week limitation after facts come to their knowledge and that Hazineh was well aware of necessary facts before limitation.

Kristjanson insists that the facts were “discoverable by him” given relationship between Hazineh and Parrish.

Kristjanson reminds the court Hazineh and Parrish were “driving to Inquiry together”, “meeting together” and that given Parrish’s knowledge of the facts of this case, her knowledge should be imputed to him. She then goes on to states that the “Case should be dismissed on this basis alone.”

Kristjanson says that she will now look at three aspects of the applicable law.

Kristjanson refers to Peel Regional bylaw Tab 32.

Kristjanson focuses on Requirement under the Regional by-law: that there had to be an application for complete site plan approval on October 4, 2007.

Kristjanson draws attention to the back of the factum. Sub 4. Approval of plans or drawings.  [Ed. I can’t follow this. I sure hope Sproat can.]

Kristjanson suggests that everything Council wants has to go into site plan considerations including servicing agreements that cities can require. Kristjanson says that where there’s an upper tier municipality that upper tier has to be advised.

Kristjanson presents a case relating to high rise structures. Ontario Court of Appeal 1992. Re Section 40 of the Planning Act.

[Ed. By this time my notes say "My brain wants OUT! Don’t know how much Sproat makes but it’s not enough!"]

Kristjanson now refers to City’s Fees and Charges by-law. Pursuant to the Planning Act.

Kristjanson maintains tath the Region does not control site plan applications —that it’s up to the three lower-tier Councils as to what kind of drawings/plans are required to be complete.

Sproat’s question suggests he’s not entirely sure where Kristjanson is going either. Sproat says Master Site Plan is conceptual and thought Kristjanson was arguing …. [Ed. I don’t get it.]

Kristjanson says whatever was there in Oct 2007. [Ed. I don’t get what I wrote here either.]

COURT RECESS

COURT RESUMES AT 3:55

Kristjanson now turns to Marilyn Ball’s evidence. Page 3, Question 8. Kristjanson explains that a master site plan is for a large complex sites to be worked over several years and will be used for future site plan applications.

Master site plans, Kristjanson says, help people understand the overall vision of a project but not the details.

Kristjanson refers to Page 10 and states that 10% would’ve been the required fee –complete site plan $520,000. And 10% for Master Site Plan. Why didn’t City have fees for Master Site plans. [Ed. Checking my court notes, it's clear my attention at this time of day is badly flagging... I write, "She’s reading again. Brain foggy blah blah blah..."]

Now evidence of Scott Walker. Page 51.

Now refers to Ben Phillips, worked for Ball and was planning in charge of WCD file.

I stopped taking notes… this actually hurts….

[Ed. After 3:55 my notes become meager, interspersed with personal comments and "I stopped taking notes... this actually hurts...." was the last entry of the day. For the record I tried my best to record what was said and now to flesh the material out and polish it. I had no idea that when I committed to summarizing Hazel McCallion's testimony and those of Elias Hazineh, what a tedious chore this would turn out to be. By far the greatest difficulty was not seeing the documents/exhibits that both set of lawyers were referring to. Anyway. Done.]

 

 

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing, Hazineh v. McCallion. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 8, 2013

April 10th, 2013  

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie

Hazel McCallion’s Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments’ Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie
Photo credit and special thanks to Peter McCallion, October 7, 2006.
https://picasaweb.google.com/100341223971604704180/RandomPics#4992822450712150034

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie

Hazel McCallion’s Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments’ Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie
Photo credit and special thanks to Peter McCallion, October 7, 2006.
(removed from Internet)

 

This is a summary of notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house on April 8, 2013. For the record, I’m not all that confident as to their accuracy (Thomas Richardson, the lawyer representing Elias Hazineh talked too fast for me to keep up at times). And I’m ashamed to admit that just before the afternoon break I actually dozed off right in the courtroom.

Next, while accredited media are permitted access to the Internet (to tweet live, for example) I have no such luxury. It would have been nice to examine minutes of meetings that I knew to be online at the Peel Regional Council website.

For readers genuinely interested in the Hazineh v McCallion Conflict of Interest hearing, I encourage you to read Toronto Star, San Grewal’s tweets at:  https://twitter.com/sangrewal1


NOTES from the Mayor Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest hearing, Brampton courthouse, April 8, 2013

10:10 am Justice John Sproat grants me permission to take notes using my laptop.

Thomas Richardson, the lawyer representing Elias Hazineh, up with some housekeeping issues.

Freya Kristjanson, lawyer for Mayor Hazel McCallion, now up

Straight out the gate, Kristjanson raises issue regarding credibility. Asks to hear evidence from Hazineh orally —to get him on the stand. Kristjanson refers to a newspaper article Tab 1b p 11 of the record. Article dated July 10, 20(10?) by Megan O’Toole.

Kristjanson asks Justice Sproat to find that Hazineh had knowledge of the Conflict back in July 2010. So Kristjanson insists that there’s a direct contradiction between what Hazineh had stated in his sworn affidavit and what he said during cross-examination.

Kristjanson says that the legal question then becomes what can you do between a conflict between affidavit and cross-examination. Kristjanson insists that there’s a specific credibility issue re Hazineh’s knowledge and time he had it. Then refers to Hazineh as a “straw man” (implication “straw man” for Carolyn Parrish).

Thomas Richardson, the lawyer representing Elias Hazineh, now up

Richardson reminds Justice Sproat that Hazineh was cross-examined in December 2012 and that McCallion’s lawyers raised no concerns regarding time Hazineh had knowledge then or the months afterwards. That McCallion’s lawyers waited until yesterday at 3 pm to raise their contradiction concern.

Richardson then states that given the lateness (McCallion’s lawyers had four months to advise them of a problem)  “we oppose the request” (to put Hazineh on the stand today).  Richardson then suggests Kristjanson/McIntyre’s intent is to disrupt the case.

Judge Sproat then admits that he has not read all of the Hazineh cross-examination —or might have— but didn’t recognize significance of the knowledge contradiction at the time.

Richardson then dissects the July 2919 O’Toole article that Hazineh might or might not have read.

Richardson then asks that Kristjanson’s Application to call Elias Hazineh to the stand be refused or at least delayed.

Freya Kristjanson back again…

Kristjanson perfectly content to leave decisions regarding Hazineh giving testimony completely up to Judge. Justice Sproat was loathe to call Hazineh to testify cold, said Hazineh has had no preparation from his lawyer.

So the Judge won’t make a ruling on this motion as to when/if Hazineh will testify right away.  Judge Sproat said he’ll inform Richardson later today or tomorrow.

Thomas Richardson, lawyer for Elias Hazineh is now free to present his case.

Richardson now presents his case and some background.

Richardson states that Hazel McCallion, not only voted on Peel’s Development by-law, she also proposed two amendments to that by-law. This, Richardson points out, would have benefited her son, Peter McCallion.

Richardson states that at the September 6, 2007 Peel General Committee, Regional mayors/councillors considered new development charges/rates as well as grand-fathering any existing applications.

Richardson states that on September 13, 2007. Peel Council approved the September 6, 2007 General Committee recommendations and that Mayor McCallion participated in that vote. In addition to voting McCallion suggested amendments that rate increase deadlines be extended 18 months to Nov 1, 2009 “in areas of intensification” ie: Mississauga’s “urban growth centre”.

These areas of intensification and the urban growth centre included her son’s World Class Development (“WCD”) lands.

Richardson states that at the  September 27, 2007 Peel General Committee, Peel Staff recommended against grand-fathering existing application since that meant a $28m in lost revenue to the Region.

Richardson states that at the October 4, 2007 Peel Council meeting, McCallion voted to pass the Development rate increase bylaw  in a recorded vote.. The Mississauga Mayor participated in debates and voted on all by-laws and amendments. The amendments were even seconded by her. By doing so she saved her son Peter as much as $11 million dollars in rate increases.

Richardson states that McCallion knew two years before that son was involved in WCD.

Richardson states that he intends to prove, that Hazel McCallion participated in and voted on the Peel development fees by-law and related amendments in September and October 2007. Amendments, Richardson said, had the potential to save World Class Development millions. Richardson also intends to prove that Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interest was known —and that it was not a “general interest”.  Richardson insists that the Mayor’s failure to declare a conflict was not a result of error or inadvertence as the defense suggests.

Richardson states that he seeks the following relief: That Hazel McCallion has contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. That Justice Sproat declare McCallion’s seat vacant in Mississauga and Peel. And to disquality McCallion as a member of Mississauga/Peel Councils for 7 years.

Richardson then quotes President John F. Kennedy. “No responsibility of government is more fundamental than the responsibility of maintaining the highest standards of ethical behavior by those who conduct the public business. There can be no dissent from the principle that all officials must act with unwavering integrity, absolute impartiality and complete devotion to the public interest.”

Richardson points out that Ontario’s first Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCOI) was enacted in 1972.

[Ed. Richardson quotes from several cases and I can’t keep up. This portion of my notes has a big hole in it.]

Richardson then reminds the court that “No man can serve two masters” –that even well-meaning people can become impaired when personal interests are in play. He coaches that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act must be construed broadly. Richardson also reminds us that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was in force the entire time that Hazel McCallion was Mayor of Mississauga and before that, when she was Mayor of Streetsville!

Richardson now refers now to Hazel McCallion’s 1982 Conflict of Interest case.

Richardson then details the MCOI Act: that the MCOI imposes a duty on Council. That where a Member, either on his own or someone else’s behalf, has any pecuniary interest direct/indirect, that Member has three obligations. 1. Disclose the interest 2. Shall not take part in discussion or any vote. 3. Shall not attempt in any way to influence voting.

Richardson tells the court that pecuniary interest is not defined in the Act. But that pecuniary interest is not to be narrowly defined. Richardson states that pecuniary interest is not just clear and very significant interest –but ALL.

Richardson states that “indirect pecuniary interest” is defined in Act. He says that there will be some evidence with respect to Peter McCallion’s involvement as “indirect pecuniary interest” of the Mayor because her son, Peter had DIRECT pecuniary interest in World Class Developments.

Section 3 of Act says “For the purposes of this Act, the pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, of a parent or the spouse or any child of the member shall, if known to the member, be deemed to be also the pecuniary interest of the member.”  So Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interest in WCD is also a pecuniary interest of the Mayor.

Richardson states that a key consideration of this court is what knowledge the Mayor had back in Sept/Oct 2007 of her son’s involvement in WCD. Items voted on must have the potential of affecting the pecuniary interest of the Member –but it’s also important to gauge how this pecuniary interest is perceived by the public.

Richardson states that the test is an objective one —that it doesn’t matter how a member votes, the Act demands that public duty not conflict with economic self-interest.

Richardson points out that the Act has exceptions and may be raised as a defense. 4(j) –”by reason of the member having a pecuniary interest which is an interest in common with electors generally”.

Defined in Section 1 of the Act “’interest in common with electors generally’ means a pecuniary interest in common with the electors within the area of jurisdiction”.

Richardson says that the votes in question relate to the Region of Peel development by-law and that this by-law applies across Peel. But doesn’t apply to voters at large but only to those who had applications subject to development charges —if the developer was able to bring in transition period.

So, Richardson concludes, those benefiting from the Peel Development by-law grand-fathering was a select group. Only those able to build in the time constraints of provisions.

Richardson states that the word “generally” in the MCOI Act means that ratepayers might benefit from the Peel Development By-Law in some way, but in fact, that doesn’t preclude a smaller group from benefiting much more. So the concept of “community of interest” deals with kind but not degree of interest.

McCallion’s lawyers will claim the Mayor to be exempt and have two bases for this claim. 1. There was no potential for World Class Developments to benefit. 2. That Peter McCallion was limited to real estate agent.

Richardson insists that the fundamental question is, would a reasonable electorate given knowledge of “apprised of all the circumstances” conclude there was a financial benefit depending on how the Member disposes of the subject matter? (Cited this test from a case.)

This is an objective test –must be reasonably viewed as having influenced the member. Richardson then refers to the Lorello case. [Ed. And I fall behind in my notes]

Richardson states that at time of the vote, there was a possibility that Peter McCallion and World Class Developments would have benefited.

Judge Sproat then asks for details relating to the concept of “remoteness”. Richardson cited a case where it was argued that a particular interest was “highly speculative and theoretical” but the court rejected this argument. It ruled that Conflict of Interest “Prohibition applies at every step.”

Richardson explained that remoteness relates to the potential for financial interest and not to whether the matter proceeds or not. The bottom-line question is: “Is there a financial interest?”, not: “Is the matter (project) likely to proceed?”

Richardson refers to a case where a councillor voted on a top soil removal application where he was actually the real estate agent for the land. The money could be considered insignificant but the public perception of a land deal must also be considered.

Even where a project is the “early step in a long process”.

[Ed. I missed what came next. Richardson citing lots of cases and quickly]

Richardson points out that the enforcement of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is left to the Judge of a Superior Court. There is no public agency to enforce the Act. Or public funds. Laying charges under the Act is left exclusively to the electorate.

Richardson now tells Judge what the Act says is his duty and reminds all that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act does not distinguish long-serving or popular officials.

Court recess.

Judge Sproat enters at 11:55.

Judge Sproat revisits McCallion’s lawyers’ protests that there must have been some communication between Parrish and Hazineh. So the Judge asked whether anyone had asked Parrish if she communicated her knowledge to Hazineh. Judge then points out that some of the same arguments that apply to Hazineh also apply to Parrish.

Richardson still on.

Richardson repeats what he said before recess —that the Act does not distinguish between long-serving/popular members. And added that a judge can’t consider the effect his decision might have on municipality either.

Turning to his factum, Richardson says that the Act is “crystal-clear” and “harsh” since it deals with citizens’ “highest trust” The Act demands that elected officials are not just “unshirkingly-honest” but “be seen to be so”.

The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act provides two savings provisions. If the Act is found to be contravened, the Judge can find inadvertence or error in judgement.

Richardson points out that inadvertence or error in judgement “is not a defense”. They only apply when a member has been found to contravene the Act. And only apply to penalties.

Richardson now refers to his Apply Factum.

Richardson explains that inadvertence refers to a failure to direct one’s mind to his duty.

He goes on to say that willful blindness cannot be applied as inadvertence. McCallion claims her actions were “honest belief” of general applications.

[Ed. Again...going too fast.... missed Richardson's point]

Richardson reminds the court that every action can be claimed to be an error in judgement. Even criminal acts are errors in judgement.

Case law says this about errors in judgement: Acting in good faith that results in errors of judgement still requires “honesty, candour and complete good faith”. Members aren’t expected to be perfect.

Richardson says that there is a difference between honest belief and good faith —there must be some diligence to understand one’s obligation. Ford had an honest belief. However that judge stated an error in judgement must have occurred honestly and in good faith. Good faith ….means diligence to understand.

Ignorance of the law, willful blindness —both are incompatible with the error in judgement safety provision.

Richardson states that acting recklessly or being willfully blind can’t be error in judgement under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. The member should demonstrate some kind of concern for conflict of interest –like getting or relying on a legal opinion.

Flawed understanding is not an excuse in Ford case. While Mayor Ford may have honestly believed –Richardson states that it would undermine the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to rely on error of law. Good faith demands that Mayor Ford pursue clarification and not rely on his subjective interpretation.

Richardson says that a member must not just claim honest belief but must also show he/she took some reasonable steps –diligence— with respect to his duties under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

In cross-examination, Mayor McCallion explained that she believed that the Peel Development by-law was general application. McCallion said “it affects all taxpayers”. Yet the Mayor gave no evidence that she obtained a legal opinion on this.

Richardson said that (Applicant) Elias Hazineh is a taxpayer/resident in Mississauga. That Hazineh is heavily involved in advocacy and passionate about Canadian politics. He’s an immigration consultant as well. Over the last few years Hazineh has developed interest in McCallion’s conflict of interest issues. For example, he supported Judicial Inquiry.

Hazineh personally attended two Inquiry proceedings and watched others on TV.

Hazineh attended October 3, 2010 Cunningham report. Was present at the press conference as well. Richardson said that Hazineh has since reviewed press conference on YouTube. Now quoting what she said.

Hazineh then read an article (October 11, 2011) in Mississauga News by Clay Connor “McCallion may not be out of the woods”. From that article he learned McCallion may have been in breach at Peel October 4, 2007. Hazineh also determined that any Peel conduct/vote was outside the Judicial Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.

Hazineh learned about the grandfathering of development charges. Learned that World Class Developments would save $9M approximately. Learned Mayor McCallion did not declare a conflict at Peel meetings and also voted on the issues. Prior to that he was not aware of the voting.

Then Hazineh shared his concerns with Carolyn Parrish and contacted her. Parrish confirmed to Hazineh the that  Inquiry did not deal with Peel and the voting there.

Richardson then reviewed the legal requirements for standing. Must be an elector. Canadian citizen. At least 18. Reside in municipality. Allowed to vote under law.

NEXT SECTION –ON LIMITATIONS

Richardson stated that evidence of Hazineh’s knowledge was not challenged or rebutted by the Mayor’s legal team. An elector can apply to a judge within 6 weeks to when a suspected conflict of interest comes to his knowledge.

Richardson’s position is that Hazineh is in compliance under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

By contrast, the position of Mayor McCallion’s lawyer is that Hazineh ought to have known well before the application date –especially considering his relationship with Parrish.

The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act says, “No application shall be brought under subsection (1) after the expiration of six years from the time at which the contravention is alleged to have occurred”. Richardson submits that 2013 is within six years of events in 2007.

Richardson states that six years used because member of the public needs time to “get it” –a ratepayer in the first instance may have little knowledge in pecuniary interest in a member.

Richardson is still on the Reply Factum.

Richardson continues. The elector must have knowledge that the elected official was present at a meeting and that the member failed to disclose a conflict, took part in related discussion/vote. Or before/after any meeting, the member attempted to affect voting.

Richardson suggests that the savings World Class Developments could have enjoyed from the transitional provisions of the Peel Development by-law was more like $11M than $9M.

Richardson says Hazineh really didn’t “get it” til October 2011 reading the Connor article.

McCalllion’s lawyers defend that Hazineh should have known prior because of the knowledge of Parrish. Richardson states that there’s no evidence that is so.

Richardson states that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act does not impose citizens the duty to monitor a municipal council.

The Act’s Sec 9 sub1 states, “Subject to subsection (3), an elector may, within six weeks after the fact comes to his or her knowledge that a member may have contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3), apply to the judge for a determination of the question of whether the member has contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3). R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 9 (1).”

Richardson now ends the issue of limitations relating to the Act.

Judge Sproat now ponders whether additional witnesses need to testify. Says he wants to deal with that issue ASAP

Break til 2:15 PM

Court starts precisely at 2:15 pm

Richardson addresses Development Charges Act and states that prior to the Act, Mississauga had a system of levies stating that development had to pay for itself. Richardson suggests that Mississauga was even belligerent about “Growth must pay for itself“.

Now reading Act stating “The council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from development of the area to which the by-law applies.” Richardson emphasizes the word “increased”.

[Ed. I can’t follow his argument re application/restrictions of the Act. Getting highly specific here]

Richardson stated that people “developing” their house (adding on) do not pay development charges.

The Development Charges Act says a by-law can allow for transition periods. Transition periods are intended to allow developments in process to continue to pay original charges.

Richardson then examines the specific of the Peel Development by-laTRATRw that McCallion voted on. Still working from his factum. Richardson states that both Mississauga and Peel impose development charges. But they are distinct from each other.

Richardson tells the court that development charges are linked to development –growth, not repair. So growth must pay for itself (to keep pace with infrastructure).

Richardson points out that in 2007 Hazel McCallion voted against grandfathering . In 2007 she voted for transition period stating, “It will have a negative impact for development in Mississauga.”

Regarding the Peel Development by-law, McCallion also said “It will add $7,000 to the cost of a condo unit”. Richardson points out that McCallion said that she can’t remember making that statement.

Richardson argues that the development charges are not general application but discrete –applying only to those applications on or before June 1, 2007 and issued on or before September 13, 2007 –applies where an application is sufficient by certain date. (Meaning the bylaw’s impact really starts to narrow it down).

Richardson states that development charges for a hotel would be 83.1% and condo units would be 88.9%.

Richardson states that around this time staff and politicians were keeping an eye on how they stacked up to other GTA municipalities.

Richardson maintains that the Development by-law applied to “a discrete group of possible beneficiaries”.

Now onto transition period.

Richardson says that Development Charges Act is silent on transition periods. Municipalities try to be fair and equitable. But clearly there was a change of thinking happening in presentations to Mayor/Councillors.

Then Richardson deals with Mayor’s involvement in the process. He introduces a letter from McCallion’s office regarding an arterial road saying this shows that the Mayor knows what’s what, is interested in what’s what —and is not thinking regionally but rather for Mississauga only.

Regarding the report on transitioning. Staff were also asked to ponder a phase-in (different from transitioning). It turned out that delaying implementation of Development fees for 1 year could results in a revenue loss of $80M.

Richardson made it clear that the issue is not whether the Peel by-law is one of general application but whether the pecuniary interest of Mayor/son is one with the general public. Meaning, is Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interest (and the Mayor’s)  in common with the electorate generally.

“Transition costs the taxpayers money” said Hazel McCallion under cross-examination.  “Costing money” is not the pecuniary interest of Peter/Hazel. His interest is paying as little as possible. “one of general issue” misses the point.

After recess  3:55 pm and beyond…

Richardson still up.

Richardson says that the September 6, 2007 Peel General Committee meeting is critical with respect to approval of Peel’s Development by-law.

[Ed. Something about acknowledged good relationship between Peel Staff and development industry. Couldn't write what Richardson said fast enough]

Richardson says that McCallion moved a 90-day transition for non-residential. So the amendment extended to May 1, 2008.

In cross-examination, Mayor Morrison swore that she shared her concern that there were projects that would not proceed in Caledon if there weren’t a transition period.

[Ed. Then I couldn’t follow what Richardson said for about 10 minutes! Getting tired...]

Richardson then outlines a chronology of events.

Onto the September 13, 2007 meeting. At this meeting another staff report was received. 2007 Development Charges by-law. See Final Technical Adjustments re Developmental Charges by-law. Included amended adjustments and rates.

Fennell requested item in Sept 6th General Committee meeting’s minutes be reconsidered. Amended that 2007 residential and non-residential be adopted subject to the transition provision (the extended one). [Ed. He’s reading the amendment –can’t follow.]

That resolution took the recommendation from General Committee, move the recommendation with some amendments and also carries over the amendment by McCallion.

Richardson said that at same meeting, after Council approved, entries states, Fennell puts forward to reconsider resolution, carried by 2/3 majority vote.

Fennell moved and McCallion seconded –amended to include transition period for high density be extended to November 1, 2009! (Reminder, before this the transition period was May 1, 2008!) And that Staff devise plan for implementation.

Moved by Fennell/seconded McCallion Sept 6 resolution is amended Passed something  and then amended it and then?…  [Ed. Again, so convoluted I can’t follow Richardson's arguments here.]

Richardson now summarizes. Peel Council approved Council minutes with previously proposed amendment. Then Fennell reopens previous meeting minutes. Then Fennell moves amendment to something already approved. Then extends transition from 3 months to 18 months. And eventually move that the minutes of the previous Sept meeting be approved!

Richardson points out that the two amendments dealt with that Council meeting were either moved or seconded by Hazel McCallion.

Richardson has come to a break in his submission.

Judge will be here tomorrow at 8 am.

COURT NOTES FOR APRIL 8, 2013 END

Last, I’d appreciate being advised of any errors.

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie

Hazel McCallion’s Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments’ Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie
Photo credit and special thanks to Peter McCallion, October 7, 2006.
https://picasaweb.google.com/100341223971604704180/RandomPics#4992822464988250130

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing, Hazineh v. McCallion. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 3, 2013

April 7th, 2013  

Peter McCallion LinkedIn " Owner World Class Group Inc.  January 2010 – Present (3 years 4 months)" saved 130403 Brampton courthouse cafeteria

Peter McCallion LinkedIn “Owner World Class Group Inc. January 2010 – Present (3 years 4 months)”
saved 130403 Brampton courthouse cafeteria

 

The purpose of today’s blog  is to summarize notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house.

For the record, it was a long session and by the end of it, the only Traditional Media still there was San Grewal, urban affairs reporter with the Toronto Star.

Grewal generated over 100 tweets from court room 201 yesterday from beginning:

San Grewal@sangrewal1 3 Apr

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

to end:

San Grewal@sangrewal1 3 Apr

#Missypoli Wrapping up. Back Monday with ruling on evidence and decision about when the mayor will take the stand

You can follow him on Twitter  @sangrewal1

NOTES from the Mayor Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest hearing, Brampton courthouse, April 3, 2013

Freya Kristjanson, Hazel McCallion’s lawyer addressing Justice John Sproat

Issue 1

Kristjanson wanted only “relevant and admissable evidence”.

Kristjanson states court must be confident that documents are authentic.

Kristjanson asking for “evidence to be struck” and that documents be used as “truth of their content”.

Kristjanson states that Mississauga Judicial Inquiry transcripts are “limited as to truth”. [Ed. if you were at the Inquiry to experience some of those witnesses you'd understand why.]

Kristjanson urged that no evidence from the Inquiry shall be used or be receivable. [Ed. Beside this, I'd written the comment, "So nothing McCallion said at the Inquiry can be used now? Fuck me!" and "Fascinating how McCallion and municipal councils warble 'We are accountable!' —until it's tested."]

Kristjanson did not want the Inquiry report admissible as a public document. [Ed. Beside this, I'd written the comment, "Did I get that right?]

Kristjanson states that Carolyn Parrish relied on testimony of Marilyn Ball (David O’Brien’s wife) and wants that evidence struck too because it was not a civil proceeding and had there been cross-examination things might have gone differently.

Issue 2

Kristjanson asks for ruling as to the knowledge of the elector, Elias Hazineh.

Kristjanson states Marilyn Ball’s evidence should not be regarded as truth.

Issues 3 and 4 dealt together

Issue 3 “unattributed hearsay”

Kristjanson states “contentious matters”, defined as something that is in dispute or where there are differences between the parties, should be struck.

Kristjanson states “improper hearsay” or irrelevant information should be struck.

Kristjanson reference to paragraph 4, maintaining that to leave that evidence in the record can be “embarrassing”.

Issue 3 “no personal knowledge”

Kristjanson objected to the statement, “Many members of the public were calling for a Judicial Inquiry” as improper hearsay.

Kristjanson objected paragraph 52 as a broad, large statement regarding Mayor McCallion’s conduct and activities without attribution. She claimed it was also contentious and should be struck.

Kristjanson objected paragraphs 72 through 75, dealing with a legal conclusion to the Declaration of Trust —the controversial issue of the case.

Kristjanson turns to the Carolyn Parrish affidavit and insists Parrish has no personal knowledge and that Parrish’s statements are made without a source or referencing the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

Kristjanson calls statements by the City Solicitor as hearsay and even double hearsay.

Kristjanson states that the ownership of World Class Developments is a “highly contentious issue”.

Issue 4 Hearsay documents of contentious matters

Kristjanson frets about the issue of authenticity of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry exhibits/documents asking them to be struck because they weren’t authenticated.

Kristjanson stated that they conceded authenticity of certain Inquiry documents —but not their admissibility.

Kristjanson conceded authenticity of certain documents (emails, loan agreement, Declaration of Trust). And there was reference to Exhibit 22 and agreement as to authenticity because it was publicly filed and stamped. [Ed. Found it odd that Kristjanson (the same lawyer in the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry) never squawked about the authenticity of a single exhibit between July through December 2010... ]

At 11:25 am Kristjanson is still on the floor seeking for information to be struck…

Kristjanson now fretting about a version of the Application Record that has a Mississauga Judicial Inquiry stamp on it.

Kristjanson now objecting to the Emilio Bisceglia (Counsel to World Class Developments Limited) document from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website as “replete with triple hearsay”.

Kristjanson seems to imply that there’s nothing on the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website that can be trusted as authentic! Kristjanson states that “all fall in the initial hurdle of authenticity”.

And so, Kristjanson also asks that statements made by both Hazineh and Parrish be struck.

NOON BREAK OVER

Fascinating! Kristjanson now dealing with Peter McCallion’s sworn affidavit, saying a recanted affidavit can’t be relied on as truth. [Ed. Wondering how many others in the courtroom are wondering if the original affidavit is the truth and that's why it was recanted!]

Kristjanson now insisting that it’s insufficient to rely on the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website for documents. Kristjanson states you can’t say, “I verily believe this to be true because I got it off a website.” [Ed. Yes. Kristjanson really implied that the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website was just any website and therefore not a reliable source! My notes states, "Looks like Kristjanson believes that for citizens to bring forth Conflict of Interest charges they must have personal knowledge   —aka be fortunate enough to be a fly on the wall."]

Thomas Richardson, lawyer for Elias Hazineh now up.

Richardson responds saying that Mississauga Judicial Inquiry documents were confidential until they were made public by the Judicial Inquiry. That it’s not reasonable for an elector to ignore Mississauga Judicial Inquiry documents/information when it was through revelations in the Inquiry itself that Hazineh expected the conflict of interest took place.

Richardson then states there’s something of a conundrum. That there’s no real difference between reading something in a newspaper or at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website except the Inquiry website is more reliable! Richardson points out that both parties at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry used documents for cross-examination.

Richardson makes the point that the existence of a document or what it says it not contentious, but rather the conclusions that may be drawn. Richardson then asks Justice John Sproat to accept the evidence and weight them accordingly.

Kristjanson counters by reminding the court that there’s a difference between case law on Motion and case law on Application. Kristjanson states that no lawyer would ever concede a newspaper article as having been written as truth of their contents, and that when it comes to the Mayor losing her office, the documents have to be authentic. [Ed. I write in my notes, "Seriously. Is there anyone who thinks Hazel McCallion will lose this case?..."]

Regarding Issue 5, Richardson focuses on “the relevant date”, October 4, 2007, the date of her vote at Peel Regional Council. And what she knew about Peter McCallion’s involvement (“Owner”) with World Class Development at that time.

Richardson asks why the distinction between evidence post October 4, 2007 — [Ed. Then I can't make sense of the notes.]

Richardson then introduces the concept of “probative value” (defined as: “n. evidence which is sufficiently useful to prove something important in a trial. However, probative value of proposed evidence must be weighed against prejudice in the minds of jurors toward the opposing party or criminal defendant. A typical dispute arises when the prosecutor wishes to introduce the previous conduct of a defendant (particularly a criminal conviction) to show a tendency toward committing the crime charged, against the right of the accused to be tried on the facts in the particular case and not prejudice him/her in the minds of the jury based on prior actions.” Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probative+value)

Kristjanson now up introducing the concept of “viva voce” (defined as: “Latin, With the living voice; by word of mouth. Verbally; orally. When applied to the examination of witnesses, the term viva voce means oral testimony as opposed to testimony contained in depositions or affidavits.” Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Viva+voce)

Hazel McCallion will rely on two defenses in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act should she be found in contravention —inadvertence or error in judgement.

POST 4 PM BREAK

Richardson tells Justice Sproat that they’ll be challenging the credibility of the Mayor with respect to reliance their inadvertence or error in judgment defense.

There’s discussion about how long each of the lawyers will take to state their cases and Kristjanson suggests that there are plenty of disputes on material evidence among the 13 witnesses.

Richardson raises an issue about a letter from William McDowell, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Commission Counsel, and strongly objects to the letter. Richardson states that the letter is attempting to provide legal opinion in the form of an unsworn letter —that McDowell has put himself as an expert as Commission Counsel that he can’t cross-examine!

Kristjanson says that McDowell’s letter is in response to the Hazineh affidavit. There was also reference to an email from Naomi Loewith, also Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Commission Counsel to Clifford Lax, lawyer for the City of Mississauga during the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. [Ed. Can't make sense of my notes. It was very late by then...]

Post 4:30 pm both lawyers were pondering amount of time needed to present their cases. Kristjanson estimated four days.

There was reference to a “bottomline decision” relating to whether Sproat would entertain evidence after Mayor Hazel McCallion’s votes on October 4, 2007.

COURT NOTES END

Update Sunday, April 7, 2013

I tried to take as accurate notes as possible during the April 3rd court hearing and then transcribe them here. If you notice any errors I’d appreciate correction.

On April 5, 2013 Toronto Star urban reporter San Grewal tweeted:

San Grewal@sangrewal1 5 Apr

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

and then:

San Grewal@sangrewal1 5 Apr

#Missypoli Looks like Mayor McCallion will be on the stand Thursday and Friday.

There’s no decision yet on whether post October 4, 2007 evidence can be used.

If you’re interested in accurate from-the-courtroom tweets, you can do no better than follow Toronto Star’s San Grewal at:  https://twitter.com/sangrewal1

 

Evidence (Peter McCallion's sworn affidavit) struck from Hazel McCallion's conflict of interest case --YOU decide....

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

Where Were You When Twitter Went Down? And Hazel McCallion’s New Year’s allegation, “the press tries to mislead the public”

January 4th, 2013  

Mayor Hazel McCallion gave quite the speech at this year’s Mayor’s New Year’s Levee! McCallion sure crapped on The Mississauga News!

And McCallion didn’t stop there. She then let loose with the allegation that “the press tries to mislead the public.”

Have to laugh because back at the April 12, 2010 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry hearing, here’s what I testified to Inquiry Commissioner Douglas Cunningham about Mississauga “media”.

For the record, there are no media in MYTHissauga. And please spell that capital M. Y. T. H. and lower-case issauga.

We don’t have a television station in MYTHissauga. Citizens are merely inflicted with a way that the City has found to funnel its Trust, Quality, Excellence Party Line straight into our living rooms.

As for MYTHissauga’s only newspaper? Coverage of City Hall is a joke.

Well on New Year’s Day, Mayor Hazel McCallion called The Mississauga News, “the local wrapper for advertising”.

“Coverage of City Hall is a joke” or McCallion’s “local wrapper for advertising” —same message: When it comes to reliable political information, citizens are on their own in MYTHissauga.

So ends the intro and as always, here’s the video, complete with video transcript.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Tweeting LIVE! And Where Were You When Twitter Went Down (2:57 min)

 (Click here to go directly to YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH at City Hall elevator to cover the Mayor’s New Year’s Levee speech  January 1, 2013.

It is Tuesday, January the 1st, 2013. There’s the information. So we’ll go.

Mayor Hazel McCallion delivering Mayor’s New Year’s Levee speech  January 1, 2013

I think this year, this levee, is a very special one. In which we’ve gone through a year of trials and tribulations.

Some unfortunate, pessimistic things have happened and people have become a little pessimistic.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH presses City Hall elevator button on way to Mayor’s New Year’s Levee January 1, 2013.

Go.

Mayor Hazel McCallion delivering Mayor’s New Year’s Levee speech  January 1, 2013

I know you-all adopted New Year’s Resolutions. I’d like to see the list you-all adopted. We would file them in the City M— into the Mayor’s Office. I’d be happy to look at them.

 MISSISSAUGAWATCH presses City Hall elevator button on way to Mayor’s New Year’s Levee January 1, 2013.

Go.

Mayor Hazel McCallion delivering Mayor’s New Year’s Levee speech  January 1, 2013

We have dealt with the Budget and the increase— don’t believe what you read in the newspapers! Please! Check it, before you believe it.

The increase in taxes was 2.6%. Not 7 to 8% as reported by the local wrapper for advertising. You know what that is? The local wrapper for advertising. I think they call it a newspaper.

So it just shows you how the press tries to mislead the public.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH presses City Hall elevator button on way to Mayor’s New Year’s Levee January 1, 2013.

Go.

Mayor Hazel McCallion delivering Mayor’s New Year’s Levee speech  January 1, 2013

And then unfortunately we had a bug called the Ash Bore that is ruining our ash trees. And we had to put $50-million in the budgets to spend over the next 10 years to try to save our ash trees. And when they die we plant more other trees.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH presses City Hall elevator button on way to Mayor’s New Year’s Levee January 1, 2013.

Go.

Mayor Hazel McCallion delivering Mayor’s New Year’s Levee speech  January 1, 2013

So there are challenges out there. And we want to keep our infrastructure in good shape! We don’t want cement falling from the bridges in Mississauga.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH presses City Hall elevator button on way to Mayor’s New Year’s Levee January 1, 2013.

Go.

Mayor Hazel McCallion delivering Mayor’s New Year’s Levee speech  January 1, 2013

Because, with the Staff and the Council working together —as a team, we can accomplish so much.

And then if we add to the team, the Citizens of Mississauga, nobody can beat us! Absolutely not. [Applause] We are The Best!

[Applause]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH presses City Hall elevator button on way to Mayor’s New Year’s Levee January 1, 2013.

Go.

Mayor Hazel McCallion delivering Mayor’s New Year’s Levee speech  January 1, 2013

So. Let’s celebrate!  [Applause]

Let’s have a wonderful New Year!

[Applause]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH videotaping outside Council Chambers, Mayor’s New Year’s Levee January 1, 2013.

Okay. I’ve just gone out through this door —I’ll just show you here. This door right there —this door. This one right here.

And I see this! And it says, “NO PHOTOS PLEASE” and yet most people [person talking] most people went up the [person talking] most people went up the escalator [laughs] and they put the “NO PHOTOS” right there.

Weird.


Music: “Where Were You When Twitter Went Down” by Chumlee from Pawn Stars

GoldSilverPawn Shop.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

And wouldn’t you know it that just a week or so earlier, someone else in Mississauga isn’t happy with the media…

MISSISSAUGA GRAFFITI "MEDIA LIES!"  December 24, 2012

 “MEDIA LIES!” Mississauga graffiti photographed December 24, 2012, undisclosed location.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

Mayor Hazel McCallion skates New Year’s Day just one month shy of her 92nd birthday at Mississauga Celebration Square

January 3rd, 2013  

Mayor Hazel McCallion, just a month shy of her 92nd birthday welcomed in the New Year with a skate at Mississauga Celebration Square. Now the usual media outlets have plenty of video of this occasion but guaranteed it won’t be anything like the skate that MISSISSAUGAWATCH documented.

As always, the video, complete with video transcript.

Mayor Hazel McCallion skates New Year’s Day just one month shy of her 92nd birthday (1:39 min)

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH covering the Mayor’s Skate at Mississauga Celebration Square  January 1, 2013

Let’s go on out. Let’s see what we got here.

Apparently Mayor McCallion is going to be skating —or is expected to be skating. So, see what we got here. Thank you.

There’s a knob.

Once you have a knob, that’s all you need. Then you know the Mayor’s around. And there’s Mayor McCallion. And. Let’s see.

There she is.

You know, I got to say, being 91 like that.

Where is she?

Hazel McCallion.

There she is.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, a month shy of her 92nd birthday, skated at Celebration Square after the Meet and Greet portion of her New Year's Levee January 1, 2013

In fact I’m going to go like this. And like this. I was right. Here it goes.

There’s the knob. Right there.

There’s the Mayor.

Mayor Hazel McCallion goes back inside Mississauga City Hall after a New Year's skate at Celebration Square, January 1, 2013


[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

And judging by developer Victor Oh (honourary President of the Mississauga Chinese Business Association) and Peter McCallion (World Class Developments) it’s clear that the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry is FORGOTTEN.

Ardent Hazel McCallion supporter, developer Victor Oh celebrates with Mayor's son, Peter McCallion  after New Year's Levee, January 1, 2013

But that’s okay. It’s been forgotten by the City’s Governance Committee as well as its new Integrity Commissioner.

And thus we herald in the New Year…. same as the Old Year.

 

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

Hazel McCallion’s “Friends of Hazel” spin doctors unethically-identical to Rob Ford’s “Ford Nation” spin doctors. Same-same Shame-shame.

December 11th, 2012  

On the third anniversary of the December 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally, MISSISSAUGAWATCH examined Rally photographs taken by Donald Barber —just to see what could be seen.

"Friends of Hazel" NOT "grassroots". Retrospective analysis of December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally. (Photos taken 6 seconds apart by Donald Barber)

Click here to examine Donald Barber’s original (5184 x 8000) size photos

Three years ago, neither Barber or MISSISSAUGAWATCH knew who organized the “Friends of Hazel” Rally –a rally to oppose and stop the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

The December 2, 2009 Mississauga News article, “Hundreds back mayor” simply reported that “The event was hosted by The Friends of Hazel, a grassroots movement comprised of concerned residents of Mississauga.”  Real estate agent Betty Merkley was heralded as a “key organizer” of the Rally but it’s more likely that her primary role was to be the Rally’s citizen-grassroots “face”.

Three years later, MISSISSAUGAWATCH can now confidently tell you there was nothing “grassroots” about the “Friends of Hazel” hosts!

Donald Barber’s photographs provided remarkable insights into that December 2, 2009 evening —the most important being those taken after the Rally was over. Barber’s photos show row upon row upon row of empty chairs —and two groups of people engaged in what appears to be urgent discussion.

Photographs by themselves only capture the briefest of moments. Photos may be worth a thousand words but they’re not that much to go on let alone draw any conclusions.

It was the Jun 14, 2011 Mississauga News Letter to the Editor by Rob Trewartha that proved instrumental in finally confirming exactly who organized the “Friends of Hazel” Rally.

Trewartha’s letter complained about the cost of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry as “$25 per Mississaugan” and he wrote, “I want my $25 back.”

So I Googled “Rob Trewartha”.

Long story short back in June 2011 as Trewartha wrote his Letter to the Editor creating the illusion he was just a regular Mississauga concerned resident, he was in fact, senior consultant at (Liberal insider) Warren Kinsella’s  Daisy Consulting Group. Trewartha also worked at Daisy Consulting back on December 2, 2009 as well.

Rob Trewartha’s Facebook page provided a goldmine of political information —and Trewartha proved to be one of Betty Merkley’s just five Facebook friends. What luck! But by far the most important stepping stone to researching exactly who organized the “Friends of Hazel” Rally came from Trewartha himself.

DON CHERRY ROB TREWARTHA FRIENDS OF HAZEL RALLY

A November 26, 2010 Facebook entry has Kyle Kerr asking what Trewartha was doing in a photograph smiling next to Don Cherry. To which Trewartha replies:

“At last year’s rally for Hazel. I helped to organize it. Grapes was one of our guest speakers in support of the Mayor.”

Add to this confession photographs and video of Trewartha actively organizing at the December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally and Warren Kinsella’s Daisy Consulting’s Rob Trewartha is quite the spin doctor.

For example, a YouTube video featuring Warren Kinsella sketching Stephen Harper as a silly cowboy turned into a Rob Trewartha “I am Canadian and Stephen Harper is not my leader” Facebook Group.

Warren Kinsella's YouTube video "INTERVIEW WITH ANGRY COWBOY STEVE", Rob Trewartha's Facebook page confirm "Friends of Hazel" not "grassroots"

And who can forget Patrick Mendes’ memorable words to his fellow Friends of Hazel when he proclaimed, “We are the wind in Hurricane Hazel!” Truer words were never spoken. “Friends of Hazel”: So much Wind. So little Truth.

Patrick Mendes, Candidate for Ward 10 at the December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally

And Surprise! By December 2011 Trewartha became Councillor Bonnie Crombie’s executive assistant.

And Surprise! Surprise! By December 2012, the Toronto Star had its own experience with councillor assistants —this time Ford Nation’s.

Of a Rob Ford administration 26-name list of preferred appointees, the Star writes:

In an attempt at damage control, Ford’s backers on the civic appointments committee insisted they had no knowledge of that and accused Crean of conducting a politically motivated “witch hunt.” The mayor himself said the notion that his office had rigged the process by circulating a list was “an outright lie.”

Now, it turns out that assistants to councillors Giorgio Mammoliti, Michael Thompson and Jaye Robinson were all sent “the mayor’s choices for short-listing” by a Ford staffer. Emails, obtained through the freedom-of-information process, show the supposedly non-existent list had 30 names. All three councillors receiving the missive were on the mayor’s hand-picked executive committee and the civic appointments committee. As reported by the Star’s David Rider, all claim their assistants never showed them the list. And their assistants have somehow lost all memory of having received such an email from the mayor’s office.

It’s not the pathetic denials that shock in this case. Politicians, as a group, have a reputation for playing fast and loose with the facts. What rankles is that — even though a list had obviously been issued — certain members of the Ford administration set out to smear Crean’s reputation as an unbiased upholder of public integrity.

That’s unconscionable. These people have no shame.

Toronto’s Ford Nation Mammoliti, Thompson and Robinson’s assistants or Bonnie Crombie’s little red riding hood Rob Trewartha —identical. Identical…

"Friends of Hazel" Rally organizer Rob Trewartha (of Warren Kinsella's Daisy Consulting) stands mere feet from MISSISSAUGAWATCH Photo by Donald Barber December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally)

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion makes her grand entrance at the December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally to stop the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry
Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion makes her grand entrance at the December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally to stop the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry

Mayor Rob Ford gets support from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Judge Douglas Cunningham on 3rd anniversary of Rally to Stop Inquiry!

December 2nd, 2012  

Today marks the 3rd anniversary of the December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally.

The Mississauga News description of the “Friends of Hazel” as a “grassroots movement” is as deceptive as the little girl coached by her photographer-daddy to hold up the “We [HEART] HAZEL” sign.

I’d already written in another blog that while I was packing up to leave the “Friends of Hazel” Rally that he continued to take photographs. As a result it was Barber who took the most important photograph that evening.

Multi-millionaire NON-grassroots "Friends of Hazel" Rally Organizers reveal themselves

Photographs by themselves aren’t really enough. However, Barber’s post-Rally image of those huddled at the back of the room and in the doorway made me examine all my December 2, 2009 video footage.

One segment, I viewed for the first time in September! It’s clear why I thought it was nothing back when I first viewed in December 2009 —boring footage of the front of the stage before the Rally even started.

But three years later, that boring “front of the stage” segment became Gold. I recognized two of the Rally organizers. And organizing they were! A Crombie, and Rob Trewartha (former senior consultant to Warren Kinsella’s Daisy Consulting and now Bonnie Crombie’s executive assistant).

When you add this photo of long-time Mahoney supporter, Murray Glassford (at the time I didn’t know who he was)

FRIENDS OF HAZEL RALLY (December 2, 2009). Organizers did their all to prevent Mississauga residents from learning about Hazel McCallion's wheelings and dealings on behalf of her son --and "her people"

and not to mention a Facebook confession by Rob Trewartha that he helped organize the Rally, it’s a safe bet that Liberals Mahoney/Crombie (with help from Daisy Consulting) did their all to try and stop the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

And what happens today exactly on the anniversary of the “Friends of Hazel” Rally?

Rob and Doug Ford are on their Radio Show encouraging listeners to check out the Toronto Sun article, “Province warned of ‘draconian’ conflict punishment: Retired judge”

The Sun’s Queen’s Park Bureau Chief, Antonella Artuso writes in part:

If the province had acted on recommended changes to “draconian” sanctions in Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act Rob Ford might be fighting to remain mayor.

Former Justice Douglas Cunningham, who led an exhaustive inquiry into conflict allegations against Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion arising out of a controversial land deal, recommended a number of changes to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act in his October 2011 report.

Those recommendations included the addition of alternative penalties such as a 120-day suspension or a formal apology.

“If the legislation had been amended as I suggested…I don’t think we would be in this situation, because one of the things that an amended piece of legislation would include would be lesser sanctions, and I think this case clearly cries out for some legislated change which would include lesser sanctions,” Cunningham told the Sunday Sun.

Antonella Artuso quotes as saying:

“But it’s just unfortunate that — if they were going to make some changes — that they hadn’t been made by the time of this lawsuit. In terms of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this mandatory sanction it seems to me is draconian given that there are so many variations and shades of conflict — and especially in a case where there’s no financial gain, there’s no fraud, there’s nothing at all in this case to suggest that Mayor Ford was trying to feather his nest…. And I rather suspect, if I read between the lines in Justice Hackland’s decision, that if he’d had some other options, he probably would have gone to them rather than the one that he was forced, quite frankly, to engage.”

Meaning: Justice Harkland was right. Ford was in conflict, but he had no other option. The Law is an Ass.

Also meaning, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford now benefits from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry —the same Inquiry that Mississauga Liberal Teams Crombie/Mahoney fought so hard to stop, to prevent citizens from knowing that Peter McCallion stood to make $10 million on the Mayor-promoted hotel deal. After all, he now has former Justice Douglas Cunningham in his corner.

Also for the record, last night Warren Kinsella invited anyone interested to join him in the “FORD BEGONE PARTY” at the Bovine Sex Club on Queen Street.

From warrenkinsella.com

Punk and politics: the Ford begone party (updated)

November 30th, 2012, 3:48 pm

Some of the folks who helped, pro bono, to get Rob Ford removed from office – I won’t reveal who they are – intend to come to SFH’s gig tomorrow at the Bovine Sex Club on Queen Street West.  It will therefore be a celebration of sorts.

If you want to join in, and meet some of these heretofore unknown people, c’mon by.  This political pestilence will soon be gone – because (a) he is not going to win his appeal and (b) if there is somehow a by-election, he’s going to lose that, too – and that is cause to be happy.

And for the record —this photo composite.  Yesterday’s Toronto Sun featuring Rob Ford and former Justice Douglas Cunningham and below that, the Liberal organizers of the December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally.

Mississauga Inquiry Judge, Douglas Cunningham defends Mayor Rob Ford --sticks it to the Liberals (Toronto Sun)

Also for the record, “Respect Democracy. Mayor Rob Ford” the Kinsella-inspired video I created had its desired effect. A Rob Ford supporter swallowed it at face value and mistook me for a Conservative!

As I tweeted earlier on:

MISSISSAUGAWATCH@MISSISSAUGAMUSE

#ONpoli #TOpoli And no! I’m not Conservative! I’m liberal and evidence-based. And *ashamed* of both the Ontario and Federal Liberal parties.

So here’s the video again —Rob Ford’s sleazy “Respect Democracy” just to remind us that spin, lies and turd-polishing ain’t just a disrespectful LIEberal thing!

Respect Democracy. Mayor Rob Ford. (2:18 min)

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

Next, I’ll leave you with the 2nd most important photo ever taken regarding the December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally. I didn’t take that photograph either. Don’t know who did.

It’s from Ron Starr’s website at:  www.ronstarr.ca/wp-content/uploads/DSC_6011c.jpg and the caption reads, “Lorry Smith and Ron Starr flank Mayor Hazel McCallion, who holds an unrippable copy of…”

DSC_6011c » Councillor Ron Starr ~ Mississauga Ward 6 www.ronstarr.ca/?attachment_id=301 DSC_6011c. Categories: by Ron Starr · Lorry Smith and Ron Starr flank Mayor Hazel McCallion, who holds an unrippable copy of.

DSC_6011c » Councillor Ron Starr ~ Mississauga Ward 6

So who’s Lorry Smith?

[cut-and-paste]

Name: Lorry Smith

Congratulations EVERYONE! Due to a lot of hard work by Ron and his supporters from all across the city – not just ward 6 – the biggest politcal threat to our city has been de-fanged. But stay alert. She still has claws and knows how to use them. 2014 is not as far away as it seems. Nando may try to pass his seat to the dark one when he runs for Mayor. CarPar may even run for Mayor herself! This became even more likely since she declared her “retirement”. Watch for her back-stage maneuvers over the next couple years. We must be ready for her. She may be evil, but she is not stupid. For now, let us bask in the glory for a short while. But keep vigilant. Cheers, Lorry

“the dark one”… Sounds a LOT like someone I “know”…

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MISSISSAUGAWATCH "MISSISSAUGA MUSE" new "The War Room"/Ontario Ombudsman avatar

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)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

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—

ROB FORD MIDDLE FINGER

—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.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

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)

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

 

 

 

 

Mississauga Summit + Friends of Hazel = MYTHissauga’s “same 200″ (THE COMEDY)

November 15th, 2012  

Returned to MYTHissauga Council yesterday. Here’s the video I prepared to commemorate the non-occasion.

Dedicated to all City of Mississauga staff and senior staff who worked so hard on the Mississauga Council Code of Conduct to make it (according to Councillor George Carlson) a “Made in Mississauga” Code!

Mississauga Summit + Friends of Hazel = MYTHissauga’s “same 200″ (THE COMEDY)


(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

Video Transcript
Music/Lyrics by Abney Park:The Story That Never Starts

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Hazel McCallion press conference parking lot, Streetsville, September 8, 2010

This is at the Hazel McCallion announcement. We already have this piece-of-work right here. Ted Woloshyn.

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Hazel McCallion press conference, Streetsville, September 8, 2010

They’re waiting for Hazel McCallion to make her announcement, that she will be running for Mayor, for, I think it’s the 12th term now.

And we’ve got the usual suspects over here —including Harold Shipp.

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

From the time we are born, the time we’re alive
Waiting for our story to start
We practice all day, we practice all night
But we’re waiting for our story to start

Then we’re taught what is true, we’re taught what is right
We’re taught not to follow our heart
And then, the next thing we know, we’re trapped in a place
Where the story will never start

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Hazel McCallion press conference, Streetsville, September 8, 2010

—voted for the Mississauga Judicial—

Alex Crombie, Hazel McCallion press conference, Streetsville, September 8, 2010

Good afternoon everybody.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Hazel McCallion press conference, Streetsville, September 8, 2010

—here we go.

Alex Crombie, Hazel McCallion press conference, Streetsville, September 8, 2010

Could I have your attention for a minute? My name’s Alex Crombie and this is Betty Merkley and we’re both volunteers for the Mayor.

On this trip we all bend; we bend and we break
We break all our pacts with ourselves
We merely try to survive and we drop all our goals
And put our dreams all on our shelves

And we’re told our new goals, we’re told our new dreams
They’re nothing like the dreams we once held
And now to follow our dreams we have to buy all this crap
Fulfill the dreams of someone else

But don’t let ‘em check you, they’re sucking the wrong brew
The cowards should not steer your life by their own fear
care what you are dreaming; the future is teeming
With stories that want to start

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

From the time we are born, the time of the life
Waiting for our story to start
We practice all day, we practice all night
But we’re waiting for our story to start

Then we’re taught what is true, we’re taught what is right
We’re taught not to follow our heart
And then, the next thing we know, we’re trapped in a place
Where the story will never start

Don’t let ‘em check you, they’re sucking the wrong brew
The cowards should not steer your life by their own fear
care what you are dreaming; the future is teeming
With stories that wait to start

Don’t let ‘em check you, they’re sucking the wrong brew
The cowards should not steer your life by their own fear
care what you are dreaming; the future is teeming
With stories that wait to start

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

 Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

“Friend of Hazel” Patrick Mendes, “Friends of Hazel” Rally to Stop the Judicial Inquiry, December 2, 2009

My fellow Mississaugans —WE are the wind in Hurricane Hazel! (CHEERS! APPLAUSE!)

“Friend of Hazel” Harold Shipp, “Friends of Hazel” Rally to Stop the Judicial Inquiry, December 2, 2009

Which person will you vote for next time? (CHEERS! APPLAUSE!)

“Friend of Hazel” Councillor Katie Mahoney, “Friends of Hazel” Rally to Stop the Judicial Inquiry, December 2, 2009

I think something that I’d like to really impart to you is, it’s not hard to support our Mayor. Trust me.

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

Video ends with “Friends of Hazel” Rally footage (organizational activity)
and
Scroll of all 1624 signatures on the Cancel the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Now online petition.

2 Slides shown at the December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally. Rob Trewartha of Warren Kinsella's Daisy Consulting Group helped organize the Rally.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

MISSISSAUGAWATCH "MISSISSAUGA MUSE" new "The War Room"/Ontario Ombudsman avatar

 ”Politics is a nasty, unpleasant, mean-spirited business, which is presumably why some of us are drawn to it. (Many of us are nasty, unpleasant, and mean-spirited people.)”  —Warren Kinsella, 2007

 

The “Friends of Hazel” and the “Cancel the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Now Online Petition” –three years later.

October 28th, 2012  

Today is the third anniversary of the “Friends of Hazel” appearance before Mississauga Council. As regular readers know this $$$influential$$$ group did their all to cancel the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH has no idea that "Friends of Hazel" Brian Crombie and Patrick Mendes sit right behind on October 28, 2009

Ever since October 28, 2009 I’ve been investigating anything and everything related to these “Friends of Hazel” McCallion. It’s been a fascinating, thoroughly-depressing plunge into McCallion’s rich, powerful (and efficient) MYTHissauga Manipulation Machine.

So how does one go about researching the “Friends of Hazel”?

I began with the Cancel the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Now Online Petition at www.petitiononline.com/MissInqu/petition.html  That was back in early-2010 when the petition was whole —it’s changed considerably since. Go there now and you’ll see someone has stripped all 1,624 signatories of their surnames!

Of course, I’d long ago anticipated such revisionist-cowardice from the “Friends of Hazel” and saved the entire petition —html and all.

What follows is a cut-and-paste of the Cancel the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Now Online Petition’s 1,624 names.

For the record, not all “Friends of Hazel” appear on this list. For example, “Friend of Hazel” Victor Oh didn’t sign on. Neither did key “Friend of Hazel” mouthpiece Betty Merkley.

Future MYTHissauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie didn’t sign the Petition even though she opposed the Inquiry. But the two Crombie sons did.

And of course it’s no surprise, that Bonnie Crombie’s executive assistant, Rob Trewartha, former senior consultant at Warren Kinsella’s Daisy Consulting Group didn’t sign the Petition though he helped organize the Rally.

The names on the Cancel the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Now Online Petition plus Donald Barber’s superb photographs of that October 28, 2009 Council meeting revealed quite the MYTHissauga soap opera!

"Friends of Hazel" reveal themselves to Stop the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. October 28, 2009. Murray Glassford" "Steve Mahoney, Betty Merkley, Victor Oh, Fran Rider"

Click here for Donald Barber’s original-sized (5184 x 3456) high-resolution photo

Here, for the historical record, is Phil Green’s complete Cancel the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Now Online Petition.

Cancel the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Now Online Petition

0001. Phil Green 2
0002. Cheryl Glassford 8
0003. Roman Bonk Frank Dale’s Ward
0004. Murray Glassford 8
0005. Rose Moreno
0006. Tom Woolley 8
0007. John Ayton
0008. Scott Wonnell
0009. Sandy Wonnell 10
0010. Jacqueline Crawford Frank Dale
0011. Manny E daSilva
0012. Kenneth Wong 4
0013. Lesia Woloshyn
0014. Lori Glassford 9
0015. Debi Sander Walker
0016. Ann Clay 9
0017. Mike Webster 6
0018. Kelly Vestrocy
0019. Chris James 8
0020. mark turkiewicz
0021. carol nolan 8
0022. Craig Laferriere 2
0023. Bill Sholdice 8
0024. Dale Shura ward 11
0025. Andra Woolley
0026. Angela Dempster Ward 2
0027. Glen Dempster Ward 2
0028. Martha Sheppard Ward One
0029. Jim Baggio
0030. Steve Shura 11
0031. Julie Desjardins Ward 2
0032. karen vestrocy
0033. winnifred glassford-millard
0034. Robert Curran
0035. Debbie Curran
0036. Greg Keaveney
0037. Alex Wiecek 10
0038. Richard Morra 11
0039. R. Manktelow rdmsigns@execulink.com
0040. Antonio Marchitello
0041. Jane Watson 1
0042. Michele Tateyama Ward 9
0043. Karen Hector
0044. Vida Stripinis 7
0045. Matrai Geza Ward 1
0046. Megan Ramsey 9
0047. Jeff Wesseling
0048. Stephen Faller 2
0049. James Reiach 12
0050. Oliver Clowe
0051. Les Lucyk 2
0052. Mary Stricker
0053. Judy vanRees Carlson
0054. Brenda Barazza
0055. debbie denison
0056. Laura Bruce
0057. Jeff McFarlane
0058. Carridad DeGuzman-Baggio 7
0059. John and Lenore Goodwin two
0060. John Sabiston 7
0061. Rino De Campo
0062. Peter Chilibeck 4
0063. Tibor Frank
0064. Jim Thorne 9
0065. Warren B. Adamson 2
0066. Jan Woolfrey 1
0067. John Jameson 2
0068. Fred Pamenter
0069. Gail Pamenter
0070. Wendy Davies 2
0071. Bill Wittman 2
0072. Rick Goossens Ward 1
0073. Johanna Simons 1
0074. Mary Sulypka
0075. Marilyn Fraser
0076. Laura Geen
0077. Sandra Gulline ward 2
0078. Effie Triantafilopoulos ward 1
0079. Bruce M Walker Ward 3
0080. IRA KARGEL
0081. William Britt Ward 1
0082. John & Rae Rozenberg Miss. S
0083. Margaret Wittman 2
0084. John & Rae Rozenberg Miss. S
0085. Mike Coulter 2
0086. Joan Gulline ward 2
0087. Dianne Morgan Ward 8
0088. Monica Stanley eight
0089. Anna persad
0090. P H Morgan Ward 8
0091. Douglas Stanley eight
0092. Grant Oddleifson
0093. JH 2
0094. frank banks
0095. Debashis Sengupta 6
0096. Ronald & Nancy Schramm #1
0097. John and Fran Watson 8
0098. Louise Royer 2
0099. Mike Dawson
0100. KD Edwards
0101. Lynne Butler 2
0102. Joan Cabri
0103. Marilyn Legault
0104. Philippa Kossuth
0105. Bob Braun 5
0106. Carol Tabata 8
0107. Vernon Zelmer
0108. ARMAITY ANANDASAGAR
0109. Paul Vanin
0110. Jacqueline Vanin 1
0111. Peter Danos
0112. POSLUSZNY Wojciech
0113. Elizabeth Bedwell
0114. Frank Carpino
0115. Fariba
0116. Jim Bentley 1
0117. Denzil Faire
0118. Brad
0119. Brian Lambie Ward 1
0120. Patricia and William Singer 1
0121. Patricia and William Singer 1
0122. Matt Rix 7
0123. Maria Frank
0124. Grace Ponniah
0125. David Nash
0126. jonathan joseph
0127. Barbara Dextrase
0128. Roderick Bolton #2
0129. Ann Webster Ward 1
0130. jeanene luckhart 2
0131. Juanito Jose
0132. Sasha Woodbridge 2
0133. Selwyn Kossuth
0134. bill parsons
0135. Brian Cuggy 2
0136. David Kingsland 1
0137. Peter Smith 8
0138. rudy cuzzetto 2
0139. Janet English ward 8
0140. Kerry English ward 8
0141. line voided
0142. John Hart 2
0143. Sandra Bonk 4
0144. George DeWolf 1
0145. Chantal Green
0146. GERRY WHELAN 2
0147. Robert Archer Ward 1
0148. Margaret K Johnston 1
0149. Greg Symons Ward 8
0150. Jack & Mary Jagt
0151. Peggy Tyers 9
0152. martin marges ward 3
0153. Linda Fuller Phil Green
0154. Jonathan Crombie Ward 2
0155. John B. Simcoe
0156. William Thornhill 2
0157. gail rutenberg 1
0158. Rouben Gharabegian 2
0159. Ian K. McEwen 1
0160. Bob & Elayne Coldwell 2
0161. Marlene Yakabuski
0162. Lori Mason Ward 1
0163. teresa mackie
0164. Norman Rutenberg
0165. Janice Younker
0166. Alex Crombie Ward 2
0167. Thomas Schnull 1
0168. GARY ATKIN 2
0169. James Makcie
0170. Lana O’Grady Mississauga South
0171. Terry O’Grady Mississauga South
0172. Greg Smith 8
0173. Janice Boast 1
0174. Chris Desjardins
0175. Barbara Murck 1
0176. Ed Clay
0177. Wilma Irwin Pat Mullin’s
0178. Carmen Benoit 8
0179. Tom Gifford 4
0180. Joyce Bradley Ward 1
0181. frances russell 2
0182. Paul Inglis
0183. angelo gualtieri ward 1
0184. Rick Clifford 4
0185. Rebecca Clifford
0186. Gloria Thrasher
0187. newton d seawright 1
0188. GeorgeThrasher
0189. Marion Williamson 2
0190. Richard Williamson 2
0191. Amanda Clifford 4
0192. Patrick Kerr
0193. Robert Tattersall 2
0194. Emese Dombovari
0195. Ralph Passmore
0196. Mrs. Nancy Dawson One
0197. cathy kenedy 1
0198. kurt maier 1
0199. Kevin Cowie 11
0200. katherine munkley 2
0201. Elizabeth Goobie
0202. Dorothy McAnally 4
0203. Gordon Goobie
0204. Anna Claydon
0205. Sandra Smale Ward I
0206. Teresa Cascioli
0207. David Brewer
0208. Sheri Lake 10
0209. carolyn simpson 2
0210. Dawn Anastasakis
0211. Nelson Medeiros 2
0212. Harris Anastasakis
0213. Miranda Simone 7
0214. Luigi Simone 7
0215. eric simpson 2
0216. RON LOVEYS
0217. mary pielechaty 2
0218. Tashane Miller
0219. Civita Gerolini 7
0220. L. Dimayuga 9
0221. Anita Scholtz
0222. Frank and Oli MacTaggart
0223. John King 2
0224. Ewhenia Symaniw 6
0225. Tasneem Siddiqui ward 5
0226. Iftekhar siddiqui Ward 5
0227. Rosemarie Passmore
0228. Geoffrey Fernandes
0229. Ofelia Rosales
0230. cathleen Lincoln Mississauga South
0231. David Lincoln Mississauga South
0232. Robert Johnson
0233. Rita Shular
0234. Bryan L Jay
0235. Colleen Franciscus 2
0236. Mike Weymes
0237. Lois Adams
0238. William Martin
0239. Jean L. Williams Ward 2
0240. Kayleigh Clifford 4
0241. Carolyn Archer
0242. Naz Virani
0243. Barbara Cufino 1
0244. line voided
0245. Patricia Shular
0246. Jeremy Harvey
0247. Catherine Peterson
0248. Hannah Woolley
0249. Colin Tyler Ward 3
0250. Terry Coulter
0251. Susan Webb Clarkson
0252. Hubert Casselman
0253. Diane Kalenchuk 10
0254. John Kalenchuk 10
0255. susan Howson
0256. Paul Fisher 2
0257. Sandra Washbrook 1
0258. Cindy Reid 11
0259. BENIFER PATEL
0260. Bob Welling 8
0261. Jonathan Donaldson Erindale
0262. John Johnston 2
0263. Lorry R. Smith
0264. Karen Thiffault Ward 8
0265. Larry Cufino 1
0266. Stephen P. Williams 6
0267. Wayne E Newson 2
0268. Elizabeth Ann Serotiuk
0269. Mary Ann Power
0270. Barbara Pickett
0271. Laurie Wojcik 2
0272. Paul Vincent 8
0273. geoff hollands
0274. David Wojcik 2
0275. merle zoerb Katie M
0276. Frank Douglas Ball 2
0277. Laurie Smith
0278. Blair Migas
0279. Kevin Howard 2
0280. Raymond Castonguay
0281. Billy Saunders
0282. Christine Wessman
0283. Shirley Hanlon
0284. Carolyn A Passmore
0285. Vera Redmaye Ward 2
0286. Joanne Becke
0287. Delene Lesperance Streetsville
0288. Margaret Moore 8
0289. Lydia Bilyk
0290. David Dawson 2
0291. Susan Wilson
0292. naida mckechnie 2
0293. joan banks
0294. Tom Harmen 6
0295. JOHN YOCOM One
0296. Rita Hill 10
0297. William G. Jeffery One
0298. Lindsey Agnew
0299. John Roe 8
0300. Michael Archer
0301. Denise jutzeler
0302. Arthur J Molasy 1
0303. Arthur B Molasy 1
0304. Robert Alden 8
0305. Lisa O’Reilly
0306. Pauline Cheung
0307. Steve Prevdisa 8
0308. Jeremy Sale 6
0309. Darlene Cancilla 8
0310. Kimberly Zita 2
0311. Paulette Ferreira
0312. john bishop
0313. Helder Ferreira
0314. Hugh Anderson
0315. Megan Garner Mississauga South
0316. Carol Wickham Ward 1
0317. Phil Cancilla 8
0318. Nicola Legault
0319. Yvette Michaud
0320. Linda Elliott
0321. Wendy Webster 3
0322. Dan Piitz
0323. D. Glenn Stevens
0324. barbara mergel
0325. Ed Jack 8
0326. Mila Jack 8
0327. Michelle DeGasperis
0328. Lauren Archer
0329. Ray Smith 2
0330. Jane Rodd 2
0331. Milton Ribeiro
0332. Deborah Reed Stephenson
0333. Karen Campbell
0334. Linda Sellers Mississauga South
0335. John Speck Ward 7
0336. Silvia and Angelo Gualtieri Mississsauga South /Ward 2
0337. Gordon V. Stewart One
0338. Wende Boddy 7
0339. Deborah Szreier 8
0340. Dennis Boddy 8
0341. Joyce Srigley 8
0342. line voided
0343. Leroy Collins
0344. Gloria Stevens 6
0345. A.. Sutherland 8
0346. Peter Wood 2
0347. Janina Empringham 1
0348. Margaret Stevens
0349. Wendy Gruner
0350. Graham Thomas
0351. Stephen G. Largy 4
0352. Aidan Houlihan
0353. Jeff Holland 7
0354. Caroline Holland 7
0355. Hendrina Elsing 1
0356. Linda Civiero
0357. Michael Campbell 7
0358. Peter Holness
0359. Harold G.

Pat Mullen
0360. Barbara Stephen 2
0361. Marco Casale
0362. Lorne S. Jackson
0363. Dave Harford 8
0364. Derek Williams Ward 2
0365. Gary Soucie
0366. George Christou
0367. Raymond and Patricia Mongeau 2
0368. Charles Noltie 2
0369. Charles Noltie 2
0370. Sandra Smith
0371. L. Mitchell
0372. Barbara Gooch
0373. Paul Gooch
0374. Judy Ollivierre 8
0375. Margaret Lyons 8
0376. Jerry French 3
0377. Alf Johnston
0378. Anil Dhawan 6
0379. Andrew Dhawan 6
0380. SUE TALMAGE 2
0381. Carol Ayton 9
0382. Tim Gray 8
0383. Glenn and Mary Swanson 8
0384. Grace Anne Wiley 8
0385. Janice Ekeland 2
0386. terry farrell
0387. Kelly Snooks 8
0388. Karen Alexander 4
0389. Roderick J Graham 11
0390. gary baskerville
0391. Barbara Baskerville 8
0392. Lynne Grist 2
0393. Sami Tibshirani
0394. Mary Swanson 8
0395. Glenn Swanson 8
0396. Laurence Correa 9
0397. M. Jack 9
0398. John H. Ferguson 2
0399. Ashoka Sengupta 6
0400. Robert Col 1
0401. Charles R. S. James 7
0402. Janice A. James 7
0403. Len McCurdy 8
0404. Lorraine Schick 3
0405. Cathy Clark
0406. jackie monahan ward 1
0407. Sherry Brotherston
0408. Kahy Quart
0409. Rev.Reg Benoit Miss. S
0410. Ken Yetman 2
0411. Sharon McEwen 1
0412. Michael Kolesar 2
0413. Anthony Longo 8
0414. Ken Smith 2
0415. Carina Peters Erindale
0416. Jerry Power 2
0417. Heiko Peters 2
0418. O. Zogala
0419. Kelly Fanson 1
0420. Paul Elias 7 (Nando Iannicca)
0421. Tom Cooney 3
0422. Betty Jo Parent Ward 8
0423. Ray Wark
0424. J Boddy 8
0425. Gwen Boddie 8
0426. WEB 8
0427. Gord Dunn
0428. Donna Rohrer 6
0429. John Craig 8
0430. Brian R Webster 3
0431. Ken Cosman Ward 1
0432. Angie Bozzo Ward 1
0433. Helen Cosman Ward 1
0434. rick thiffault K Mahoney
0435. Robert Perrotta South Mississauga
0436. Ruby Perrotta South Mississauga
0437. Helen Kubisewsky Pat Mullin
0438. Lynne Cramer 9
0439. Don Cramer 9
0440. Margaret Race
0441. Norm Alexander 4
0442. S. Griffin
0443. Phyllis & Barrie McLeod
0444. Brian Seaman 8
0445. mike wylie
0446. William Fluhmann 2
0447. Muriel Kowal 2
0448. Edward Kowal 2
0449. John Robichaud
0450. Joy A. Jackson
0451. Grant & June MacPherson ward 2
0452. Susan Seaman 8
0453. Lynn Konowal 8
0454. Michael Tousignant 6
0455. DAVE MATTHEWS
0456. Robert Wheeler
0457. Donald AC Stewart
0458. M. Diane Stewart Ward 7
0459. Linda Thomas 6
0460. Susan Shepherd 8
0461. Randy Thompson
0462. line voided
0463. line voided
0464. Susan Adams
0465. Les Houle
0466. line voided
0467. line voided
0468. Melanie Nicholson Ward 8
0469. line voided
0470. Michael Nicholson ward 8
0471. Cheryl Carver 8
0472. Fred Samuels 8
0473. Nancy Samuels
0474. Shawn Vanin
0475. Lorne Spark
0476. Senka Pehar
0477. Christina Scicluna 9
0478. Richard Alon 6
0479. Amanda Dhawan 6
0480. Peter Sereda
0481. Judy Ariola
0482. C.A. Robichaud 1
0483. Steve Bennett 11
0484. Peter Walton 8
0485. Beth Watkins 8
0486. cathy hollister
0487. Dave Baker One
0488. Alan L. Johnson
0489. Sergio Cecchin 10
0490. Margaret Madill 10
0491. Cliff Silveira
0492. Lisa Fonseca
0493. Terri Silveira
0494. h stevenson
0495. W Michael Whitney 11
0496. Angela D 8
0497. Lauren Moore
0498. RON MCKENNA 2
0499. john hanley
0500. Barry F. H. Graham 3
0501. David Thompson 3
0502. Chantal Cossette
0503. Jacques Fleurant
0504. alexandre cossette-fleurant #9
0505. Audrey-anne Cossette-Fleurant #9
0506. william cossette-fleurant #9
0507. Betty Cooper 8
0508. Bill Coyle Ward 1
0509. steve bennett
0510. Larry Steinman
0511. Gordon Coyne K. Mahoney
0512. Ron Moss 2
0513. Bonnie Burgess
0514. Jack McGurn 8
0515. Bob Stockden 11
0516. Pat Kelly 4
0517. Jean-Claude Cloutier 8
0518. Nancy-Jane Price One
0519. John Dekker Pat Mullen
0520. Patricia Dryden 2
0521. Shirley Speck 7
0522. Nati + Paul Beese 2
0523. Janko Drljevic
0524. Milinko Drljevic
0525. Anka Drljevic
0526. Guenter & Sigrid Stueven
0527. line voided
0528. line voided
0529. line voided
0530. line voided
0531. line voided
0532. Robert & Micky Webster
0533. line voided
0534. line voided
0535. Marilyn Smith
0536. Sandy Vellinga 3
0537. line voided
0538. Kathryn J Willamson
0539. Janaya Bennett 11
0540. Robert Backus Ward 2
0541. Gail Backus Ward 2
0542. Judy McInnes Erin Mills & Eglington
0543. Lane Steinhauer
0544. Lin Yeomans 6
0545. S. James Hand Ward 2
0546. Etienne Green War 2
0547. Kevin larrett 9
0548. Julie Larrett 9
0549. Donna Urquhart 8
0550. Douglas Brown 2
0551. Darwin kealey Ward 1
0552. M.B. Cosgriffe 8
0553. James Peirce 3
0554. Deepayan Sengupta 6
0555. Janine Bennett
0556. Ken Szreier 8
0557. Maureen Peirce 3
0558. Jeff Lewis
0559. Hugh McFarlane
0560. Susan Martin-Margeson
0561. Ann McKenna
0562. Doreen & Ross Moffat
0563. RUPAK DATTA —) RHA — DIRECTOR 3
0564. Gord Crymble
0565. Erik Moll
0566. Betty Moll
0567. Judith Arndt 2
0568. Yvonne Bolton
0569. Janet Rockwell Mississauga South
0570. Dana Murray Ward 10: Sue McFadden
0571. Olivia Craigie 4
0572. David Street 3
0573. Maria Procopi
0574. John Muirhead 3
0575. Andy Schmaus
0576. Mary Ann Schmaus
0577. Danene Conte
0578. Frank Conte
0579. Belinda Robichaud
0580. Margaret Barton
0581. Bill Truax
0582. Jackie Cronin
0583. joanna Truax
0584. Maureen Aucoin
0585. Terry Kirsch 11
0586. P. Gamburgo
0587. Pat Thompson
0588. PATRICIA HUSON
0589. CARL HUSON
0590. WENDY HUSON-NICOL
0591. KEITH NICOL
0592. Peter Kimball
0593. Stephen Dasko 1
0594. Donald Arndt 2
0595. Beverley Bleackley 2
0596. Nikki M. Ross 9
0597. Ian C. Ross 9
0598. Barbara and Ken Bevis Ward 8
0599. Cindy Finley 2
0600. Linda Venditti
0601. J. Goodwin
0602. Katherine LeBlanc 2
0603. Dorothy Jamieson 7 Nando Ianicca
0604. David LeBlanc 2
0605. Henry L. Fetz
0606. John and Helen Smith 2
0607. Gerald Farrell
0608. Elizabeth Hoefkes
0609. George Anzai 2
0610. Betty Anzai
0611. Joyce McGurn 8
0612. Paula Smith 7
0613. Lydia Pejsa 1
0614. Barbara Rathlou
0615. john white 10
0616. D.P.KENNEY 2
0617. Ken Cummings 1
0618. Tom Cahill
0619. Ian Crook 2
0620. Horst Steinfels Lorne Park
0621. JoAnn McEachin Lorne Park
0622. Phil Poeta george
0623. Joan Leon ward#2
0624. Joan Leon ward#2
0625. Jerome F. Haug 304-4100 Westminster Place
0626. erin milovsky Perrish
0627. Alexander Lim 2
0628. Dayna Shura Ward 11
0629. Mary Lou Bonnici 5
0630. Stephen Black 10
0631. Claudia Shadursky 1
0632. Frank E. Puskas
0633. Ken Nastuny
0634. Robert Benz 4
0635. michelle mills
0636. Karen Benz 4
0637. Diane Nastuny
0638. Dan Mills 2
0639. Joan Noble 7
0640. Les Pejsa Mississauga South
0641. Colin Perry 1
0642. Michel Compagnion 10
0643. Allan Harder 9
0644. William Koopman 2
0645. Eydie Koopman 2
0646. Colin McQueen ward 2
0647. Joanne McQueen ward 2
0648. Jack & Julie LaFontaine 2
0649. John and Gloria Viscardi 3
0650. Jacqueline Hodge
0651. Robert Kidney 1
0652. Eileen Kidney 1
0653. Melissa Kuhne
0654. Genevieve Friedmann-Compagnion 6
0655. Rishi Narale 10
0656. Liesa Cianchino 2
0657. Enzo Cianchino 2
0658. Mathew Cianchino 2
0659. Scott Ellis 6
0660. Stephanie Cianchino 2
0661. Michelle Cianchino 2
0662. Han Chou
0663. Steven Leavens
0664. Jorge Kuhne
0665. Dorothy Harner ward 6
0666. Nicole Harner Ward 6
0667. Kristen Harner Ward 6
0668. Elaine Murphy 1
0669. Brian Luckie 8
0670. Rubacha Jadwiga & Ryszard 6
0671. Eulah Bent 10
0672. Bryan Bent 10
0673. Marc Cookson 2
0674. Sheila D. Smith
0675. Joan Paulin 11
0676. Sharon Hobin 8
0677. Linda Vezina
0678. William F. M urphy
0679. Deborah Rudack 8
0680. Marilyn Maurizio
0681. Sante Maurizio
0682. robert herlihey
0683. Marius Lihet
0684. Mary Anna King (not sure) Webb Drive
0685. Susan Kovic Streetsville
0686. Anibal Neves
0687. Josko Kovic Streetsville
0688. Helena Stahls
0689. Terri Mullin Ward 10
0690. Tom Burnie 3
0691. Maureen Newport 8
0692. Linda Brown
0693. Hugh Brown
0694. Judy Pfeiff
0695. Radmond Cassanova
0696. Enid Cassanova
0697. Jane MacKenzie
0698. Johann and Jocelyne Kilian 3
0699. George Habib 8
0700. Debbie Powers
0701. Julian Symaniw ward 6
0702. Clare Quinlan
0703. Teresa Babineau 8
0704. Jim Harries 11
0705. Liliana Incerto
0706. Thomas Frizzell 7
0707. Ivar Grimba Pat Mullin’s
0708. Jean Gerrard 8
0709. Edward (Ted) Jurgens 8
0710. John Gerrard 8
0711. Irene Puddicombe Eight (8)
0712. Moira Higgins Eight (8)
0713. Glen and Judy Grant
0714. Glen and Judy Grant
0715. Phillip Nance one
0716. Christine Simundson
0717. Marg McCuaig
0718. Lew Silecky
0719. Frank O’Brien
0720. Ken McCuaig
0721. Kim Tuckett 8
0722. Angela Wildman 2
0723. Debra Valevicius Mississauga South
0724. Edward Valevicius Sr. 2
0725. Genevieve Bennett
0726. joan johnston
0727. Jane Baggetta 1
0728. Leslie Small 2
0729. Lorraine Clark Mississauga South
0730. Cliff Kivell Mississauga South
0731. Bill Doherty
0732. Vitor Manuel Pereira 10
0733. taylor farquharson
0734. lyell farquharson
0735. Peter McKee 1 Port Credit
0736. F.R.Bishai 4
0737. I.S.M.Bishai 4
0738. Thomas A Lennard 8
0739. Cathy White
0740. Linda D. McClennan Ward 6
0741. Gary P. McClennan 6
0742. Ann worobec
0743. Grant Russell Ward 9
0744. Michael Pothier 4
0745. Randall & Catherine Pilon
0746. Catherine Hillcoat
0747. Bertha Pothier 4
0748. Michelle Napier
0749. norma buendia 9
0750. Alan Tilson 11
0751. Ann Tilson 11
0752. Lori Weedon 1
0753. Tony & Tracey Pignatiello
0754. John Briers 10
0755. Marlene Briers
0756. Glen Grossmith WARD2
0757. Linda Jamieson 2
0758. Michael J Duggan 2
0759. Janis Mianowski
0760. Marion Brennan
0761. Brian Gardash 11
0762. Gladys Gardash 11
0763. Ed Jamieson 2
0764. Michael J. Sunter
0765. mary millard
0766. Colleen McKee 6
0767. H. D. McGregor 1
0768. D. McKee Six
0769. David Marshall
0770. Jane Matthews 2
0771. Sal Badali Mississauga South
0772. william haslam
0773. StephenBlack 10
0774. Inger Bhattacharya 1
0775. donna.payne
0776. Janusz Misiszek
0777. Dorota Misiaszek
0778. George Milan
0779. Heywood Jablowme
0780. Ashish Dobriyal
0781. Binita Dobriyal
0782. Luise Cox 3
0783. Warren Goodyear 8
0784. Karen Goodyear 8
0785. Laura Goodyear 8
0786. Mark Alexander 11
0787. norman smith Ward 2
0788. JoAnne Duggan 2
0789. richard yeomans 6
0790. Patricia Burt
0791. Lynn Sammut 8
0792. Henryka Olejarz
0793. Wanda Witkowski 3
0794. Ken Miller
0795. Regina & Klaus Krueger one
0796. les olejarz 7
0797. Ralf Witkowski 3
0798. Tony Vettese
0799. Leonard Eng
0800. Jennifer E. Eng 9
0801. Filomena Eng 9
0802. Christopher J. Eng 9
0803. Connie Bairos Two
0804. Blair Kidney
0805. Patrick Mendes 10
0806. Rick Pike 9
0807. Carol Berry 6
0808. Clive and Patricia Dunstan
0809. Michael Teng 6
0810. Alan J. Davidson
0811. Franca B. Davidson
0812. Betty Hunt
0813. Peter Simundson
0814. Stephen Strachan 10
0815. Lori Hughes Pat Saito
0816. Larry Evans
0817. Paul Simpson 9
0818. Anne Manchur ? Hurontario and Kingsbridge Gdn.
0819. M. E. Jane 7
0820. Gaetane Urevig 8
0821. Marc Villett
0822. JACK BUDDIN 8
0823. Mr. & Mrs. Dahab
0824. Paul Duncanson Eight
0825. Robert Lamey
0826. Ryan Lamey
0827. Veronica Hodgson 2
0828. Dan Smith 8
0829. W. Dahab 3
0830. Robert Soproney 2
0831. Barb DeAngelis
0832. Domenic Tenuta
0833. jamila
0834. DONNA SKIRROW 6
0835. Meera
0836. Nora Reynolds 11
0837. Ana Dutra
0838. Marianne Di Lullo
0839. Patterson Brown
0840. Ann Loranger
0841. John Dunn
0842. line voided
0843. Lindsay Miller
0844. Cathy Welling
0845. M. Jane Lindsay 1
0846. shauna butchereit
0847. Lorraine Sobaszek
0848. John and Maria Cabral 7
0849. Mike Hodgson 9
0850. Tony Francioni
0851. line voided
0852. line voided
0853. line voided
0854. S. Rodrigo 11
0855. Nina Palerma 7
0856. John Outram 1
0857. Lilian Outram
0858. I M Condorman
0859. Walter Marshall Three
0860. Anthony & Deirdre Warren
0861. Michael Rix 2
0862. Michelle Rae Ward 2
0863. Alice Fahey
0864. joseph m micallef ward 10
0865. Marlene Ryan
0866. Margaret McGrath
0867. John Bolton
0868. raisa mikovich 2
0869. vijay Patel
0870. Rajiv Shah
0871. Leslie Gomba 9
0872. Leslie Gomba 9
0873. Lisa Morra
0874. Arne Pfeiff
0875. Susan Ross 3
0876. Ruth Burrows
0877. ROBERT & HELEN WARREN 6
0878. Harvey Ewing
0879. Mary Ewing 5
0880. virginia spagnuolo mississauga east
0881. natale spagnuolo mississauga east
0882. rachel spagnuolo ward 5
0883. rebecca spagnuolo ward 5
0884. Y. Rodrigues
0885. Helene Bharti 11
0886. Colomba McAlary 9
0887. Joanna Gill
0888. Tony Raso 9
0889. Karen Raso 9
0890. Arthur Hinchliffe 9
0891. Roy Jackson
0892. Amit Mohla 11
0893. Dana Grimble
0894. jude joseph ward 11
0895. Simon and Arda Vandenbroek 2
0896. Donald E Sheehy, CA*CISA 3
0897. Rod Karpf 9
0898. Barb Fumerton 9
0899. Margaret Vannest One
0900. Rita Bharti 11
0901. Sharwan Bharti 11
0902. Margaret Nieminen
0903. John Jovanovic
0904. Jiwon Jovanovic
0905. Marilyn Rose 4
0906. Stuart Rose 4
0907. R. Verdon
0908. Susan Verdon
0909. GEORGE SVEC
0910. dagmar svec
0911. Ian Locke
0912. K. V. Pinto 5
0913. Otis M. Ford 5
0914. Connie E. Ford 5
0915. Adele Conte 5
0916. Edward Shoesmith
0917. Bonnie L. Roberts 8
0918. James E Roberts 8
0919. M.A. Hardwick
0920. Howard Russo 6
0921. Patricia Russo 6
0922. Mr & Mrs M. Guindi 3
0923. Catherine McNevan
0924. Donald McNevan
0925. Angie Anderson 4
0926. Diane King Mississauga South
0927. joan covert 3
0928. Scott Galbraith
0929. Kaitlin Strachan 10
0930. Zachary Strachan 10
0931. Benjamin Strachan 10
0932. Sabrina Ahmed
0933. Mr & Mrs David Mac Donald
0934. Justin Feeney 10
0935. Islay Yake
0936. Donna Schmalz
0937. Marion Schmalz
0938. sauleha zubair
0939. April Mattinson 6
0940. Ellen Andersen
0941. Else Marie Andersen
0942. Carrie DaSilva
0943. Ivor DaSilva
0944. marie nakhla
0945. Sherry Irwin
0946. Paul Ljubanovich
0947. Gloria Paris 2
0948. Roisin Young 6
0949. Lavan Puvaneswaran 3
0950. Kent Newell 3
0951. David Franklin not sure (credit valley hospistal)
0952. Ida Pawlikowski 9
0953. Tolias Peter ward 4
0954. Jenny Kouretsos ward 4
0955. peter tolias
0956. Rob McVeigh 9
0957. Bev McVeigh 9
0958. Elizabeth Gale Richter Ward 2
0959. john Archibald 9
0960. Natalie Halff
0961. Riaz Qazi
0962. Harold Peace 9
0963. Dipti Rach
0964. Deborah Barnett 8
0965. Eva Kryzaniwsky 3
0966. Joanne Poirier
0967. Debbie Thomson Ward 8
0968. Steve Thomson Ward 8
0969. Angela DiLegge Ward 7
0970. Brian Thomson Ward 8
0971. Carol Thompson 1
0972. Victoria Cesario 4
0973. Warren Saldanha
0974. Peter Tolias
0975. Jenny Tolias
0976. Mary Villamagna meadowvale
0977. Fred Devellano
0978. Darshani Sagar Ward 10
0979. Rob Gill 5
0980. Janet Clare
0981. Marion Morewood 1
0982. Jack Sloggett 1
0983. Jeannine Chisholm 1
0984. Thomas Schmaus 8
0985. Peggy Jackson 5
0986. Wendy Hradsky L5N 2K9
0987. Kathy Ramsay 2
0988. R D Ramsay 2
0989. Bill McDowell
0990. joan mcdowell
0991. Pat & Wayne Anderson 1
0992. Aleksandra Dobranowski
0993. Anita Duggan 9
0994. Jean O’Gorman 8
0995. Bill Orr 3
0996. Maria Salajko 4
0997. Branko Salajko 4
0998. George Stockwell 11
0999. Patricia Brown 8
1000. Lou Vernace 7
1001. Louis Macerola one
1002. Elizabeth Macerola one
1003. Julia Macerola one
1004. Martina Macerola one
1005. Rob Bezaire 11
1006. Sylvie Schmaus 8
1007. Dennis McCann
1008. Stephen Culmone
1009. R mann
1010. Kim Warburton 2
1011. Maureen Lanois 2
1012. Michele Isabella
1013. Linda Patterson
1014. Albert Koops 10
1015. Jo Lewis
1016. Lynn Fluhmann
1017. Percy Elliott Ward 8
1018. Jeannette Elliott Ward 8
1019. Peter Leeney 2
1020. Lois Bond
1021. M. Golias Ward 5
1022. MJ Golias Ward 5
1023. Ronnie Lau 1
1024. tom golias
1025. Graham Burrage Ward 10
1026. Harolyn Hussain 8
1027. william i smith 2
1028. Daniela Giansante 7
1029. Ron Murphy
1030. Patrick Vincent
1031. Tom Mrsic 3 Maja Prentice
1032. Mary Mrsic 3 Maja Prentice
1033. Joseph Yousef L5M 0J6
1034. Mariam Wassef L5N 0A5
1035. Marc Gagne 1
1036. Carola Jaque
1037. Gary Baskerville
1038. Christine Denny
1039. Peter Spiliotopoulos 11
1040. John Murray
1041. Ryszard Rolka
1042. Bevan Terry
1043. Art Snooks 8
1044. Angelik Spiliotopoulos 11
1045. Marianne Campbell
1046. Richard Scott Campbell
1047. Christine Tartaglia
1048. John Tartaglia
1049. Tasia & Harry Patrinos
1050. rita sacchetti #2
1051. Dan DiPoce
1052. John Moore 11
1053. Peter Harding 8
1054. Adam Snooks
1055. Trina Moore 11
1056. Brenda Astri Haywood ward 3
1057. debbie young
1058. Tracy Taylor
1059. Mary Napier 8
1060. Ken Holmes
1061. Heidi Ellis 8
1062. Karen Becke
1063. Tom Guerriero 8
1064. Paul Becke 8
1065. Christopher Becke
1066. Linda Hooper 8
1067. Robert Hooper 8
1068. Marianne Baker
1069. Sherif Ragheb
1070. Sheref El Sabawy 6
1071. John Nessim
1072. sam ghobrial
1073. adel soliman
1074. Marlene Condotta Ward 9
1075. Judy Soucy 8
1076. Lawrence Yeung 5
1077. Michael Nashat
1078. Gina Golias
1079. alok dobriyal
1080. Peter Willson
1081. Denise Florin 9
1082. Jim Hogle 8
1083. RAMEZ TAWFIK
1084. Maggie Selim
1085. Loredana Lihet
1086. Nagy Shaker
1087. Sandra McKay 8
1088. Jacek Zielinski 4
1089. Betty Smith
1090. Jane Walks south/east (Lakeview)
1091. Robin McKay 8
1092. Matthew Cross 5 – Eve Adams
1093. Teresa Mruck
1094. line voided
1095. line voided
1096. Tara Connor-Lee 9
1097. Ed Lee 9
1098. albert franco 7
1099. Luigina Franco 7
1100. Domenico Gerolini 7
1101. Sabrina Simone 7
1102. Vanessa Simone 7
1103. Brian Payne 9
1104. Nicole 20
1105. Jia guo Jiang
1106. Jia Qin Wang
1107. michael ellis 9
1108. Bojun Chen 0„2
1109. Mingxiu Zhai 0„2
1110. Linda Hooper 8
1111. Dave Airey Ward 3
1112. Irene Tse 11
1113. Teresa M. Hubacheck 2
1114. Heather Napier 8
1115. Walter Oster
1116. Emad Ghattas
1117. Essam Kamel
1118. Jeanne and Tony Collings 3
1119. Said Attalla
1120. Lisa Mustard Ward 11
1121. Katrina Markes 8
1122. Peter Highfield ward 8
1123. Gregory Markes
1124. Manal Kelada
1125. fayez shenouda
1126. erene keleany
1127. Maria Joao Plaza 10
1128. Lawrence Mak
1129. William Crawford 2
1130. Jonathan Leung 8
1131. Vivian Victoria Ng
1132. Sally Dobie
1133. Heather Andrighetti
1134. James Matthews 2
1135. rosa MacPhatter
1136. Peter and Maria Markes
1137. Antonio Vidal 9
1138. Linda Gordon
1139. Mohab Ragheb
1140. shirley ng
1141. Ray Patrick
1142. E. Maxemous
1143. Peter Cheng
1144. Ken Choi
1145. Beata Ungureanu
1146. Irene Cheng L5V 1G9
1147. Ralph Edward Bergey 8
1148. Meghan Goldie
1149. Lori Goldie
1150. Calvin Kavanaugh
1151. Debbie Kavanaugh
1152. Carmen Hiles
1153. W. F. Waters Ward 2
1154. Peter Erratt Ward 2
1155. Cindy Dodson
1156. Marion Grossman Ward 2
1157. Milton Grossman Ward 2
1158. Lisa DeFrancesco 2
1159. Janice bell
1160. Barry Matthews 2
1161. Loretta Marshall 2
1162. Margaret Matthews 2
1163. Katrina Matthews 2
1164. J. H. Maclaren 2
1165. Donna Eggertson 2
1166. Jason Rozon
1167. Deborah O’Brien ward 2
1168. EVELYN & DON WILKINSON 8
1169. HelenMaybee
1170. Maxwell Milligan
1171. E. Ruth Kitcchen 2
1172. Howard D. Kitchen 2
1173. PETER RUITER 2
1174. Tom Goldie
1175. E. Thomsen W 2
1176. Robert John Craig 2
1177. Mary-Rose Treasurywala 2
1178. James H. Latimer Ward 2
1179. Doris Hart 2
1180. Muriel I. Latimer Ward 2
1181. Arthur Sam Handley
1182. Noreen Paxton 2
1183. G. Sobie Ward 2
1184. Joseph Sobie Ward 2
1185. Ian McKay
1186. Alicia Sciriha
1187. GLORIA YUNG
1188. Larry Marsden 2
1189. KAM CHUEN YUNG
1190. Hazel THE GOD McCallion
1191. Helen Seto and Ken Kan Hai
1192. Peter Schurmann 2
1193. Adi M.Treasurywala 2
1194. Wilma Wall 2
1195. Suzanne Schurmann 2
1196. Jean Kwan
1197. Ray Haines two (Pat Mullen)
1198. Fred Michalek 2
1199. William Howitt
1200. MARCI SANDERSON two ( 2)
1201. JOAN HOWARD two ( 2)
1202. RONHOWARD two ( 2)
1203. EDWARD SANDERSON two ( 2)
1204. Sara Mody
1205. Kenroy Campbell
1206. Kirsten Joyce
1207. L. Macdonald 2
1208. Marie C. Lodge 2
1209. BOB MINERS
1210. Joanne Jaworski 2
1211. Paul Jaworski 2
1212. Paul Jaworski 2
1213. Henry Jaworski 2
1214. Henry Jaworski 2
1215. william g stemshorn
1216. Brian Cummer
1217. john mckee 2
1218. Trish Miners
1219. Mary Jane Geddes Two
1220. Rodney Reichstein 2
1221. Mary-Jane Reichstein 2
1222. Scott Harvey ward 2
1223. Deborah Harvey ward 2
1224. Kathy Bell 2
1225. Don Bell 2
1226. Victoria Duynstee 2
1227. Eugene Duynstee 2
1228. Pamela Duynstee 2
1229. Dean Vasilakos Ward 2
1230. Albert Fong 2
1231. Linda Fong 2
1232. Bodo and Helga Thormeyer Pat Mullin
1233. anne & joe olexa 2
1234. anne & joe olexa 2
1235. Paul Neziol 2
1236. Maggie Bras
1237. Audrey Lightheart 2
1238. Helen Mou
1239. Michael Mou
1240. Scarlette Chan
1241. raymond wong
1242. YVONNE WONG
1243. Norm Dale 2
1244. Harry Tam 11
1245. Alice Tam 11
1246. Brian C. Bernet 2
1247. Lina
1248. Jenny Dale 2
1249. MRS.DONNA CONNOLLY 2
1250. Rudolf Tung 7
1251. Bill Burrows
1252. William Russell
1253. Roger E. Beaulieu Ward 4
1254. Pam Briggs-Jude 1
1255. Mr.Russell Connolly 2
1256. Marsha Beaulieu Ward 4
1257. Melisa Ricciardi Ward 10
1258. Marco Ricciardi Ward 10
1259. Morna I. Bernet 2
1260. Andre Mak 0„2
1261. Adelina Wong 0„2
1262. Teresa Mak 0„2
1263. W J Tourgis Mullen
1264. Gus & Alice Spiliotis 2
1265. Ivan Sack Ward 2
1266. Kenneth.B.Foxcroft Ward 8
1267. Linda.G.Foxcroft. Ward 8.
1268. Anne Kulpa
1269. Helen Chan 8
1270. Sharon Seto
1271. Michelle Seto 6
1272. Susan Seto
1273. line voided
1274. Hoy Seto
1275. Garry Seto
1276. Ken Seto
1277. Garry Jenkins 9
1278. Michel Wilson 2
1279. Lorna Kay 2
1280. Robert Kay 2
1281. Richard A. McElwain 2
1282. Catherine Choy
1283. Dan Cormier 2
1284. Shawn Cormier 2
1285. Phyllis Ghany 2
1286. John Ghany 2
1287. Thomas Chau
1288. Andrew White 2
1289. Fanny Chan
1290. Farida Lila
1291. Gloria Finnimore 2
1292. Petra Scheller Ward 2
1293. Edith Scheller Ward 2
1294. Scott McNabb
1295. Alan S. Fair Ward 2
1296. Alex Cheong 8
1297. Ruth Vendryes
1298. michael josselyn
1299. Andrew Bell 2
1300. Campbell Tourgis 2
1301. Diane Tourgis 2
1302. Francis Kwok
1303. Agnes Kwok
1304. Diane Richardson 2
1305. Brian Richardson 2
1306. Tom Clancy Ward 2
1307. Frances Clancy Ward #2
1308. Jane seto
1309. rebecca shum
1310. Michael Foley
1311. Elizabeth Anderson 2
1312. Gordon James Anderson 2
1313. Amy Brabant
1314. Cheryl Hughes 2
1315. Yee Seto 10
1316. joseph camilleri 2
1317. Isabel Gomes 2
1318. Peter Grimley 2 (Two)
1319. Allan & Catherine Thomson
1320. Eric Smith Ward 2
1321. Frank Roelofsen
1322. Brenda Smith Ward 2
1323. Lynn J. Babcock 2
1324. Krystina and Stephen Holinski 2
1325. Muriel Wright 5
1326. Bruce Wright 5
1327. Ron Sinclair
1328. Barbara Sinclair
1329. Baninder Grewal
1330. Baninder Grewal
1331. Bruce Lees 11
1332. Charles Barclay 5
1333. Ann Barclay 5
1334. Rick Codlib 5
1335. Vera Etheridge 5
1336. Wendy Davis 2
1337. Jeanie Seto
1338. Ken Leonard ward 2
1339. Clarissa Stevens-Guille Mississauga South
1340. Abel Kashani Mississauga North
1341. Donald Mcnevan 2
1342. Ross Morrison 2
1343. Elizabeth C Morrison 2
1344. P R Knubley 2
1345. M M knubley 2
1346. M M Knubley 2
1347. Alan Gray
1348. Jeanette Gray
1349. Donna Foley
1350. Paul Gierszewski 2
1351. Sue Gierszewski 2
1352. Victoria Greenwood
1353. Todd Greenwood
1354. Katherine Hill 2
1355. lea hill 2
1356. Mohsmmad Hassan Kashani Ward 4
1357. Neshat Banou Kashani Ward 4
1358. Yuk Chun Wong
1359. Christopher Chan
1360. patricia woodworth 2
1361. mike and Debbie Bruce
1362. Mark McCarren 5
1363. Thom Seto
1364. jim Siman
1365. Marcia Kall 2
1366. M. Catherine Morison
1367. William G. Morison
1368. Anneke Corriveau
1369. Philomena Roelofsen
1370. Diana Stevens-Guille 2
1371. Peter Stevens-Guille 2
1372. Linda Soucier
1373. Manuela Neto 1
1374. Robert Wordham
1375. Joanne Wordham
1376. Luz Beatriz Vergara.
1377. David Belcher 10
1378. Jean Czieslik 2
1379. Jean Czieslik 2
1380. Winfried Czieslik 2
1381. Edward J. Clarke 2
1382. Michel Bittar
1383. Janine Bittar
1384. Lynda Cowan 10
1385. Michael H Heenan
1386. Tina Bernard
1387. Elizabeth Francisco 1
1388. BRUCE FRANCISCO 1
1389. Sharon Hirtle
1390. Wendy Seto
1391. Troy Goddard
1392. Gordon Crawford
1393. Colleen D’Souza 2
1394. Oswald D’Souza 2
1395. carolyn goddard
1396. Marlene Anderson
1397. George Anderson
1398. Peter Keenan 2
1399. Jean Keenan 2
1400. Brenda Broadfoot 8
1401. George Moore
1402. Nancy Filippi
1403. Susan McGonigle 2
1404. Mr Ken Yoshida
1405. Debbie Martin 8
1406. Cliff Napier 8
1407. Tam Pham
1408. Thanh Le Pham
1409. Kaitlyn Napier
1410. Eva Liebermann
1411. George Liebermann
1412. Brittany Ellis
1413. line voided
1414. pat ward 6903 hickling crescent, Mississauga
1415. Gary I. Jackson One
1416. Harvie Dennis 9
1417. Enn Martin 9
1418. Shirley Stanton
1419. SBurian
1420. mark grossman
1421. Barbara Grossman
1422. John & Christine Says 2
1423. Monique Leblanc
1424. Mark Grossman
1425. Mary Canade
1426. Tony Canade
1427. Brian Andrade
1428. Dave Martin
1429. Donna Seto
1430. Chimkai Ng 11
1431. John Policelli
1432. Elizabeth Girouard 9
1433. Gregg Byfield 9
1434. Verna Dennis
1435. Gail Martin
1436. Peter J. Cunningham
1437. Susan Nip
1438. Vicki Marrack
1439. Peter Marrack
1440. Carol & Bob Baxter Lorne Park
1441. Jane Dobie
1442. Sue Prior
1443. Roberta Vice
1444. Pat Hammerton 10
1445. Lynda Rose Mississauga South
1446. Darko Naumovski Ward 1
1447. Cindy Guyon Ward 7
1448. Arn Kashino Ward 8
1449. Alice & Guy Launay
1450. Jeffrey Hand ward 9
1451. Anna-Liisa Myatt 2
1452. Raymond Myatt 2
1453. Miko Nissim
1454. Bryan Gladman 11
1455. Lily Soliman
1456. Maureen Russell
1457. Barry Metcalfe 1
1458. Alverna Metcalfe 1
1459. Elaine Chan
1460. Cally Ly
1461. Chloe Chan
1462. Taylor Chan
1463. Amany Seleim
1464. Shery Takawy
1465. Ray & Alevia Healey 8
1466. Richard Peters 4
1467. Vince Lavorata
1468. sami naguib
1469. karoleen naguib koko
1470. Pauline Mikhail
1471. Adel Daoud 9
1472. Hany Philips
1473. Nader Fam Streetsville
1474. Traiz Zaki
1475. Sami Mikhaeil 11
1476. Maggie Megaly 9
1477. Andrew Sidrak
1478. Hoda Kamel
1479. Mary Kamel
1480. Mona Kamel
1481. Nader Kamel
1482. Shawky Iskandir 10
1483. Hanan El-Mankabadi 11
1484. Nardine Hanna
1485. Adel Tadros
1486. Adel Khalil
1487. Kirsten Ritchie 10
1488. Nabil Messiha 4
1489. Mina khalil
1490. Mary Khalil
1491. samy
1492. Madonna khalil
1493. Carol Khalil
1494. Nany
1495. MICHAEL KHAN 5
1496. claire tawfilis we love our mayor Hazel Mc callion our city is the best because of her
1497. Carl Korneli-Fry 1
1498. Bob Gladman 11
1499. Lyn Gladman 11
1500. Nader Rizk
1501. Francis Fernandez
1502. Jane Aziz Youssef
1503. Hany Eltalawy
1504. Rafik Morcos
1505. suzan Awadde Alla Ghattas
1506. Anastasia Seifert
1507. Ayman Ayad 4
1508. samer
1509. hany Elsonbaty 10
1510. Donald Edmondson 4
1511. Nicole Zardo 4
1512. Maher Zaytoun
1513. Ramy Elaasar
1514. JoAnn Drennan 1
1515. Salem Yousef 4
1516. Diane Edmondson 6 – unfortunately
1517. Margaret Moon 6 – unfortunately
1518. Mike Neary Ward 3
1519. Jonathan Vezina 2
1520. Nasser Mikhail
1521. Michael J. Fisher, Barrister and Solicitor
1522. Bruno Brucker Missisuaga South
1523. Mrs L Howard 2
1524. Laurie Smithies
1525. Laurie Smithies
1526. Mabel Edith Smithies
1527. GLENN MACOOMB FORMER WARD 3 RESIDENT
1528. Richard William Smithies
1529. holly huang
1530. A. Thompson 1
1531. Vivek Viegas
1532. kay SHOHET
1533. helen SHOHET
1534. Mamdouh Armanios 6
1535. john smith 8
1536. Magi Armanios 6
1537. Peter Armanios 6
1538. Huili Yin
1539. rick carroll 5
1540. Sandra Falcone 1
1541. Maureen Kolapak 5
1542. David Christian Ward 1
1543. KAMAL YOUSIF
1544. David Loughlin-Ross 2
1545. Doreen Seddon 2
1546. Paul Ingoldsby 2
1547. Mona Cederberg
1548. Kelly Carriere 6
1549. Joan Wells 2
1550. Caitlin Lusk
1551. George Botros 8
1552. Charles May 2
1553. Michael La Penna
1554. Corradina La Penna
1555. Donald Harrington 2
1556. I Macaulay 2
1557. Violet Orton 2
1558. Andrew zhuang 10
1559. M Macaulay 2
1560. larry barber 11
1561. Jane Youssef
1562. Baher Soliman
1563. Magdy Philopos
1564. Isaac Matta
1565. gerard a larkin 9
1566. sahar assaad
1567. azer el rashidy 9
1568. Amgad Ayad
1569. Yan Beilei
1570. Brook Tyler 2
1571. Nady Ibrahim 10
1572. Hugh Francisci
1573. amal
1574. AshrafSamuel
1575. Josephine Bau 8
1576. Maged Ghoubrial 6
1577. P Wall
1578. zhixian ma
1579. Sameh Nashed
1580. John Wahba 6
1581. Dalia Fekri 6
1582. Rafik Botros 6
1583. Farid Guirguis 8
1584. A Youwakim
1585. G Youwakim
1586. amir el rashidy
1587. sherry el rashidy
1588. May Wong
1589. Fr Paul Guirgis
1590. laila ibrahim
1591. laila ibrahim
1592. Nadia Habib
1593. Samar Habib
1594. Sandy Youssef
1595. Beshoy Habib
1596. EVET MIKHAIEL
1597. RIAD WASSEF
1598. MARIAN WASSEF
1599. Susanne Sweatman 2
1600. Scott Sweatman 2
1601. Gayle Else 11
1602. Arthur Else 11
1603. Bill Carty
1604. Sandra :ee
1605. Mei Lan Leung
1606. effat hanna ibrahim ÿ
1607. HANA, ADEL FAHMY 4
1608. Sandi Laing
1609. Peter Laing
1610. Douglas & Carol Daer
1611. Gladys Lafferty 2
1612. line voided
1613. Magdy Nashat
1614. Hanna Takla
1615. Charles Barrett
1616. Robert Brown 2
1617. Jane Brown 2
1618. Carol Burns 9
1619. Ingrid Enhagen two
1620. Donna Valiquette 2
1621. Ashraf Salib
1622. tawfilis keep our mayor mississauga will die without her
1623. hani
1624. Linda McGregor

Done!

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (three years after October 28, 2009)

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

Mississauga’s Cawthra Community Centre renamed Carmen Corbasson Community Centre –and Ghosts of Octobers Past.

October 13th, 2012  

Today the City of Mississauga honoured former Councillor Carmen Corbasson by renaming the Cawthra Community Centre to the Carmen Corbasson Community Centre.

I attended the joyless, perfunctory event and quite frankly it was far more than I could stomach. I couldn’t wait to leave.

Ward 1 Councillor Jim Tovey did his thing as did Mayor Hazel McCallion. I noticed plenty of “Friends of Hazel” in the audience as well.

When you know it was October 2010 that Jim Tovey and Team McCallion used this election “Large Cheque” flyer suggesting that Carmen Corbasson was incapable of thinking for herself, you might have some idea of the emotion I was forced to suppress while there.

JIM TOVEY, DECEPTIVE FLYER, WARD 1, MISSISSAUGA

So here’s the video I made.

Mississauga’s Cawthra Community Centre renamed Carmen Corbasson Community Centre Oct 13, 2012

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

And when you know that it was October 2009 when Councillors Mullin, Saito, and Ron Starr called what Corbasson supported a “witch hunt”, you just so resent their presence there.

And when you know that Bonnie Crombie’s swarmy “Team Crombie” actually organized that December 2009 Friends of Hazel Rally, well —

On the bright side I did get some quality time with Councillor Iannicca. Got a Hi from Councillor McFadden. And I managed to flip the bird to no fewer than two of City of Mississauga Corporate Security’s video surveillance cameras!

And now, for the record, what I regard as Councillor Carmen Corbasson’s finest, more courageous moment as she stands up to Harold Shipp and the “Friends of Hazel”:

Video: “Mega-builder” Harold Shipp warns MISSISSAUGA Councillors. Councillor Carmen Corbasson responds” (3:50 min)

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:

VIDEO INTRODUCTION speaking AGAINST a judicial inquiry. “Mega-builder” HAROLD SHIPP, October 28, 2009

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

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera, October 28, 2009

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

DIP TO BLACK

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor), October 28, 2009

Councillor Corbasson…

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON, October 28, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor), October 28, 2009

Thank you…

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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

Warren Kinsella’s “The War Room” unmasks Bonnie Crombie’s executive assistant, Rob “Daisy Consulting” Trewartha

July 23rd, 2012  

On July 5, 2012 I began reading, Warren Kinsella’s “The War Room”, at the recommendation of Rob Trewartha, senior consultant (and fellow Liberal spinner) at Kinsella’s Daisy Consulting Group.

“The War Room” filled in large puzzle pieces that both the McMurtry/Curling “Roots of Youth Violence” and the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry’s “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” failed to mention.

One being:

“Politics is a nasty, unpleasant, mean-spirited business, which is presumably why some of us are drawn to it. (Many of us are nasty, unpleasant, and mean-spirited people. “

–Warren Kinsella, The War Room, p. 72.

From “The War Room” I learned that nasty, unpleasant, mean-spirited politicians hire nasty, unpleasant, and mean-spirited media relations spinners who run their campaign war rooms and once elected, morph into “assistants”.

All of which makes Mayor Hazel McCallion’s March 17, 2008 Audit Committee utterance

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

an even bigger lie than the “Yes, absolutely” she got in response from City of Mississauga Corporate Security’s nasty, unpleasant, and mean-spirited Manager, Jamie Hillis.

Enough! Here’s the video. Complete with transcript.

Warren Kinsella’s “The War Room” unmasks Bonnie Crombie’s Rob “Daisy Consulting” Trewartha (6:42 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, reporting July 19, 2012

It is Thursday, July 19th, 2012 and last week I finished reading, “The War Room” by Warren Kinsella.

And what I plan on doing is now re-reading, “The War Room” by Warren Kinsella.

And to be clear and for the record, the reason why I’m reading and re-reading, “The War Room” by Warren Kinsella is I get insight into an interesting individual by the name of Rob Trewartha.

I wanted this for the record that I first learned about Rob Trewartha on June 15th 2011. He happened to have written a Letter to the Editor in the Mississauga News.

Rob Trewartha's June 14, 2011 Mississauga News Letter to the Editor. This was the way this Liberal spin doctor caught out attention.

And like a true spinner, because Trewartha is, at the time, senior consultant to Warren Kinsella’s Daisy Consulting. And was part of certainly Dalton McGuinty’s war room.

And what I’m going to do is play that video now.

[Video insert of MISSISSAUGAWATCH June 15, 2011 report begins]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, reporting June 15, 2011

It is Wednesday, June the 15, 2011 and this is what the Toronto Star looks like.

And what I want to do is just go to a Mississauga News Letter to the Editor by a guy named Rob Trewartha. And I just want to read it and offer some context.

He writes:

Too much

Dear Editor:

I want my $25 back.

I seem to recall during the 2010 municipal campaign that many candidates and councillors including George Carlson—

[Video insert of MISSISSAUGAWATCH June 15, 2011 report ends]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, reporting July 19, 2012

Anyway, he writes about the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Obviously opposes it.

And he questions the price tag.

And now he says he wants his $25.00 back.

And what Rob Trewartha fails to mention is exactly who he is.

He’s not just your average Mississauga resident.

So what I did back then was Google “Rob Trewartha”. And that might be good for you to do as well.

And it led to some really interesting revelations on this guy.

And one of the things about researching —and being really tenacious about researching, is that you follow all kinds of tangents. Many of them are dead ends and you know, it’s not necessarily a waste. You learn something in the process.

But in the case of Googling “Rob Trewartha”, I hit on a splendid piece of luck.

[Video insert of MISSISSAUGAWATCH June 15, 2011 report begins]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, reporting June 15, 2011

—where he writes, “If Mississaugans were given the truth upfront.”

“If Mississaugans were given the truth upfront.”

If Trewartha had given the truth upfront about what he was like and had given context, Mississaugans would have a better idea of why he’s motivated to write that.

And you go and you check his Facebook page, uh, let’s go back right here.

There’s Rob Trewartha. And you’ll see here he’s with Don Cherry and Hazel McCallion (laughs) right? So the truth right up front which is hidden in the Mississauga News Letter to the Editor is that, well, let’s take a look at this one here with Don Cherry.

Someone is asking what is Grapes, meaning, Don Cherry doing?

And Trewartha says, oh, “At least year’s rally for Hazel. I helped [to] organize it.

Rob Trewartha, senior consultant for Warren Kinsella's Daisy Consulting Group (now Mississauga Councillor Bonnie Crombie's executive assistant) assists mega-developer Harold Shipp after the December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally.

 [Video insert of MISSISSAUGAWATCH June 15, 2011 report ends]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, reporting July 19, 2012

And that’s why I’m interested in Rob Trewartha. He helped organize the “Friends of Hazel” Rally. December 2nd, 2009.

Rob Trewartha, senior consultant for Warren Kinsella's Daisy Consulting Group (now Mississauga Councillor Bonnie Crombie's executive assistant) surveys the almost empty Mississauga Convention Centre after the December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally

To explain why that is important to me —that’s not the point of this video.

The point of this video is that Rob Trewartha, who wrote that back in June 15, 2011 —I didn’t know at the time, that he was senior consultant to Warren Kinsella’s Daisy Consulting Group.

And I have done intensive research on the individuals involved in the “Friends of Hazel” Rally.

And what’s interesting is that they —these people can be described as Hazel McCallion’s and Bonnie Crombie’s War Room.

So why am I reading “The War Room”?

Well. Rob Trewartha actually recommended it to me.

Rob Trewartha gave his boss Warren Kinsella's "The War Room" a 5-star rating on indigo.ca

[Video insert of MISSISSAUGAWATCH July 16, 2012 report begins]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, reporting July 16, 2012

It is Monday, July the 16th, 2012 and this is what the Toronto Star looks like.

And I just want to go and document “The War Room” by Warren Kinsella here at Indigo.ca.

And the review was written by Rob Trewartha five years ago. So let me just read this for the record.

“An extension to his 2001 work Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics, The War Room is an updated look at political campaigning in the 21st century. In this book Kinsella provides a “how to” manual of sorts to anyone looking to run a public relations campaign. His primary rule – and subsequently the dominant theme of the book – which he admits he borrowed from James Carville (a.k.a “God”), is to leave no charge unanswered; if hit, hit back. Each chapter is structured as a lesson (10 in total), including one of my favourites titled, ‘Get the Handle Scandal Manual!’”

[Video insert of MISSISSAUGAWATCH July 16, 2012 report ends]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, reporting on Warren Kinsella’s YouTube video “W@AL: Live From Inside The PMO Speechwriting Shop!”  July 19, 2012

It is Thursday, July the 19th, 2012 and this is what the Toronto Star looks like.

This is from Warren Kinsella. And it was uploaded as you can see here, September 30, 2008.

Warren Kinsella in YouTube video “W@AL: Live From Inside The PMO Speechwriting Shop!”

Hi. It’s War at Arm’s Length. Um. What we wanted to do for you here today my colleague and I, Rob, is recreate for you what happens in the speech-writing shop in Stephen Harper’s office.

Okay. So. We’re speech writers.

[Music: Hawaiian taboo]

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Postscript.

And it was only on July 19, 2012 that careful analysis confirmed Rob Trewartha of Daisy Consulting Group in three of Donald Barber’s hi-resolution photographs of the December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally.

I’m most grateful to Donald Barber for the superb, crisp photographs he generously provided back in January 2010. Without them I would not have “seen” let alone made the connection. My cameras just weren’t as good.

Last. And just because I can, I went back to video of the “Friends of Hazel” Rally just to see if my camera had managed to pick up any presence of Daisy Consulting Group’s senior spinmeister. And sure enough —2.11 seconds in total.

Enough to produce a video-parody.

Friends of Hazel Rally: “I helped to organize it.” –Rob Trewartha of Daisy Consulting Group  (1:29 min)

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

In December 2011, Rob Trewartha, senior consultant spin doctor for Daisy Consulting Group became Mississauga Councillor Bonnie Crombie’s “executive assistant”.

Signed,

The (liberal) Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Rob Trewartha, senior consultant for Warren Kinsella's Daisy Consulting Group. Now Mississauga Councillor Bonnie Crombie's executive assistant poses with Don Cherry during the December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally which he helped organize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

January 29th, 2012  

 

MISSISSAUGA GOOD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE   January 23 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.]

30

END OF PAGE 30 OF THE CODE.

Yes. That’s it.

Short one today.

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

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 12) Failure to Adhere to Council Policies and Procedures

January 27th, 2012  

 

MISSISSAUGA GOOD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE   January 23 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.

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.

Given the City’s chronic lack of compliance to Corporate policies, procedures, by-laws and guidelines, Rule No. 15′s Failure to Adhere to Council Policies and Procedures isn’t just the Cornerstone of this Council Code of Conduct but forms the bedrock-foundation for all City of Mississauga Corporate policies, procedures, by-laws and guidelines and even provincial legislation.

The Code’s Rule No. 15 is THE BIG ONE, folks! The One Rule that Binds All other City Rules.

And, as it turns out, the Code‘s Rule No. 15 is also the Code’s Biggest Joke!

We begin.

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 28 begins)

Rule No. 15

Failure to Adhere to Council Policies and Procedures:

1. Members shall adhere to such by-laws, policies and procedures adopted by Council that
are applicable to them.

Commentary

Members of Council are required to observe the policies and procedures established by City
Council at all times, and are directed to pay special attention to, and comply strictly with, the
Council Procedure By-law and the Elected Officials’ Expenses policy. In exceptional
circumstances, a Member may request Council grant an exemption from any policy.)

[Regular readers will recall how often I've warned citizens that every City of Mississauga Corporate policy, by-law or guideline has at least one exemption clause. And the Code's Rule No. 15 blows the biggest accountability loophole that certainly I've ever witnessed.

So. The Mayor and Councillors "shall adhere to such by-laws, policies and procedures adopted by Council that are applicable to them". To render the entire Code essentially worthless, the City's Staff/Good Governance Committee then slipped in the protective clause, "in exceptional circumstances, a Member may request Council grant an exemption from any policy".

And what might qualify as an "exceptional" circumstance? When Mayor and Councillors don't want to comply.

And what does "any policy" mean?

"(A)ny policy"means any policy including the ones that Rule No. 15 directed Mayor/Councillors to "pay special attention to, and comply strictly with". And also includes this one —The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct!]

 

28

END OF PAGE 28 OF THE CODE.

FREEDOM of INFORMATION MISSISSAUGA (TO DATE MISSISSAUGAWATCH HAS SPENT CLOSE TO $3,000 ON FOI REQUESTS FILED WITH CITY OF MISSISSAUGA AS WELL AS SELECTED ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES)

And related topic… Check out the humorous Mississauga News editorial “We can be the leaders” on last Monday’s Good Governance Committee meeting.

The Mississauga News writes:

Our civic leaders will forever remain divided in their strong opinions on whether the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry and its $7 million price tag were justified.

To this day, the majority of city residents feel Mayor Hazel McCallion had Mississauga’s best interests at heart when she got involved in a deal to bring a luxury hotel to the City Centre. They trust McCallion implicitly and didn’t bat a proverbial eyelash when it became known publicly that her developer son stood to make millions if the deal was ever done.

That same crowd bitterly resents the $7 million cost of the Judicial Inquiry that examined conflict-of-interest allegations against the mayor.

Crying and complaining won’t do a bit of good, though, because the money has already been spent.

Collectively, we have to move on and make the most out of the situation by quickly implementing the recommendations handed down by Inquiry Commissioner Douglas Cunningham.

You think the Judicial Inquiry handed us lemons? Let’s make lemonade.

Mississauga now has an opportunity to emerge as a true leader and model for municipalities across North America when it comes to civic ethics and morality and how they are employed to guide governance.

We can hold our collective heads up and tell the world that the $7 million was well spent because we blazed a righteous path for other municipal councils to follow…

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because every municipality in Canada needs a Council Code of Conduct that states, “Members shall make every effort to participate diligently..” and then defines “diligently” as not missing three consecutive meetings aka: regular attendance!”

And every municipality in Canada needs a Council Code of Conduct that Mayor and Councillors “shall adhere to such by-laws, policies and procedures adopted by Council that are applicable to them” and then carves the wormhole “in exceptional circumstances, a Member may request Council grant an exemption from any policy”.

What a Pompatous of Pretend!

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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

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
(“MFIPPA”)
, 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
data)

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.]

14

END OF PAGE 14 OF THE CODE. PAGE 15 BEGINS

 

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
public.

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
public.

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.

 

15

END OF PAGE 15 OF THE CODE.

 

 

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…

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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.

Thanks,

Ursula
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

1. The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct April 2011

2. Canada in the Making Common Law and Civil Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Ted Woloshyn, Toronto Sun

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

January 9th, 2012  

This blog is a continuation of the following blog entries:

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

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

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

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

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

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


The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct.

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


Rule No. 3

Councillor Expenses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11

END OF PAGE 11 OF THE CODE. PAGE 12 BEGINS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12

END OF PAGE 12 OF THE CODE. PAGE 13 BEGINS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Commentary

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

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

13

END OF PAGE 13 OF THE CODE.

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

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

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

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

Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

1. The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct April 2011

2. Canada in the Making Common Law and Civil Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Ted Woloshyn, Toronto Sun

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)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

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.

[DIP TO BLACK]

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—

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

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.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

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.

[DIP TO WHITE]

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.

[DIP TO WHITE]

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—

[DIP TO WHITE]

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?”

[DIP TO WHITE]

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.

[DIP TO WHITE]

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.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

 

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

 

Signed,

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!

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)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

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.

[CROSS DISSOLVE]

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

 

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

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

Mayor Hazel McCallion celebrating Thanksgiving October 7, 2006 with World Class Developments’ (son) Peter McCallion and Leo Couprie

October 9th, 2011  

Today’s blog regarding Mayor Hazel McCallion celebrating Thanksgiving October 7, 2006 with World Class Developments’ (son) Peter McCallion and Leo Couprie is for historical purposes.

I’ve gone to the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report, “Updating the Ethical Infrastructure” to provide context of the McCallion/Couprie October 7, 2006 Thanksgiving festivities.

  REPORT  (Full version)  (9,252Kb / 403 pages)

Page 68:

68 Updating the Ethical Infrastructure

Mr. McCallion testified that, by July 2006, it was clear that Mr. Couprie
would be investing in World Class Developments Incorporated and, as a result,
would replace the solicitors as the sole officer and director of the company. On
Mr. McCallion’s instruction, Mr. Couprie directed Caprara Brown by email on
August 3, 2006, stating that, until World Class Developments Incorporated
firmed up a deal with OMERS, the corporation was to remain in his name only,
because he was providing the deposit money. He also requested that the corporate
address be changed to the one he provided. By email the following day, Mr.
Brown confirmed receipt of Mr. Couprie’s instructions and assured him that
“all existing directors and shareholders (Caprara and myself ) will be scrubbed
and replaced with you.”40

On August 9, 2006, to address a printing error on letterhead and business
cards, the lawyers changed the name from “World Class Developments
Incorporated” to “World Class Developments Limited” and incorporated the
changes referred to above.41

Although it is odd that the printing error led to the reorganization of
the company, Messrs. McCallion and Couprie formally created World Class
Developments Limited (wcd) in November 2006. In a letter to Mr. Couprie
dated November 20, 2006, Mr. Brown confirmed that, based on Mr. Couprie’s
and Mr. McCallion’s instructions, the corporation had been reorganized
through the filing of articles of amendment.42 Mr. McCallion told his lawyers
that the company was Mr. Couprie’s company since Mr. Couprie was the
person with the money. He and Mr. Couprie instructed the lawyers to change
the directors, officers, and shareholders of wcd to reflect Mr. Couprie as the
principal of the corporation, a fact confirmed by letter.

That summarizes the Summer of 2006.

What follows, for chronology, are the photos of the McCallion/Couprie October 7, 2006 Thanksgiving celebrations. (Photo credit and special thanks to Peter McCallion)

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie

Mayor Hazel McCallion, October 7, 2006 Thanksgiving dinner with World Class Developments’
Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie.

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie
World Class Developments’ principal/owner Peter McCallion toasts family and friends.
Leo Couprie (black hair at left) and Hazel McCallion, October 7, 2006 Thanksgiving dinner.

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie
Hazel McCallion, October 7, 2006 Thanksgiving dinner with crab legs on the menu.

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie

World Class Developments’ principal/owners Peter McCallion (likely the one taking this picture) and
Leo Couprie (striped shirt) celebrate Thanksgiving 2006 with Mayor McCallion.

Peter McCallion’s Thanksgiving photos summarize World Class Developments’ activities on October 7, 2006.

For November we return to the Inquiry’s report Updating the Ethical Infrastructure. Page 74.

74 Updating the Ethical Infrastructure
Leo Couprie’s Role

Although it is odd that the printing error led to the reorganization of
the company, Messrs. McCallion and Couprie formally created World Class
Developments Limited (wcd) in November 2006. In a letter to Mr. Couprie
dated November 20, 2006, Mr. Brown confirmed that, based on Mr. Couprie’s
and Mr. McCallion’s instructions, the corporation had been reorganized
through the filing of articles of amendment.42 Mr. McCallion told his lawyers
that the company was Mr. Couprie’s company since Mr. Couprie was the
person with the money. He and Mr. Couprie instructed the lawyers to change
the directors, officers, and shareholders of WCD to reflect Mr. Couprie as the
principal of the corporation, a fact confirmed by letter.43

Mr. McCallion had incorporated WCD before Mr. Couprie became involved
in the company. Mr. McCallion approached him about investing in WCD in
the summer of 2006 on the basis that an investor group in Korea was prepared
to develop the project if Mr. McCallion could assure the investors they
would gain title to the property. He understood that Mr. McCallion was looking
to him only for deposit money for the property. As noted, Mr. McCallion
asked Mr. Couprie to “invest” $750,000, and offered a return of an additional
$750,000 on his original investment.77

Mr. Couprie was prepared to put up the money as long as it was secured
and fully refundable. After receiving verbal legal advice, he gave Mr. McCallion
$600,000 of his own money and borrowed an additional $150,000 from
friends, for the requested total of $750,000.78

The deal was attractive to Mr. Couprie in that it permitted him to double
his money, although he knew it would take some time to receive the $1.5 million
he was due. 79 The successful completion of the project depended on: (1)
closing the deal with OMERS; (2) the developer then building the condominiums
and engaging Peter McCallion as the listing agent; and, finally, (3) actually
selling the condominiums.80

Mr. Couprie explained that he came into the project as a lender, not as a
shareholder, and he requested that he be entitled to hold shares as collateral for
his money.81 As already noted, on August 3, 2006, Mr. Couprie instructed the
lawyers at Caprara Brown to change the corporate documents to reflect Mr.
Couprie as the principal and sole shareholder / director of WCD.82

 

Next, while the Inquiry explored dinners, galas, golf tournaments and phone calls dealing with World Class Developments, there is no mention anywhere in the report or witness transcripts of Mayor McCallion’s October 7, 2006 Thanksgiving Dinner with Peter McCallion and Leo Couprie.

Witness transcripts from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website:

Leo Couprie, Principal of World Class Development (WCD) August 17, 2010

Mayor McCallion June 2, 2010  September 20, 21, 23, 2010

Peter McCallion, Principal and/or agent of WCD July 27, 28, 2010

Last, what follows is a video commentary of these four photographs of the McCallion/Couprie October 7, 2006 Thanksgiving celebrations complete with transcript.

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

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]
[Caspian & Grafhic - Matrix Shit]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting October 8, 2011 while surfing the net.

It is Saturday, October the 8th, 2011 —Thanksgiving weekend, and this is what the Toronto Star looks like.

And I just want to go over to Peter McCallion’s Picasa website. And you can see here the URL. And he lists himself in real estate and also as living in Streetsville.

And one way that we know this is the Peter McCallion is that there’s his photographs. And within these photographs, he lists the trips that he took, but it’s this one here that you can see —his Random Pics.

There they are. Hallowe’en. There’s his mom. There’s Peter McCallion on the same boat trip. There’s Peter McCallion. So you know this is pretty well guaranteed to be Peter McCallion’s photographs.

Yeah, life’s good.

I want to show you Thanksgiving. Here. Here. Here. And here. 2006.

So we’re going to start with this image.

[Photograph 1]

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie

There they are. That’s Mayor McCallion —not sure who the others are.

And the important thing is to look at the amenities here, the candles. And we go around the table. Who else is at the “Photo information, October 7, 2006″. And here we go.

[Photograph 2]

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie

Now we’ve got son, Peter hoisting a glass. And then this group here have their backs to us.

The important person is this one right here. Black-haired guy. Who’s that?

[Photograph 3]

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie

There again. The person we’re interested in though is sitting over here, not in this photograph.

This again is October 7th, Thanksgiving at —I’m not sure whose house this is. Quite possibly Peter McCallion’s but we don’t know.

What are they having? Crabs’ legs. I don’t like crab legs but at  least it’s not shark fin soup. Hee hee.


[Photograph 4]

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie

And there it is.

Leo Couprie. Is at this particular Thanksgiving. October 7, 2006, Leo Couprie was one of the Thanksgiving dinner guests. With the Mayor.

Notice, there’s the crab legs. There’s the bread basket.

Going back to [Photograph 3], there’s the crab legs and the bread basket.

And [Photograph 2] crab legs. Bread basket. And that guy right there with the dark hair —that’s Leo Couprie!

So I wonder what they were talking about October 7, 2006 Thanksgiving weekend.

Going back. [Photograph 4] Now the one thing that I have yet to figure out is who this guy is [seated to Mr. Couprie's left].

So Happy Thanksgiving to the people in Mississauga. [Photograph 2] Raising a glass to you from the Peter McCallion, Hazel McCallion and Leo Couprie Thanksgiving dinner, October 7th, 2006.

It’d be, what, five years ago.

Turning camera off.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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

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

Justice Cunningham: Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” –in its unethical environment…

October 6th, 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.

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

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

 and…

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

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

 Last, this is a video record of the letter I sent to the city clerk’s office for inclusion in the next Council meeting minutes. The transcript varies only slightly from the script in our last blog, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report won’t change Hazel McCallion’s “Her Town Her Rules”. As for the Inquiry’s recommendations authentically implemented?…

Nonetheless the video includes footage from Council meetings that support why I say that it is absurd to trust McCallion and her MYTHissauga Inc puppet-councillors to do anything authentic with Justice Cunningham’s recommendations.

Hazel McCallion and her councillors will pervert Judicial Inquiry recommendations (6:53 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]
[Caspian & Grafhic - Matrix Shit]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting outside Burnhamthorpe Court House October 3, 2011

It is Monday, October the 3rd, 2011 —post Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report release and I just want to read a statement that I made yesterday. And I just want to put it into the video record.

So I begin:

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 not just 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 quote, “Best City in Canada” loves to remind all other municipalities that Mississauga quote, “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 for 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”

“Let’s keep Mississauga right up there. At the top. We are The Best. No question about it. And we just have to convince others that we’re The Best. I know the citizens know we’re the best but it’s important to convince those outside Mississauga that we are The Best.”

and “we must set an example”,

not to mention the City of Mississauga mantra “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.

Turning camera off.

[Video ends with footage of Mississauga Council May 23, 2007. Hazel McCallion addresses her Communications Department]

Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council May 23, 2007

There’s been great improvement in our public relations. I can see a major advancement in the many pamphlets that you produce, etc. But also communication with the Press, etc. It’s so important.

We don’t get in the Press too often and I hope we don’t get in negatively. But you’ve made every effort to try to —I noticed that the Toronto Star is coming out with a new GTA page. I don’t know if you’ve been in touch with them to find out what it’s all about.

But I hope that we will have a prominent positive item in that Toronto page because it does go across the GTA.

And I think of all the wonderful things that we’re doing in Mississauga. It’s hard to get the publicity —they love bad publicity, the papers. They don’t like good publicity, unfortunately.

But I know you’re working hard to promote all the wonderful things we’re doing in Mississauga for the good of the citizens.

I want you-folks to know that you don’t get an 87 percent response from the citizens that they’re happy with what we’re doing if you-folks weren’t doing a good job. The Staff of the City.

So, congratulations to all of you. Keep up the good work.

Let’s keep Mississauga right up there. At the top. We are The Best. No question about it. And we just have to convince others that we’re The Best. I know the citizens know we’re the best but it’s important to convince those outside Mississauga that we are The Best.

Thank you very much for your contribution.”

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

NEW! Hazel McCallion bobblehead doll commemorates the Mayor's BIGGEST FISH YET!

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.

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Hazel McCallion secures her Legacy adding Bonnie Crombie to MYTHissauga’s stable of puppet-councillors.

September 19th, 2011  

With Bonnie Crombie now added to Hazel McCallion’s existing stable of six puppet-councillors, Mississauga Council now has unfettered license to fabricate, deceive and lie to the public. All in the best interests of the City, of course.

With Crombie there are now Seven: Tovey, Mullin, Fonseca, Crombie, Starr, Mahoney and Saito.

Cronyism (so rife and so Out There in MYTHissauga) is having one joyous field day.

I’m reminded of Hazel McCallion’s September 8, 2010 speech when she announced she’d run for a 12th term.

This part:

“And I’m not going to conduct a campaign. I am not going to raise money. I’m not going to have signs— because I’ll tell you anyone that wants to donate money to a Mayor’s campaign, I plead with you, to donate it to all the charitable organizations, whose under pressure second-to-none. The Food Bank. The Children’s Aid— the Salvation Army and all those that are struggling, struggling today to look after the people. The Poverty that’s in our city. The Unemployed that are in our city.

So how can I, as Mayor, waste money on signs and literature?”

A year later you find she’s got the Mississauga Board of Trade and the Mississauga Chinese Business Association campaigning for her and she’s not just backed by millions and millions but she has her own ROGERS Cable 10 TV station as well!

Funny how the Mississauga News never mentioned that… or any other media for that matter.

The Mississauga News had to know the millions and millions of dollars greasing McCallion’s campaign machinery. Ron Lenyk sure did. Mississauga Board of Trade. Mississauga Chinese Business Association. Shipp, Kaneff, Nobrega, O’Brien, Starr, Murray… MYTHissauga Inc’s Secret Society.

Just a few of a seemingly endless parade of self-serving MYTHissaugans.Mayor’s Gala 2010 Organizing Committee

Just 241 votes separated Parrish from Crombie. To gauge how HUGE Eve and Peter Adams played in Crombie’s win check out his 1,347 votes… Parrish sure could have used them.

And let’s not forget to factor in McCallion’s Brazil “trade mission” engineered to delay the release of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report until after the Ward 5 by-election.

Seriously. With Hazel McCallion’s solid wall of puppet councillors, does anyone remotely believe the Inquiry report even matters? There will be nothing in the Inquiry report’s contents that a couple of hastily drafted and pro-forma’d Corporate By-Laws can’t cure! And McCallion can count on her Seven Rubber Stamps to rubber-stamp them.

Orwell again: ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’

F*** me. The Inquiry Commission Counsel even let McCallion control the report!

“This is the way the world ends: This is the way the world ends: This is the way the world ends: Not with a bang but a whimper.

Here’s a cut-and-paste of the Unofficial Results courtesy mississauga.ca

2011 Mississauga By-Election - VOTE!

Unofficial Results
Polls reporting: 26 of 26
Ballots Cast:  11,510
Councillor – Ward 5 VOTES   %
Bonnie CROMBIE   2,479
21.54%
Carolyn PARRISH 2,238
19.44%
Simmer KAUR 1,662
14.44%
Peter ADAMS 1,347
11.7%
Rick WILLIAMS 728
6.32%
Kulvinder Bobbie DAID 633
5.5%
Jake DHEER 573
4.98%
Dianne DOUGLAS 542
4.71%
Mark CASHIN 242
2.1%
Barbara Hazel TABUNO 221
1.92%
Mobeen ALI 174
1.51%
Vlado BERTIC 130
1.13%
Glenn BARNES 58
0.5%
Olive Rose STEELE 57
0.5%
Sandeep PATARA 51
0.44%
Jimmy GHIMERY 51
0.44%
Cheryl RODRICKS 42
0.36%
Frank PERROTTA 40
0.35%
Waqar SIDDIQUI 36
0.31%
Jamie DOOKIE 35
0.3%
Cecil YOUNG 34
0.3%
Mo KHAN 28
0.24%
Shirley ABRAHAM 26
0.23%
Grant ISAAC 25
0.22%
Catherine SOPLET 25
0.22%
Paul KESELMAN 17
0.15%
Steve BATOR 16
0.14%

Get ready for a perpetually-smiling Barbie Doll former public relations hack sitting in the Ward 5 chair.

Hmmm. This just in.

Quote from Hazel McCallion:

“I hope the one that finished close to her will forget any attempts to be on the council of the great City of Mississauga.”

And I hope that public servants who lie to “maintain” the public trust spend Eternity straddling the fifth-lowest rung in Hell.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MISSISSAUGA CITY HALL (AMO, OMERS, MYTHissauga Inc) ---morally beyond redemption

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.

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse


Mississauga News “bombed” with e-graffiti with “Friends of Hazel” hypocrite’s “FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!”

July 22nd, 2011  

MISSISSAUGAWATCH Investigation Series, Volume 2, “Peel Youth Violence Prevention as related to McMurtry/Curling’s Roots of Youth Violence” (#2)

Today’s blog builds on our last one, Why research graffiti? (Peel Youth Violence Prevention as related to McMurtry/Curling’s Roots of Youth Violence).  Graffiti is what “bad” youth do and “bad” people do, right?

Can an online newspaper comments section be “bombed” with graffiti?

We say yes.

WHY RESEARCH GRAFFITI? MISSISSAUGAWATCH

In our April 19th, 2010 blog, GRAFFITI in MISSISSAUGA: Preliminary Report (April 19, 2009 – April 19, 2010) baseline, we chose to use the Mirriam-Webster definition of “graffiti”.

graffiti

: usu. unauthorized writing or drawing on a public surface

The functional word here is “unauthorized”.

In their July 14, 2011 Editorial, “Cutting off the dialogue”, the Mississauga News announced:

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

The Mississauga News even cut off commentary on their editorial with “Commenting on this story has been suspended“.

First, we submit that the readers comment section of the Mississauga News online is a “public surface”. Given the internet’s global reach, it’s tough to find a more public, “public surface”.

Metroland, the owner of this “public surface” announced that it was suspending “public online commentary on all stories related to the Ward 5 vote and candidates.”

The meaning is quite clear —any “public online commentary on all stories related to the Ward 5 vote and candidates” is unauthorized.

And what you’d expect to happen did happen. The commenters simply commented on the Ward 5 race in other stories and heaped scorn at the Mississauga News demanding “FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!” and served up “DOWN WITH THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS!”

And this is what the Mississauga News front page looked like on July 16th, courtesy of  “Friend of Hazel”, “Prol”. (“Prol”, we should point out supports “Friend of Hazel” Jake Dheer’s Ward 5 candidacy.)

"Prol", co-designer of the "Friends of Hazel" Rally flyer "bombs" Mississauga News articles with "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!"110716

MISSISSAUGA NEWS front page: "Prol", co-designer of the "Friends of Hazel" Rally flyer "bombs" Mississauga News articles with "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!"110716

Having documented some of these commenters, I can confirm how they loathe graffiti artists and taggers. How they refer to them as punks, scumbags and losers.

For the record, what follows are just some of the comments left by “Prol” (alternate alias “AV8R”) after the Mississauga News made its announcement to suspend public online commentary on all stories related to the Ward 5 vote and candidates.

We focus on “Prol” (aka “AV8R”) for one reason. He is an identifiable person, just one of two people who co-designed the Friends of Hazel Rally flyer. The same flyer (in this photo), presented to Hazel McCallion by Lorry Smith (left) and Ron Starr.

Do Lorry Smith and Ron Starr know who “Prol” is?…

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

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

“Friends of Hazel” Rally organizer, Betty Merkley certainly does. As perhaps co-organizer, Councillor Katie Mahoney.

We know that “Prol” (by his own admission) is a liar.

He’s also a hypocrite.

Witness “Prol”s call for “FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!”

Fact is,  “Prol” (aka “AV8R”) was part of a massive “sanitation” squad, deleting entire Mississauga News threads back in April 2010 and again in January 2011. Just three clicks of the “Offensive” feature and comments were erased. “Prol” would click once as “Prol” and log in again as “AV8R”. And likely had a third alias as well.

After all, the “Friends of Hazel” have prospered for decades under Mississauga’s media-barren environment and do their all to keep it that way.

“FRIENDS OF HAZEL” DELETE HUNDREDS OF COMMENTS AT MISSISSAUGA NEWS (8:02 min)

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

Such are the Mayor’s “people”. These are the “Friends of Hazel”.

So. Take a look at samples of a new kind of  e-graffiti  —unauthorized writing left on a public surface by one of Hazel McCallion’s finest: “Prol” (aka “AV8R”).

Mayor Hazel McCallion is quite fond of saying that Her Town flourishes with a “team approach”. Witness a TEAM HAZEL’s “Prol”, an e-sociopath doing his all “in the best interests of the City” of course.

This One Message “team approach” is how Hazel McCallion stayed in power for over thirty years.

"Friend of Hazel" (McCallion) "bombs" the Mississauga News with a different kind of "graffiti". "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" and "DOWN WITH THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS!"

"Friend of Hazel" (McCallion) "bombs" the Mississauga News with a different kind of "graffiti". "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" and "DOWN WITH THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS!"

For the record, here’s a cut-and-paste.

Prol

Jul 16, 2011 1:01 AM

Good one CR Your ironic posting helps to expose the absurdity of censorship. Apparently, the proletariat can be trusted with commenting on a sporting event or a story about parking violations but not anything as important as a by-election. THAT is best served by the commissar approved arbiters of public consumption, the Mississauga News. THE PEOPLE WILL SPEAK! LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY! DOWN WITH MISSISSAUGA NEWS!

  • Agree
  • Disagree 1
  • Offensive
"Friend of Hazel" (McCallion) provides insight into how McCallion stayed in power.

Hazel McCallion's "TEAM APPROACH". "Friend of Hazel" "Prol" teams with "ConcernedResident" and the Mayor's "Mantis"

This comment from the Mississauga News article, “Nomination fiercely contested”.

Prol

Jul 17, 2011 7:57 PM

“In some ways, it’s a sad day for The Mississauga News and for community journalism. “In some ways? How could it be sadder? How could it be more blatantly and transparently partisan? Sad? Try pathetic and anti-democratic. Where was your concern for decency while reporting on the Mississauga Enquiry or the last municipal election? Some of the most libellous and “unfair” comments still live on this site. Hypocrites. Some will see this posting before you delete it.

  • Agree
  • Disagree 1
  • Offensive

Note reference to “libellous”.

So typical of the “Friends of Hazel” deceitful ways, Prol fails to mention his “Psycho” comment in the article, “Don’t Elect Parrish”. (Note, “CP” is referring to Carolyn Parrish):


Prol

Jul 13, 2011 11:51 PM

Ursula PsychoYou are one twisted bitch. Can’t you please get some help? You will feel so much better when you deal with whatever made you this way. Are you lobbying to run CP’s campaign? You would get along famously. The similarities are astounding.

  • Agree
  • Disagree 1
  • Offensive 1

And in his “Psycho” comment in another article, “Dheer joins Alzheimer Society team“, “Prol/AV8R”, with typical lack of self-awareness, fails to see the irony in a psychotic post calling me a psycho:

Prol

Jul 14, 2011 2:43 PM

I knew the wait would be short for Ursula Psycho to jump on this. The quote you selected from Andre Marin sounds much like what anyone buying into your endlessly repeated lunatic drivels should expect. Picture me giving you the MMuse salute. Cut and paste that – psycho.

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 1
  • Offensive

That’s right. Referring to Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin’s address to The Canadian Centre for Ethics and Corporate Policy, (2007) as “lunatic drivel”.

These are the “Friends of Hazel” —cowards so proud to be supporting their Mayor that they hide behind aliases.

Or just hide.

FRIENDS OF HAZEL RALLY (December 2, 2009). Organizers did their all to prevent Mississauga residents from learning about Hazel McCallion's wheelings and dealings on behalf of her son --and "her people".

If the "Friends of Hazel" are so proud of supporting their Mayor, why all the hiding?...

E-graffiti. Cyber-cowards. Enough’s enough of these “Friends of Hazel’ aliases and multiple aliases.

It’s time to report on real “Friends of Hazel” —with real names. Names we’d never know about had it not been for the big hole the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry blasted into this Company Town’s “media-barren environment”.

A youth once wrote me with “The System is too corrupt, there is no way to fix it.” That’s what both video and Freedom of Information confirms. No way to fix it.

But you can document, document, document, document document…. and warn one person at a time.

Take home message? If you want to see the REAL Mississauga, see what Mississaugans really believe when their identities are tucked safely behind aliases —peer into their racism, their quasi-fascism, read the Mississauga News readers comments! And see this city’s Future!

Signed,
The Mississauga Muse.

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

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

July 18th, 2011  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

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

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

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

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

[DIP TO WHITE]

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

[DIP TO WHITE]

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DIP TO WHITE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed,

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

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

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

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

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

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

which brings us to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mississauga Council video presentation, “Hazel McCallion Mayor’s Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga ‘raised mmmillions of dollars’”

April 13th, 2011  

This video was shown at the April 13, 2011 Mississauga Council meeting. MISSISSAUGAWATCH will submit this entire blog for the record in the April 13, 2011 Council meeting minutes. As is now our practice we provide this video, followed by the transcript.

Hazel McCallion Mayor’s Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga “raised mmmillions of dollars” (10:11 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT with freeze-frames from actual video]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting April 10, 2011)

Regarding the Mayor’s galas, Mississauga Council is going to limit me to ten minutes. So I’m going to let Councillor Nando Iannicca detail the concerns surrounding this annual fund-raising event.

Freeze-frame "McCallion-backed Ron Starr (left) and Councillor Nando Iannicca" from video "Hazel McCallion Mayor's Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga "raised mmmillions of dollars"

Councillor Nando Iannicca (Mississauga Council meeting, March 9, 2011)

—I trust the donors are aware, were aware that when you gave a dollar only six or seven cents went to the entity. And I’m starting to think that they’re not because of how tax receipts were issued. But perhaps that will come back.

I wonder what rapprochement’s been done with the charities when they now know, and I didn’t know, —I don’t think a lot of people knew, that you had this grand fete with the City’s elites. And at the end of the day for every dollar that came in, eighty cents was consumed.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting April 10, 2011)

And when we look at Commissioner Breault’s February 24, 2011 report, she writes that in 2005 the ticket cost of $400.00, 50% was allocated for donation.

And yet when you go and check on what actually happened, you can see that in 2005, the $400.00 ticket, only 24% percent went into actual proceeds.

Freeze-frame "Percent proceeds of Mayor's Gala" from video "Hazel McCallion Mayor's Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga "raised mmmillions of dollars"

And the Commissioner continues that for 2006, the ticket cost was $500.00 of which 40% was allocated for a donation.

And yet when you look in 2006, the proceeds were actually less, just twenty-two percent.

That’s difficult enough to swallow if you’re a private individual, but imagine some of these publicly-funded agencies over here, who also bought tickets.

Freeze-frame "publicly funded agencies who pissed away 80% on entertainment, food and drink" from video "Hazel McCallion Mayor's Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga "raised mmmillions of dollars"

So we’ve got Trillium Health Centre here. $2,000.00. And that’s got to be publicly-funded money, or donations that they received from people. And now what they’re doing is they’re taking their $2,000.00 and flushing 80% of it, and only $400.00 go to the arts!

And I would think that anybody who donated to the Trillium Health Centre wanted that $2,000 to go into Health.

Now there’s a March 7, 2011 article in the Toronto Star —”(Peel) Police board spent thousands on mayors’ gala [sic]” and I want to read some of the highlights to you now.

The Peel Police Services Board has bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of tickets to private mayoral galas in Brampton and Mississauga, using “proceeds of crime”—

Minutes show, for example, that the board approved buying a $4,000 table at Fennell’s gala on Feb. 20 last year, on Fennell’s invitation. A month before the gala took place, then-board member Jim Murray put forward a motion to buy a second table. It was approved.

A big player in Mississauga’s real estate market and close friend of McCallion, Murray is one of the organizers of her annual arts gala. In 2008, Fennell moved that the police board buy a $6,000 table for McCallion’s gala that November.

Now you remember October 2008 don’t you?

[DIP TO WHITE]

Freeze-frame "Peter Mansbridge, October 6, 2008 The National"" from video "Hazel McCallion Mayor's Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga "raised mmmillions of dollars"

 

Peter Mansbridge (The National CBC, October 6, 2008)

Good evening. The world’s stock markets answered a desperate call today —Sell!

They torpedoed into new territory as the financial crisis tightened its grip on the global economy.

The Dow fell almost 370 points before closing below 10,000 for the first time in four years. Earlier in the day, the TSX plunged almost 1,200 points —its biggest one-day drop on records.

—Canadians fear their savings are slip-sliding away.

Freeze-frame "TSX performance just prior to October 17, 2008 Peel Police Services Board meeting" from video "Hazel McCallion Mayor's Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga "raised mmmillions of dollars"

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting April 10, 2011)

As the real world debated Recession or Depression, witness the Peel Police Services Board take $6,000 of public funds and lavish $4,800 of it on Mayor McCallion’s evening of entertainment, food and drink.

[DIP TO WHITE]

Emil Kolb, Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, October 17, 2008)

Also there’s another special request. Would someone like to move that for the Mississauga—

Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell (Peel Police Services Board meeting, October 17, 2008)

Oh, I’ll move that. (laughs)

Freeze-frame "Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell at October 17, 2008 Peel Police Services Board meeting" from video "Hazel McCallion Mayor's Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga "raised mmmillions of dollars"

(general laughter)

Emil Kolb, Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, October 17, 2008)

All those in favour? Carried.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting April 10, 2011)

And the economy got worse. And by January 23, 2009 we see Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell vote for her own gala at this Peel Police Services Board meeting.

Emil Kolb, Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, January 23, 2009)

Item number 20 then is an event from the Special Policy —uh the Special Fund area. Mr. Murray.

Jim Murray, Vice Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, January 23, 2009)

Yes. Mr. [inaudible]

This year’s recipient of this year’s Lifetime Achievement Award for the City of Brampton at the Mayor’ annual gala for the community, and for the Brampton community is the past vice chair [inaudible] and two-time member of this Board over many many years, Mr. Webb.

Mr. Ron Webb, and I think it will be appropriate if this Board was to buy two tables to this event. Primarily for that reason but also to recognize that this might be a difficult year to sell some subscriptions to this event, and it’s a worthy event. It supports the community —it supports the [inaudible] of this award. I would move that we purchase two tables.

Freeze-frame "Jim Murray" from video "Hazel McCallion Mayor's Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga "raised mmmillions of dollars"

Emil Kolb, Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, January 23, 2009)

Is there a seconder? Okay. Any other questions? If not, all those in favour? Carried.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reading from National Post article, “Mississauga Mayor’s Gala faces allegations of corruption” Megan O’Toole)

“This was never intended, nor was it billed as, and nor was it sold as a fundraiser,” Mr. Murray said.

Doug Fowles (Gala promotional video shown at Hazel McCallion’s $350.00 a ticket 90th Birthday Bash, February 12, 2011)

It was originally started to raise money for the arts —for the construction of the Living Arts Centre.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reading from National Post article, “Mississauga Mayor’s Gala faces allegations of corruption” Megan O’Toole)

“—and nor was it sold as a fundraiser,” Mr. Murray said.

Toronto Sun columnist Ted Woloshyn (Gala promotional video shown at Hazel McCallion’s $350.00 a ticket 90th Birthday Bash, February 12, 2011)

—now in its 25th year, raised mmmillions of dollars to support the arts, culture and heritage in the community—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting April 10, 2011)

As Ted Woloshyn should know, “raised mmmillions of dollars to support the arts, culture and heritage” is not the same thing as supporting with millions of dollars raised.

[DIP TO BLACK]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting April 10, 2011)

To that point. Appendix 7 shows that the Mayor’s gala raised $3,737,000 of which only $768,000 was ever returned to the community in donations.

Freeze-frame "Mayor's Gala NOT-millions donations" from video "Hazel McCallion Mayor's Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga "raised mmmillions of dollars"

The same appendix shows that there’s $2,340,000 of the Mayor’s fund was donated to the Mississauga Community Foundation [sic]. So essentially you have a foundation within a foundation.

[DIP TO BLACK]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting April 10, 2011)

And Councillor McFadden asked Mississauga Staff, “What year did the Mississauga Community Foundation receive $2,340,000 from the accumulated gala funds and how many projects (with amounts) have received grants from that fund to date?

And Commissioner Breault’s response is, “The $2,340,000 was transferred from the City at the end of 2006 to the Mississauga Community Foundation [sic]. The City has no information regarding projects which received grants through this Foundation.”

Freeze-frame "Hazel McCallion admits losing $28,000 from gala fund" from video "Hazel McCallion Mayor's Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga "raised mmmillions of dollars"

Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga General Committee meeting, November 19, 2008)

I like your stabilization. I think it is the answer —one of the answers to the situation.

I only wish I knew about it before I turned my money over to the Community Foundation. Cuz last year I lost $28,000 out of my funding. And no interest on it.

When it was left with the City, it was getting 3% interest —on a couple of million dollars, which is nothing to— So instead, last year I lost $28,000 out of capital which is unfortunate.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting April 10, 2011)

As to Councillor McFadden’s question, “how many projects (with amounts) have received grants from that fund to date”?

Commissioner Breault had written, “The City has no information regarding projects which received grants through this Foundation,” —easy answer.

Freeze-frame "Community Foundation of Mississauga confirms McCallion's fund donated ZERO back to community between 2007 to current" from video "Hazel McCallion Mayor's Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga "raised mmmillions of dollars"

Go to the internet. Answer is Zero. Nothing. Not in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Zero.

Regarding the report by Commissioner Breault in response to Councillor McFadden’s questions, the Commissioner writes that “staff have completed their research and are providing the following based on information available in the City’s financial records.”

What that means is that answers could be elsewhere and they’ve limited their research to the financial records and that’s all.

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting April 10, 2011)

Councillor McFadden asked specifically about the receipts. She asked about receipts for the 2005 gala, the 2006 gala and also the 2007.

And Commissioner Breault’s response is, “The City has no information to respond.”

There is a way of finding out about receipts —you just Google.

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting April 10, 2011)

Yep there it is. “How long should you keep your tax receipts?” There it is —six years.

So we should be able to get tax receipts from City Staff and councillors who attended Mayor’s galas all the way back to 2004!

And what you get is the Mayor’s Gala website. And it looks like it’s called “IT’S A FULL HOUSE”. Kenny Rogers.

And we just go through really quickly.

And what we get is a picture of Brenda Breault herself in 2005! And there’s Councillor Prentice.

Let’s keep going. There’s the City Manager! So certainly she’ll be able to help us produce the receipts for 2005.

We’ve got Councillor Pat Mullin and we’ve got Martin Powell, Commissioner of Public Works and Transportation.

Let’s go to 2006.

There’s Ron Starr —Councillor Starr.

This guy right there. Ken Owen, Director of Facility and Properties Management. Also Director of Mississauga Corporate Security.

Freeze-frame "Ken Owen, Director of Facilities and Properties Management (aka Mississauga Corporate Security Grand Skulk" from video "Hazel McCallion Mayor's Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga "raised mmmillions of dollars"

I know he’d be happy to hand over a tax receipt. How fortunate.

Who can help us for tax receipts for 2007? Maja Prentice again. She’d be able to help us. Former Councillor.

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting April 10, 2011)

So we’ve got City Staff for 2005, 2006 and 2007 —and councillors who could help us by producing tax receipts!

Freeze-frame "2005, 2006, 2007 gala years" from video "Hazel McCallion Mayor's Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga "raised mmmillions of dollars"

Here’s my tax receipt to the Mayor’s $350.00 a ticket 90th Birthday Bash. That easy!

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Last, for the record, this afternoon I sent the following email and requested it go into the April 13, 2011 Council minutes.

[EMAIL BEGINS]

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
To: hazel.mccallion@mississauga.ca; Jim Tovey <Jim.Tovey@mississauga.ca>; pat.mullin@mississauga.ca; Chris Fonseca <Chris.Fonseca@mississauga.ca>; frank.dale@mississauga.ca; eve.adams@mississauga.ca; Ron Starr <Ron.Starr@mississauga.ca>; nando.iannicca@mississauga.ca; katie.mahoney@mississauga.ca; pat.saito@mississauga.ca; sue.mcfadden@mississauga.ca; george.carlson@mississauga.ca; janice.baker@mississauga.ca; Brenda Breault <Brenda.Breault@mississauga.ca>; Mary Ellen Bench <maryellen.bench@mississauga.ca>; Crystal Greer <Crystal.Greer@mississauga.ca>
Cc: motoole@nationalpost.com; rjames@thestar.ca; city@thestar.ca; gtimbers@mississauga.net; jstewart@mississauga.net; mississauga_watch@yahoo.com
Sent: Thu, April 14, 2011 2:51:25 PM
Subject: Yesterday’s Council Mayor’s Gala video deputation is now online. And comment regarding Jim Tovey’s claim to have admired the coat of arms back in 2005.

[Hi Ms. Greer, I'm requesting that you include this correspondence in yesterday's Council minutes or failing that, in the minutes of the next Council, please.]

Hi Council.

Yesterday’s Council Mayor’s Gala video deputation is now online.

“Hazel McCallion Mayor’s Gala Scandal: MYTHissauga “raised mmmillions of dollars”

at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFvgoWgLr30

My other reason for writing. I have video of Jim Tovey claiming to have admired the craftsmanship of the Mayor’s beautiful coat of arms “hanging on the wall” back in 2005 when he was a mere carpenter fresh from a construction site on his first visit to the Mayor’s office to talk about the power plant.

Please check out the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry’s exhibit “Holding-Mayors Gala Fund” at:

www.mississaugainquiry.ca/exhibits/pdf/Exhibit_578_COM005001350.pdf

It shows “30-Jun-09 Mayor’s Coat of Arm’s -$15,212.05″

I find it remarkable that Mr. Tovey has such vivid, fond memories of admiring this coat of arms back in 2005 when it was only paid for on June 30, 2009!

“To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful .” –Edward R. Murrow

Best wishes,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

[EMAIL ENDS]

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Hazel McCallion Mayor’s Gala Scandal: illegal tax receipts and just 20 cents per dollar to charity

March 14th, 2011  

This Blog is a follow-up to our March 10, 2011 Blog, “HAZEL MCCALLION’S MAYOR’S GALA SCANDAL ‘…without question what we’ve done is illegal under the Revenue Act of Canada.’

Hazel McCallion's Mayor's Gala RECEIPTS for public agencies 2005 and 2006

Today, we present the man behind so many of the Mayor’s Galas over the years —reaching as far back as 1991 and as recently as being Chair of Hazel McCallion’s $350.00 a ticket 90th Birthday Celebration Bash.

Mississauga News pic: Hazel’s 90th. Details of Mayor Hazel McCallion's 90th birthday festivities were announced today at the Living Arts Centre by organizing committee members, from left, Ray Lessard (senior vice-president, wealth advisor, BMO Nesbitt Burns), committee chair Jim Murray and Dr. Jeff Zabudsky, president and chief executive officer of Sheridan College. Staff photo by Fred Loek
(Jim Murray, chair of the Mayor’s 90th Birthday Celebration Committee, middle)

So here’s the video complete with transcript.

Hazel McCallion Mayor’s Gala Scandal: illegal tax receipts and just 20 cents per dollar to charity (11:02 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting March 13, 2011)

There’s been considerable controversy regarding Mayors’ galas both here in Mississauga as well as Brampton. And I just want to explain one of the most startling revelations regarding these galas.

In the case of Hazel McCallion’s November gala that has been going on all the way back to 1987, it was revealed that for every dollar of the ticket price only twenty cents actually goes to charity. And of those twenty cents, only six or seven actually goes [sic] to the arts. And yet the gala is “for the arts”.

And rather than me express the concerns, why not take it directly from Councillor Nando Iannicca.

[REVERSE CLOCK-WIPE]

Councillor Frank Dale, Acting Mayor (Mississauga Council meeting, March 9, 2011)

Councillor Iannicca.

Councillor Nando Iannicca (Mississauga Council meeting, March 9, 2011)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I wanted to follow up on the previous concerns from Councillor McFadden with regards to items she raised. But more important, the information that’s come back from the Staff in regards to the Mayor’s Gala.

And I understand more is to come back.

I just want to be clear on what is coming back and the action we’re taking, that something that to be very candid, just from the media accounts, looks dreadfully appalling. And looks like a whole bunch of people feel cheated.

And so I want some clarity around the issues when they come back, I want it to be very clear, and I want to say it here at Council, that these are the list of concerns. And the one specifically that relates to us as Board of Directors of the Corporation.

But first is, I trust the donors are aware, were aware that when you gave a dollar only six or seven cents went to the entity. And I’m starting to think that they’re not because of how tax receipts were issued. But perhaps that will come back.

I wonder what rapprochement’s been done with the charities when they now know, and I didn’t know, —I don’t think a lot of people knew, that you had this grand fete with the City’s elites. And at the end of the day for every dollar that came in, eighty cents was consumed.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera (Mississauga Council meeting, March 9, 2011)

Thank you.

Councillor Nando Iannicca (Mississauga Council meeting, March 9, 2011)

The donors would have been better off giving them half as much directly and some of the charities are saying exactly that.

So I hope that comes back.

I’m sure a lot of taxpayers feel cheated because if my math is correct, only from the accounts, some of the entities who wholeheartedly and graciously gave money would have got bigger business receipts and charity receipts than the charities got in actual money.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting March 13, 2011)

Now there’s a March 7th, 2011 article in the Toronto Star, “Peel police board spent thousands on mayors’ galas”.

There’s [sic] two factual errors. One, they stated that Hazel McCallion was on the Peel Police Board. That’s not the case. And in another, they had stated that the Special Fund that Peel Police were using was intended to be used for victims of crime. That too was not the case.

But I want to read some of the highlights now.

The Peel Police Services Board has bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of tickets to private mayoral galas in Brampton and Mississauga, using “proceeds of crime”—

And that’s true.

Minutes show, for example, that the board approved buying a $4,000 table at Fennell’s gala on Feb. 20 last year, on Fennell’s invitation. A month before the gala took place, then-board member Jim Murray put forward a motion to buy a second table. It was approved.

A big player in Mississauga’s real estate market and close friend of McCallion, Murray is one of the organizers of her annual arts gala.

And what I want to do now is just highlight just how close a friend Jim Murray is to Hazel McCallion.

For context at Hazel McCallion’s $350.00 a ticket 90th birthday party, where he said—

[CROSS-FADE]

Jim Murray, close friend of the Mayor and CHAIR of Hazel McCallion’s $350.00 a ticket 90th Birthday Bash Celebration, February 12, 2011]

I love you, Hazel.

(laughter from audience)

That’s not what Bridget said, by the way. She said, “What could be more beautiful than a lady growing wise with age?”

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting March 13, 2011)

In addition we find that Jim Murray has been a organizer of the Mayor’s Galas going all the way back to 1991.

And what emerges is that you’ve got a devoted, close friend of the Mayor sitting on the Peel Police Services Board.

[DIP TO WHITE]

And when you know of the devotion, the allegiance, the loyalty that Jim Murray, who the Toronto Star calls, “a big player in Mississauga’s real estate market”, has toward Hazel McCallion, then you can view his impassioned speech on October 28, 2009, when he tried to stop the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry —in a different light.

[DIP TO WHITE]

Jim Murray, close friend of the Mayor and at the time, Vice Chair of the Peel Police Service Board (“Stop the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry” deputation, October 28, 2009]

My name is Jim Murray. I live at in Mississauga.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, whispering into camera (videotaping Murray’s “Stop the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry” deputation, October 28, 2009]

Peel Police Services Board.

Jim Murray, close friend of the Mayor and at the time, Vice Chair of the Peel Police Service Board (“Stop the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry” deputation, October 28, 2009]

I didn’t come to speak today. I came to listen to find out what was going on.

There isn’t a single person on this Council I don’t know, and know well. Some of you I’ve known for a long time and I’ve worked with you. And I’ve had a respect for each member of Council.

I’ve lived her most of my life. I choose to make my business here. And I’m sad.

I’m very sad.

Because what you are embarking on, I suspect there wouldn’t be five people in this room who’ve ever been in a Judicial Inquiry. Well I have. In 1975. And it’s ugly and it takes on a life of its own. And it destroys people.

If what you really want to do is find out if anybody has a conflict of interest or anybody has done anything untoward, or anybody wants to clear the air, pass a resolution to hire an integrity commissioner like most municipalities have and GET ON WITH LIFE!

[strong applause with a "Here Here!"]

[CLOCK-WIPE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting March 13, 2011)

And returning to the Toronto Star.

A big player in Mississauga’s real estate market and close friend of McCallion, Murray is one of the organizers of her annual arts gala. In 2008, Fennell moved that the police board buy a $6,000 table for McCallion’s gala that November.

Murray rejected any suggestion that there was a quid pro quo between them, yelling “that’s just insulting.”

And “quid pro quo” means “this for that” or “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine.”

[DIP TO WHITE]

And also when you know that Jim Murray has been organizing the Major’s galas going all the way back to 1991, Murray’s Gala —and I mean it’s fair to call it “Murray’s Gala” when he’s an organizer.

For example when you look at 2008, which is the Regis Philbin one. Here’s the 2008 Gala, “Let the Games Begin”. So in [sic] October 17th, 2008 you can see Jim Murray here , voted for his own Gala,

[CROSS-FADE]

Emil Kolb, Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, October 17, 2008)

Also there’s another special request. Would someone like to move that for the Mississauga—

Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell (Peel Police Services Board meeting, October 17, 2008)

Oh, I’ll move that. (laughs)

(general laughter)

Emil Kolb, Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, October 17, 2008)

All those in favour? Carried.

Item 112.

[NOTE: Mayor Fennell moved the purchase of one table of 10 tickets in the total amount of $6,000 to Hazel McCallion's annual gala. Video confirms that Jim Murray, organizer of the McCallion's gala voted in favour.]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting March 13, 2011)

And this one in 2009.

[REVERSE CLOCK WIPE]

Emil Kolb, Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, January 23, 2009)

Item number 20 then is an event from the Special Policy —uh the Special Fund area. Mr. Murray.

Jim Murray, Vice Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, January 23, 2009)

Yes. Mr. [inaudible]

This year’s recipient of this year’s Lifetime Achievement Award for the City of Brampton at the Mayor’ annual gala for the community, and for the Brampton community is the past vice chair [inaudible] and two-time member of this Board over many many years, Mr. Webb.

Mr. Ron Webb, and I think it will be appropriate if this Board was to buy two tables to this event. Primarily for that reason but also to recognize that this might be a difficult year to sell some subscriptions to this event, and it’s a worthy event. It supports the community —it supports the [inaudible] of this award. I would move that we purchase two tables.

Emil Kolb, Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, January 23, 2009)

Is there a seconder? Okay. Any other questions? If not, all those in favour? Carried.

Item number 21.

[VIDEO REPLAY with magnification.]

[NOTE: Video confirms that Mayor Fennell voted in favour of purchasing two tables in the total amount of $8,000 to her own gala.]MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting March 13, 2011)

And again in 2010.

[CROSS-FADE]

Emil Kolb, Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, January 22, 2010)

Yes. Mr. Murray?

Jim Murray, Vice Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, January 22, 2010)

Mr. Chairman, we initially have passed a resolution to support Mayor Fennell’s gala on February 20th with the caveat that we would come back should they find themselves in these tough economic times in difficulty in selling tickets —tables to this worthy fund-raising event.

Capping that off they are honouring Iggy and Didi Kaneff, who made an ongoing lifetime contribution to this community and to many charities, not the least of which is University of Toronto and Sheridan Campus. And the 25-year sponsorship to Community Living and Community Living fund-raising efforts.

And I would like to move that we buy a second table to support this event. I think we bought two tables to the Mississauga Mayor’s gala in [inaudible] and in this economic time, it’s time to step up.

I would move that we buy a second table.

Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell (Peel Police Services Board meeting, January 23, 2010)

[inaudible] I declare a conflict because of all the money that goes to the community and it’s in my name so [rest largely inaudible.]

[Video shows that Mayor Fennell stands up and moves into corner and abstains from voting.]

Emil Kolb, Chair (Peel Police Services Board meeting, January 22, 2010)

Thank you. All those in favour? Carried.

[Video confirms purchase of one additional table in the amount of $4,000 in support of the 6th Annual Mayor Fennell Gala. (total $8,000)   Moved by J. Murray.] MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting March 13, 2011)

And in 2010, April, I believe, Jim Murray resigned from the Peel Police Services Board and was replaced by Laurie Williamson, who, interestingly enough, is also an organizer of the Mayor’s Galas. So I’m just wondering if that’s a qualification to be on the Police Board here in Peel.

Anyway —I don’t know.

[Music:“Don’t Crash the Ambulance” by Mark Knopfler] [IMAGES/VIDEO OF MAYOR'S GALAS with repeat-audio of Councillor Nando Iannicca speaking]

Councillor Nando Iannicca (Mississauga Council meeting, March 9, 2011)

—But first is, I trust the donors are aware, were aware that when you gave a dollar only six or seven cents went to the entity. And I’m starting to think that they’re not because of how tax receipts were issued. But perhaps that will come back.

I wonder what rapprochement’s been done with the charities when they now know, and I didn’t know, —I don’t think a lot of people knew, that you had this grand fete with the City’s elites. And at the end of the day for every dollar that came in, eighty cents was consumed.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera (Mississauga Council meeting, March 9, 2011)

Thank you.

[LOGO] [VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Hazel McCallion and son Peter, pose with Marilyn Monroe, Elvis and Lucy impersonators at 2002 "Long Live Rock and Roll" Mayor's Gala for the arts

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

This is a comment left at the Toronto Sun by a Peel Board trustee who was in the Peel Youth Violence Prevention Network Policy and Working Group [cut-and-paste begins] Valerie Arnold-Judge Report Comment March 10th 2011, 3:12pm. After being a school board trustee with PDSB for 13 years where the school board trustees have been micro managed by the provincial government with their expenses. No galas or functions are allowed on their expense reports unless it pertains to children., I find it appalling that the municipal councillors in the GTA are not questioned as to how many galas, trips and tournaments that they attend without any concerns from the provincial governmentl regarding tax payers money….It is time that they are held accountable for their spending. [end cut-and-paste]

How much did the legal opinion “Peter McCallion, for material purposes, was not actually the son of the Mayor” cost the City of Mississauga?

February 26th, 2011  

Today’s Blog is a continuation of our last Blog, “Mississauga Council presentation on Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest: the McLean & Kerr Report –Setting the Record Straight”. Both Blog entries are for the historical record and for inclusion in the February 23, 2011 Mississauga Council meeting minutes as well as those of Brampton, Caledon and Peel.

On Wednesday, I addressed City of Mississauga Council to raise concerns about the City’s two outside legal opinions relating to Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest.

I presented a video deputation on an omission in the McLean & Kerr legal opinion.

Then during Public Question Period I asked how much the City paid for the second legal opinion —provided by Stanley Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers) who concluded that Hazel McCallion could not have been in conflict of interest because “Peter McCallion for material purposes, was not actually the son of the Mayor”. Yes. Really…

Today’s video is a fun-watch. It’s me asking that question and the response I received.

This video was created in triple split-screen. Top right video shows Councillors Katie Mahoney and Pat Saito (both staunchly opposed to the Judicial Inquiry) and their reaction to  “Peter McCallion for material purposes, was not actually the son of the Mayor”.

Last, Special Thanks to Rogers Cable 10 Mississauga for their segment (top left).

As always, the video transcript.

Peter McCallion for material purposes was not actually the son of Mayor. This Legal Opinion cost?… (2:51 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]
[Note: Inquiry transcripts or McLean & Kerr sometimes used for accuracy purposes]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

I’ve also Public Question Period, some questions on it. Do you think I can ask it now?

Frank Dale, Acting Mayor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

Yeah. Sure. Go ahead.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

Thank you.

I’ll just see here. I just want to go to this thing here to kind of help you out. It is testimony on August 10, 2010 and I’m asking this for historical purposes and for my own research.

It’s the City Solicitor, here as “A” and “Q” is the cross-examination by Inquiry Counsel, William McDowell. And Mr. McDowell says:

 13                 Q:   Right.  And then you'll see, going
 14  down that page, that he—

and “he” is Stanley Makuch of Cassels Brock, who is the second outside legal opinion. So McDowell says:

  —And then you'll see, going
 14  down that page, that he comes to the conclusion that Peter
 15  McCallion, for material purposes, was not actually the son
 16  of the Mayor.

That’s the City’s second outside legal opinion. And Ms. Bench says:

 17                 A:   Yeah. 

McDowell:

 18                 Q:   Go to the next page, page 7.  He came
 19  to the view, I gather, that unless there was a financially
 20  dependent relationship that Peter McCallion could not be
 21  considered to be the son of the Mayor?

Bench, “That’s right” or:

 22                 A:   That's correct. 

And McDowell:

 23                 Q:   All right.  Apart from this letter,
 24  did he ever offer any authority for that view?

And Ms. Bench.

 25                 A:   He never offered an explanation at

2740

  1  all.  And it's contrary to the case he cited and it's
  2  contrary to the definition of child in the lac -- in the
  3  Act— 

And so my question has to do with the second outside legal opinion and I’m not sure whether I’m allowed to have this answer. But how much did the City pay for the second outside legal opinion? I know I’m allowed to ask. I’m just now sure if I can get the answer to that. Or— Ms Bench?

Frank Dale, Acting Mayor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

Do we have those figures available?

Mary Ellen Bench, City Solicitor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

I don’ t have that information with me here.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

Yeah, I didn’t think so. Okay, that’s my—

Frank Dale, Acting Mayor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

But it would be public information, correct?

Mary Ellen Bench, City Solicitor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

It’s information that can be provided, yes.

Frank Dale, Acting Mayor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

Then I’d ask that, or give direction that it be provide it.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

OK. Thank you, thank you so much. And thanks for letting me present this.

[DIP TO BLACK]
[Music:“Don’t Crash the Ambulance” by Mark Knopfler]

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS. LOGO]

Frank Dale, Acting Mayor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

There’s been a motion for receipt. All in favour? Opposed if any? Carried. Thank you.

If someone would call the Mayor back.

Additional Resources

87 MIS001009003 Conflict of Interest – Ltr November 11, 2009 – from Mary Ellen Bench To Stanley Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers) Letter 11-Nov-09 6-Jul-10 Liz McIntrye for Mayor

This is a scan of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Exhibit Number 87, Conflict of Interest – Ltr November 11, 2009 – from Mary Ellen Bench To Stanley Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers)”. We respectfully request being advised of any errors between our scan and the original (above) from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website.


Corporate Services Department
Legal Services
City of Mississauga
300 City Centre Drive
MISSISSAUGA ON L5B 3C1
[City of MISSISSAUGA Logo] Leading today for tomorrow
Tel: 905-615-3200
FAX: 905-896-5106
www.mississauga.ca
WRITER’S DIRECT LINE (905) 615-3200 ext 5393
EMAIL: Maryellen.bench@mississauga.ca

November 11, 2009

Mr. Stanley Makuch
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
2100 Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street West
Toronto, Ontario
MSH 3C2

Dear Mr. Makuch:

Re: Conflict of Interest

Receipt after 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 6, 2009 of your letter dated November 6, 2009 is
confirmed.

I was extremely taken aback by the content of your letter. You were retained by me on
September 18th to provide an opinion to me, not to Council. You accepted this retainer, and
there is no basis for you to now assert that Council is your client. By letter agreement dated April
19, 2007, The Corporation of the City of Mississauga retained Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
to provide legal services as required by the City. That retainer letter is very clcar that in carrying
out assignments on behalf of the City you take instructions from me or persons who I designate.
In particular, I draw your attention to paragraph 4 of the retainer and the sentence: “The City
Solicitor is the principal contact of the City for all practice areas.”

This is entirely consistent with and conforms to the commentary under Rule 2.02(1.1) as follows:

“Further, given that an organization depends upon persons to give instructions, the
lawyer should ensure that the person giving instructions for the organization is
acting within that person’s actual or ostensible authority.”

The retainer with your firm clearly states that I am the person with authority to represent the
City, and you are bound by my instructions. The RFPQ to which you responded clearly
identified that you are being retained to provide supplemental legal services. There is nothing in
the retainer that requires me to explain to you how I use your work product. In fact, in the 20
years that I have practiced as an in-house municipal lawyer I have never seen a retainer letter that
would require me to provide you with an explanation regarding how I use your work product.

When I spoke to you about assisting me on this matter, Mike Minkowski was present and we
spoke to you from my office on speaker phone. We were very clear in our instructions
concerning the timelines for this project. I advised you that I would like to receive it Thursday,
September 24, 2009 and that under no circumstances could it be any later than noon Friday,

Form 1012 (Rev 06/01)

MIS.001.009.003


2

September 25, 2009 as it had to be delivered to Members of Council with their agenda packages
that afternoon. You agreed to this time commitment. Notwithstanding the fact that you assured
me that you could have the opinion ready in that time, at one point you even joked that you
thought I might be asking you to do it over the weekend, you failed to deliver your opinion on
time, Not only did you fail to meet the clear timelines, you did not even have a courtesy to call
me and warn me that you were running into difficulties. Having reviewed the product you
produced, I found it very difficult to understand why you could not complete this matter within
the time frame specified.

You have stated that I disagree with your opinion. However, that is not the issue. I made it very
clear to you from the outset that this was to be your opinion. I also advised you that this was a
contentious matter and the reasons for your opinion must be clearly set out including relevant
legal authority to support any expressed opinion, The product that you provided to me, late,
failed to do this and included conjecture without supporting legal authority.

Finally, please be advised that I am declining your request that I explain to you how I used your
opinion for reasons set out above. If you cannot live by the terms of our retainer agreement,
please advise me forthwith and I will remove Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP from the list of
firms retained by The Corporation of the City of Mississauga.

Yours truly,

[signature]

Mary Ellen Bench , BA, LLB, CS
City Solicitor

cc Bernice Kam
Janine Kovach
Mark Young

MIS.001.009.004


and the McLean-Kerr Legal Opinion, September 24, 2009 (PDF)

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


Bear