MississaugaWatch Mississauga Watch

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”.



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”.


[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.


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.]



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. The Mayor’s Testimony Day 2. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 12, 2013

April 20th, 2013  

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Richardson (Elias Hazineh’s lawyer) up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McCallion responds that this was a Peel matter not Mississauga.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson reads her testimony…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oct 30, 2004 breakfast with Tony and Peter.

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

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

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

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

September 22(?), 2004.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ed. Missed hearing what came next.]

May 29, 2006 at Delta Meadowvale hotel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Richardson still up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson asks who is Ed? McCallion says Sajecki.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson is now onto the thin book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McCallion still denies remembering this meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson asks for break now.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


McIntyre up. No questions.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

April 12th, 2013  

Today’s video, complete with transcript.

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


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

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

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

Let’s see. Who is driving her?

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

That’s Louie Rosella coming out. Mississauga News.

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

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

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

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

Mayor Hazel McCallion leaves Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013

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

And there’s the Mayor going.

Safe trip to Portugal. And I mean that.

And she’s gone.

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

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

Hi Ursula. How are ya?

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

Fine. How are you?

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

I’m good thanks.

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

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

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

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

Okay Pat! Help me out here!

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

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

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

And there’s Harold Shipp.

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

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

And there’s Parrish…

And… this person’s running over.

Music: Don’t Crash the Ambulance/Mark Knopfler

 And for those who wish to do their homework?…

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

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


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

April 11th, 2013  

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

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


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

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

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

10:04 Court in session

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

Monique Atherton (lawyer for Elias Hazineh) up.

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

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

History of WCD is outlined in their packet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walker said he kept Peter McCallion apprised of relevant happenings.

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

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

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

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

Once again, Leo Couprie did not get legal advice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their disagreement centred around various bills that had become due.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Richardson up.

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

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

Inadvertence or Error in Judgement .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson presents the following conclusions

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

Judge Sproat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Sproat asks that 100 pages from Inquiry be removed.


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

December 22nd, 2012  

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

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

As always, the video, complete with video transcript.

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

 (Click here to go directly to YouTube)


MISSISSAUGAWATCH walking towards Mississauga Burnhamthorpe Courthouse November 20, 2012

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

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

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


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

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

MISSISSAUGAWATCH walking towards Mississauga Burnhamthorpe Courthouse November 20, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the deal.

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

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

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

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

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

Like. What the Hell!


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



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

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

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.


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)



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

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.


Hazel McCallion’s lawyer, “Trade Mission to Brazil…has been in the works since last fall”. TWITTER suggests otherwise!

August 17th, 2011  

“in the works since last fall”?

TWITTER. Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance’s July 22nd Tweet.

Great Toronto Marketing Alliance (GTMA) tweets Brazil "mission" early bird special ends July 29th on July 22, 2011.

Regarding Mayor Hazel McCallion’s Brazil “Mission” delaying the Inquiry Report until after the Ward 5 By-Election…

What Traditional Media won’t tell you. Observe.


May 11, 2011 – 5:39 PM (Mississauga News)

Council votes for by-election

Chris Clay

Ward 5 residents will vote for their next representative after City Council passed a motion today calling for a by-election to replace departing councillor Eve Adams.

Jun 28, 2011 – 4:08 PM (Mississauga News)

Inquiry report after Labour Day

Louie Rosella

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

Jun 29, 2011 – 2:32 PM

By-election set for September

by Chris Clay

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

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

GTMA Plans Business Mission to Brazil – Brampton Companies Invited to Particpate [sic]

Thursday, Jun 30 2011, 09:00

The Brazilian market has been identified as an important future market for Canadian companies seeking trade opportunities and is emerging as a key source of new foreign direct investment for Canada. Specifically the metropolitan region of Sao Paulo which is known as the financial and economic centre of Brazil, with a total population of 19.9 million.

The City of Brampton participated in an exploratory mission to Brazil with the GTMA in November 2010. The mission was focused around meetings with companies and organizations to assess the investment and trade potential in Brazil as well as companies interested in FDI in the GTA.. The mission established a level of awareness about a fast growing economy that will be a market of opportunity for Brampton companies. In addition, through participation with the GTMA, the mission helped to establish Brampton’s prominence as a location of choice.

The Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance (GTMA) is in the planning stages of a return mission to Brazil. The program will run for 5 days from September 12th – 16th and will focus on the Futurecom Conference which will take place in Sao Paulo. A portion of the itinerary will involve pre-qualified meeting in Sao Paulo then traveling to Curatiba for additional meetings and briefings with industry organizations and associations. The itinerary is relatively flexible and can be tailored to the needs of the delegates. For more information please see the attached itinerary.

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

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

City of Brampton’s pdf file on this trip conveniently deletes the following from the original flyer.

 Brazil 2011 –
“Digital Media, ICT & Clean Tech”
Mission to Brazil to coincide with FutureCom
September 10th – 16th, 2011

Aug 16, 2011 – 2:32 PM (Mississauga News)

Inquiry report delayed

Louie Rosella

The much-anticipated release of the Mississauga judicial inquiry report has been pushed back once again because Mayor Hazel McCallion will be out of the country next month.

Commission counsel William McDowell told The News today that the mayor will be leading a trade mission to Brazil from Sept. 9-18.

“We have agreed with her counsel that we will not release the report until she returns,” McDowell said, adding the report won’t be made public until after Sept. 19, the day of the Ward 5 by-election.

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.

Wed Aug 17 2011 (Toronto Star)

Mississauga inquiry report delayed

San Grewal Urban Affairs Reporter

The Mississauga judicial inquiry report expected after Labour Day will be delayed because of a trade trip to Brazil scheduled by Mayor Hazel McCallion and the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance.

The report on the probe of allegations that the mayor used undue influence to promote a land deal involving her son’s company was expected before the Sept. 19 byelection in Ward 5 that could tip the balance of council against McCallion.

It was thought the report might influence voters choosing between McCallion supporters and former councillor Carolyn Parrish, a longtime rival, who are running for the seat vacated by new MP Eve Adams. It will now be released after McCallion’s return on Sept. 18.

 At least San Grewal gets it!

Next, tweets from MISSISSAUGAWATCH Twitter.

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSEMississauga MuseHazel McCallion ****s off to Brazil ensuring the Judicial Inquiry Report won’t come out til AFTER Ward 5 By-election. http://t.co/PsxYLG523 hours ago
Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSEMississauga MuseHazel McCallion’s gift to her candidates Bonnie Crombie/Jake Dheer. DELAYS Inquiry Report til AFTER Ward 5 By-Election! http://t.co/7BMZ0Cx23 hours ago
Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSEMississauga MuseHazel McCallion’s lawyer said Brazil trip in works since Fall. So why did GTMA Twitter first announce early bird by July 29th on July 22nd?!7 hours ago
Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSEMississauga MuseGTMA Twitter first tweets “Join the GTMA on a GTA Business Mission to Brazil! Inquire about the early bird special by July 29th” on July 22!7 hours ago
Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSEMississauga MuseI favorited Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance’s July 22 tweet announcing Brazil “Mission” Hazel McCallion’s lawyer said in works since fall6 hours ago
Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSEMississauga MuseCity of Brampton’s GTMA “Brazil Mission” pdf file judiciously-edited. Deletes part about “Mission to Brazil to coincide with FutureCom”.6 hours ago
Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSEMississauga MuseTimeline. Jun 28, 2011 Mississauga News “Inquiry report after Labour Day” July 22 Tweet “Join the GTMA on a GTA Business Mission to Brazil!”5 hours ago
Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSEMississauga MuseGreater Toronto Marketing Alliance Stategic Plan photo reveals Hazel McCallion member of GTMA that planned Brazil trip! http://t.co/aWyTawR5 hours ago
Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSEMississauga MuseInquiry folks should suggest delaying Mississauga by-election date. Vote can’t be that important for McCallion to f*** off to Brazil, right?5 hours ago
Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSEMississauga MuseHazel McCallion’s lawyer, “Trade Mission to Brazil…has been in the works since last fall”. TWITTER suggests otherwise! tinyurl.com/3bov28e5 hours ago



Preliminary investigation of the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance dredged up this June 16, 2008 Toronto Star article.

Fractured GTA a tough sell


When the GTMA was born in 1997, then Toronto mayor Mel Lastman and Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion clashed. Lastman said he wanted a Toronto agency. McCallion blasted a GTMA pamphlet that used the naked word “Toronto” without acknowledging the surrounding area.

That tension lingers, insiders say. Some Toronto bureaucrats came to view the alliance as an agent of the suburban municipalities, dominated by Mississauga….

the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance’s “NEW & REVITALIZED CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN 2007-2010” at york.ca.

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.


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”.


: 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.


(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.


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”.


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):


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:


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!

The Mississauga Muse.


“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)


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.


“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.


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


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.


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]


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


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

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

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

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

which brings us to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 17th, 2011  

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

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

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

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

by the “Friends of Hazel”.

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

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

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

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

They continue:

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

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

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

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

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

So here’s the video.

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

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

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

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

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting July 16, 2011 while surfing the net.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So in every site, these two drop their turds of disrespect at the Mississauga News.

And what I want to do is document that. [Note. The Mississauga News was forced to delete their comments.]  That’s “Wonderettes are marvellous”

We now go to “City master plan wins award” and the same here. And sure enough there they are.

“Shooting suspects try [sic] for bail”. And I tell you, if I was webmaster at the Mississauga News, both these ASSHOLES —and I used to have respect for “Tony Jackson” but I don’t have anymore— would be gone!


Here. “Deer sighting in Port Credit”. I thought, oh, really cool article. And there they are again. Only in this particular one, you’ve got —it was ConcernedResident, who started it. “Comments [on this story] have been suspended”.

“tankerone”, whose response to Carolyn Parrish confirming she was running in Ward 5 called for stopcarolynparrish.com website. And we have again “Prol”. [writing “DOWN WITH THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS!”]

All three, strong supporters of Jake Dheer.

So, this is the mentality. This is —this is how Hazel McCallion stayed in power all these years.

[FADE TO BLACK] [Music: Behind Blue Eyes, The Who] [CLOSING IMAGE]

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


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


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)

Mississauga Ward 1 Jim Tovey’s “over-sized cheque” flyer’s 129 Vote IMPACT: Advanced Polls vs Voting Day stats.

December 5th, 2010  

In our November 24, 2010 Blog,  “Mississauga Councillor Calls for Ward 1 Recount –and STATS for Ward 1 Advanced Polls versus Voting Day”, we provided a breakdown of the Ward 1 voting results by polling station. A reminder that Ward 1 challenger Jim Tovey won that election with just 129 votes more than Incumbent Councillor Carmen Corbasson.

We also reported that “Bottomline, Councillor Corbasson was ahead in the Advanced Polls and lost support on Voting Day” and also introduced a deceptive flyer distributed to all Ward 1 residents by Jim Tovey and his supporters.

Advanced Poll Day 1 and Advanced Poll Day 2 occurred on Thursday, October 14 and Friday, October 15 respectively. These two Advanced Polls were Citywide, included all wards and were held at theMississauga Civic Centre – The Great Hall.

According to the Mississauga News voters wishing to cast ballots on Advanced Polling Day 3 (October 16th) and Day 4 (October 17th) would do so in their own wards (Port Credit Secondary School and Mississauga Senior Centre).

We’d mentioned that on November 25th, a reader emailed a copy of Jim Tovey’s flyer and said that the flyer/card was “dropped off  Sat. before election day.  I understand ward 6  also  got one…” We can confirm that Ward 6 (Ron Starr) and Ward 11 (Luz Del Rosario) also sent out “over-sized cheque” flyers.


If the reader’s tip is correct and Jim Tovey’s supporters distributed this “over-sized cheque” flyer the Saturday before Monday October 25th Election day, Tovey’s flyer went out on October 23rd. And that raises an obvious question.

Did Tovey’s “over-sized cheque” flyer have any effect in defeating Incumbent Councillor Carmen Corbasson in this 129-vote squeaker?

While we can never say for certain whether Tovey’s “over-sized cheque” flyer made a difference of 129 votes, it is instructive to examine the total percentage support for both candidates at the Advanced Polls (October 14, 15, 16, and 17) and compare that to the Ward 1 post-flyer October 25th, Voting Day results.

These data below show Carmen Corbasson led by the time the Advanced Polls closed on October 17th with a total support of 50.93% to Jim Tovey’s 47.39% with 1,129 people in Ward 1 casting advanced votes. A reader states that Tovey’s “over-sized cheque” flyer was distributed Saturday, October 23rd. Monday Voting Day shows a drop (-2.74%)  in support for Corbasson in favour of a  2.60% increase in support for Jim Tovey.

Final results, Jim Tovey won 49.71% of the votes and Carmen Corbasson 48.48%. A difference of 129 votes out of a total of 10,554 ballots cast.

As always these data and results are preliminary and should readers find an error, we’d be most appreciative that you please let us know!

So we present these data converted from the City of Mississauga’s Official Election Results PDF file. Sorted by percentage support for Jim Tovey.

Ward 1 Councillor race, sorted by percentage support October 25, 2010 and Advanced Polls comparative
“CC” is Carmen Corbasson, “JT” is Jim Tovey. “Mayor” is Hazel McCallion (RED for emphasis)

                                      Ward 1 (Sorted by JT %)

Poll Polling Locations          Voters  Council   CC   JT  Mayor   HM     CC %    JT %   HM %

 010 Miss Long Term Care            10       7      0    7      6     5   0.00  100.00  83.33
 002 Kenollie Public School       2716     865    340  520    855   559  39.31   60.12  65.38
 011 Regency Retirement Res        108      38     17   21     38    24  44.74   55.26  63.16
 006 Queen of Heaven Sep School   5525    1633    723  875   1621  1256  44.27   53.58  77.48
 004 Forest Ave Public School     3355    1009    468  520   1026   747  46.38   51.54  72.81
 007 Lakeview Golf Course         3372    1104    524  567   1108   784  47.46   51.36  70.76
 005 Mississauga SrCentre         3351    1018    487  504   1032   780  47.84   49.51  75.58
 009 Westacres Public School      2359     943    488  447    946   628  51.75   47.40  66.38
 003 Port Credit SecSchool        4002    1316    685  596   1320   929  52.05   45.29  70.38
 008 ISNA Elementary School       2091     790    433  348    802   588  54.81   44.05  73.32
 001 Riverside Public School      2660     702    377  306    706   558  53.70   43.59  79.04

 015 Miss Sr Centre - Day 4                245    102  139    245   189  41.63   56.73  77.14
 014 Miss Sr Centre - Day 3                299    159  135    296   200  53.18   45.15  67.57
 017 Port Credit SS - Day 4                258    132  121    258   203  51.16   46.90  78.68
 016 Port Credit SS - Day 3                244    137  104    243   194  56.15   42.62  79.84
 012 Advance Poll Day 1                     51     25   25     52    36  49.02   49.02  69.23
 013 Advance Poll Day 2                     32     20   11     30    14  62.50   34.38  46.67


     Advance Poll Day 1                     51     25   25     52    36  49.02   49.02  69.23
     Advance Poll Day 2                     32     20   11     30    14  62.50   34.38  46.67
     Advance Poll Day 3 TOTALS             309    157  146    310   239  50.81   47.25  77.10
     Advance Poll Day 4 TOTALS             276    157  115    273   208  56.88   41.67  76.19

     Advance Poll TOTALS                  1129    575  535   1124   836  50.93   47.39  74.38
     Voting Day TOTALS                    9425   4542 4711   9460  6858  48.19   49.98  72.49
     Support Change                                                      -2.74    2.60  -1.88

     TOTALS                      29549   10554   5117 5246  10584  7694  48.48   49.71  72.69





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

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)


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

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

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

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

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


Councillor Corbasson…


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thank you…


MISSISSAUGA NEWS: Recount in Ward 1? Joe Chin Nov 24, 2010 – 9:03 AM

MISSISSAUGA NEWS: Recount in Ward 1? Louie Rosella Nov 24, 2010 – 9:03 AM Recount in Ward 1?

NATIONAL POST: Mississauga council approves Ward 1 recount National Post (Megan O’Toole blog)

MISSISSAUGA NEWS:  Recount on Tuesday Chris Clay Dec 02, 2010 – 2:23 PM

Hazel McCallion knew precisely what Conflict of Interest is (newly-discovered video confirms)

November 4th, 2010  

Simply by accident I discovered footage of Councillor Maja Prentice and Mayor Hazel McCallion discussing conflict of interest in a May 2008 General Committee meeting. Since General Committees aren’t televised, this video is the only full record in existence of this exchange between the two. It’s crystal clear from what both McCallion and Prentice say that they “get” the concept of conflict of interest.

This video and transcript will be shared with the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry folks, especially Commission Counsel, William McDowell. Oddly, during testimony under oath, the Mayor appeared uncertain as to what conflict of interest was. Clearly she had forgotten that she knew all along!

As per what’s become routine, first the video, then the transcript. And for the record, what the City of Mississauga General Committee minutes record about this Prentice-McCallion “it’s almost like conflict of interest” exchange.

Video: Conflict of Interest: video confirms that Hazel McCallion and Maja Prentice “got” it. (6:39 min)

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


Councillor Pat Saito —Chair (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

On Item 7, then Councillor Prentice? And Councillor Adams if you want to press your button and go back on.

Councillor Maja Prentice (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Thank you, very much and I’ll make my comment first. And I did speak with our City Manager about this when we had our one-on-one.

But, I have a lot of difficulty with how the committee is made up —that does the assessment. We have, according to the report, there are two individuals —one the executive director of the art gallery and the other one, the general manager of a dance creation company sitting on the committee.

I am very uncomfortable with that. And I know it’s made up —the City Manager explained to me that there are  many other municipalities that have the committee made up based on this format.

But when you have groups that are applying and two individuals in this case, of the groups who applied actually sat on the assessment committee, I think that is inappropriate. It’s almost like talking about conflict of interest.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

[whispers into camera] You should see the Violence and Vandalism Group.

Councillor Maja Prentice (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

And I find it interesting that the [inaudible] report talks about the dance company, actually their office is closed until January of 2009? Like I find —I don’t know—

someone (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Well that—

Councillor Pat Saito —Chair (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Sorry, Councillor Prentice, can you refer to a page that you’re—

Councillor Maja Prentice (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Yes,  yes. With regards to the make up of the committee, that’s on 7-M. With regard to the fact that the office is closed, that’s on 7-O. After the bullet points, it talks about that “all applicants except one have been informed verbally, the outcomes of the assessment process and have been provided with feedback from the assessment committee to facilitate their organization.”

Now, “The organization that has not been contacted is the dance company because the office is closed until January 20th.” I just found that— what kind of a grant do people who have their place shut down for half a year.

City Manager Janice Baker (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

This report was dated January 11th —

Councillor Maja Prentice (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Oh, I see.

City Manager Janice Baker (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

So that was just a two week period.

Councillor Maja Prentice (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Oh, that’s right if it is a repeat. [sic]

But I do want to make the point that I am concerned about the make-up of the committee. There certainly are many many arts individuals that are very knowledgeable about the different groups in the municipality that don’t necessarily [air quotes begin] work for [air quotes end] a committee, [air quotes begin] work for [air quotes end] an arts group or sit on a board of directors of an arts group.

I would feel much more comfortable if you were drawing people to sit on this committee that are knowledgeable of the arts in general in the city and are not representative of any specific group.

Now I know they don’t vote on it. I understand all that. They excuse themselves when their grant comes forward to be discussed or voted upon. And I understand that. But the presence of the individual on the committee, I think, gives an incorrect and inappropriate message.

So I don’t know why you can’t get people that are basically arts-oriented people that aren’t necessarily associated or work for a specific arts group.

Councillor Pat Saito —Chair (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Sonja, would you like to respond?

Mississauga Arts Council deputant (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Well, first of all, we invited two people from the members of the community—


Mississauga Arts Council deputant (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

[long response] the application [then inaudible]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

[whispers into camera] Did she answer her question?

Mississauga Arts Council deputant (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

—of criteria that are important, et cetera.

Councillor Maja Prentice (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

And through you, Madam Chair, I understand. The City Manager was very detailed in her explanation to me and I understand why you’re doing what you’re doing. I just do not think it is appropriate. And I’ll leave it at that. I mean we’re not going to agree on everything.

I would feel much more comfortable if you had individuals who were not employees, individuals that were in the arts groups but not on the board of directors. And they’re —I can think off the top of my head of at least half a dozen just like that, that would be qualified to do this.

So I’ll leave it with you. You have to make your decisions. It’s an issue I disagree with quite strongly.

The other question—

Councillor Pat Saito —Chair (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Sorry. Councillor Prentice, if I could interrupt you for a minute, Mayor McCallion would like to respond to that particular issue. So if we could let her jump in [inaudible]

Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

I think that Councillor Prentice has raised an excellent question. When I set up the Arts Task Force, I made a point of not having anybody on the task force that was involved directly in any organization in the arts in Mississauga. To get a truly independent opinion.

And we just had a situation with the Arts Council, you’re aware of it [inaudible]

Mississauga Arts Council deputant (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):


Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

Yuh, very well aware of it, where somebody sat on the Arts Council that ran a business in the Arts and then unfortunately turned into an unfortunate situation with complaints to the Mayor et cetera. So, I think Councillor Prentice has raised an excellent question.

I think there are people out there that should not be involved in any group that is applying for a grant. And I don’t know what you can do about it, but I feel just as strongly about it as Councillor Prentice does. I have to tell you.

I think it’s —even if, I mean once the person sits on the group they get to know all the people that are on the group. And even if they declare a conflict of interest, it doesn’t bode well.

We’ve had this situation, [inaudible] you’re well aware of it.

Mississauga Arts Council deputant (Mississauga General Committee, May 14, 2008):

We can certainly review it. Of course the other option is we follow the model of the community—


WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 – 9:00 A.M.

7. Overview of Cultural Granting Programs

Corporate Report dated May 2, 2008 from the City Manager and Chief Administrative
Officer with respect to an overview of Cultural Granting Programs.


That the report dated May 2, 2008 from the City Manager and Chief Administrative
Officer on the Overview of Cultural Granting Programs be reviewed for information.

Councillor Maja Prentice expressed concern about how the grant program was
administered. She noted that there were individuals on the grants committee who
represented groups that were applying for grants. Councillor Prentice advised that there
are many arts-minded individuals within the community who could have been considered
to participate in the discussions.

Ms. Zainub Verjee, Director Office of the Arts, noted that the grants committee was
structured similarly to the Canada Council for the Arts, and that the structure encourages
a peer review of grant applications. She noted that when the applications of specific
grants for individuals on the Committee were brought forward, the individuals noted a
conflict of interest and left the room.

Mayor McCallion commented on the situation and expressed support for Councillor
Prentice’s observations. She suggested that those who are applying for grants should not
be involved in assessing grant applications and that next year the composition of the
committee should be further reviewed.

Councillor Katie Mahoney moved receipt of the Corporate Report. The motion was voted
on and carried.

Received (Councillor K. Mahoney)
Recommendation GC-0443-2008


Louie Rosella
Sep 23, 2010 – 1:15 PM

Mayor was ‘free’ to promote son’s project

… “I believe I was free to encourage the sale of property in order of the direction of Council (for the past 15 years)…to get a (hotel and) convention centre in the city core,” she said. “I was free to be able to promote the project…I was doing my job as mayor.”

McCallion declared a conflict when the matter came before Council and also said she had no involvement when it came to City staff processing site-plan applications for the project.

Lax hammered away at the mayor, accusing her of “ignoring” her apparent conflict of interest when the matter wasn’t formally before City Council.

There’s nothing in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act that says you “can’t get involved in an issue before it comes to council,” McCallion responded.

Please click here to read the rest of the article.

FACT. Just seven days later, at the May 21, 2008 Mississauga Council meeting, Mayor McCallion would fail to declare conflict of interest regarding an item on the agenda pertaining for her son’s company, World Class Developments. 


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


The Mississauga Muse

Video: Did Hazel McCallion deny the Mississauga News an interview on election night as “punishment” for not endorsing her?

October 27th, 2010  

This blog is dedicated to the Mississauga News.

Just quickly. I want to document one of the many things that happened at Mississauga City Hall (Great Hall) during election night as the results came in.

I was reporting into my video camera when Donald Barber interrupted and said that something was up with the Mississauga News. He’d pointed to a gray-haired man with glasses who I immediately recognized as hanging around the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry hearings —essentially making sure he was within camera shot of Hazel McCallion at every opportunity. (I have other insights into this individual. Unfortunately since I have no audiotape of our conversations anything I write languishes in the realm of his word against mine. So I can’t report on it.)

Anyway. As is my custom now, here’s video of what happened, followed by the transcript. Purely for the record. Seems unless you funnel to the public precisely what Hazel McCallion wants you to…

Did this charmer prevent the Mississauga News from getting an interview with Hazel McCallion? (2:26 min)

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


“The Mississauga Muse”/MISSISSAUGAWATCH (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

Well, if the phone calls are anything—

Donald Barber (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

We’ve got a situation brewing over here.

“The Mississauga Muse”/MISSISSAUGAWATCH (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

A what?


I had Donald Barber saying it looked like there was an altercation and —but I don’t think so. Because we’ve got the knobs standing sort of, rather relaxed looking. But, it’s interesting —they’re like at every corner.


Donald Barber (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

The short, gray-haired guy who’s making the-uh, he’s getting in the face of the Mississauga News. Telling them to get out of the way. Don’t answer questions. Hazel doesn’t want to answer their questions.

“The Mississauga Muse”/MISSISSAUGAWATCH (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

Which one’s that?

Donald Barber (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

The guy who’s got the roses. There.

“The Mississauga Muse”/MISSISSAUGAWATCH (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):


(sees City of Mississauga Corporate Security guard approaching)

Oh, oh. It’s— Don, help ’em (Mississauga News) out.

Donald Barber (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):


“The Mississauga Muse”/MISSISSAUGAWATCH (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

Just watch the knobs here.


“The Mississauga Muse”/MISSISSAUGAWATCH (covering election results inside Mississauga City Hall, “Great Hall” October 25, 2010):

Hazel’s whores.


Last, it is our intention to upload to YouTube all raw video of what transpired in the Great Hall, the eve of election night, October 25, 2010 as a historical record. After all, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” (George Orwell). Future Mississaugans need their History.

We simply cannot allow Hazel McCallion and her MYTHissauga sycophants to invent Herstory. At least not unopposed.

UPDATE: October 27, 2010 7:44 pm. Just worked up raw video of the moment Hazel McCallion knew she’d defeated Carolyn Parrish. I offer this footage as a historical record of what transpired on October 25, 2010 at Mississauga City Hall (“Great Hall”) for a Future Mississauga.  (video from camera on to camera off. Censored between 3:16 through 3:18 for obvious reasons.)

I hope the Future gets this YouTube history in addition to MYTHissauga’s Herstory.

Historical raw video record. Hazel McCallion the moment Carolyn Parrish’s defeat is confirmed (6:32 min)

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

UPDATE: October 28, 2010 9:24 am. Just worked up raw video footage again from camera on to camera off. Last video of the October 25, 2010 eve. The results were in. Hazel McCallion had left. The media were packing it up. And it was time to summarize what it was like to be a nobody who took seriously Councillor Nando Iannicca’s challenge, “If you don’t like what Council’s doing, run for office” and run against Hazel McCallion. I confirmed that you don’t just run against Hazel McCallion.

Rather you go up against all municipal employees who live in this city, all the $$$$$$$ backing her from Harold Shipp on down, OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System), AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) and “reporters” who just funnel what she says directly to the public (ie: that Global guy might as well work for ROGERS television.)

And I also read from from Tom Urbaniak’s book HER WORSHIP HAZEL MCCALLION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF MISSISSAUGA (p. 237)

Mississauga City Hall election coverage: Tom Urbaniak’s WARNING when you stand up to Hazel McCallion (7:41 min)

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

UPDATE: October 28, 2010 4:57  pm.

With this next video, I’ve come full circle as a researcher into City of Mississauga municipal government. This video represents closure. Shot with a Canon Powershot SD700 that I still use to this day, the quality isn’t the best.   On November 13, 2006, I covered the Mississauga election returns at the “Great Hall’ Mississauga City Hall knowing very little about municipal government. Not knowing who’s who. Hadn’t even filed my first Freedom of Information yet. Just constantly under the watchful gaze of Mississauga Corporate Security bosses, Joe Cairney and Cathie Evans.

I fell down such a deep dark hole…. and you don’t ever get out!

Hazel McCallion historical record: November 13, 2006 Mississauga City Hall election coverage (5:25 min)

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

Last blog for a while.


The (“Willow trees are strong enough to bend. Never like the oak that lives in fear of the wind”) Mississauga Muse

City of Mississauga Corporate Security: The Misstapo watch over Mississauga News reporter denied interview with Hazel McCallion


The sovereign can no longer say, “You shall think as I do on pain of death; but he says,
“You are free to think differently from me, and to retain your life, your property,
and all that you possess; but if such be your determination,
you are henceforth an alien among your people …
you will never be chosen by your fellow citizens, if you solicit their suffrages;
and they will affect to scorn you, if you solicit their esteem ….
and those who are mostly persuaded of your innocence
will abandon you too,lest they should be shunned in their turn.

–Alexis de Tocqueville


MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY –Commissioner J. Douglas Cunningham’s decision: “In balancing these three considerations, I conclude that citizen journalists should have access to unedited, raw footage of the Inquiry proceedings.”

April 26th, 2010  

YES! YES! YES! I’m so happy!

My favourite part is Commissioner Cunningham writing:

In balancing these three considerations, I conclude that citizen journalists should have access to unedited, raw footage of the Inquiry proceedings. This access will promote freedom of expression, and allow Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett to report on aspects of the Inquiry that may not be covered by the accredited media.

That means he got my part about there not being any media in MYTHissauga.

The Mississauga News just came out with Split decision for citizen journalists. Not for me it wasn’t. I didn’t really want to videotape! I’d be forced to change batteries and I wouldn’t have a complete unaltered record that way. Plus I wanted to draw/sketch in court and you can’t do that and videotape too. All I wanted was the Rogers feed for historical records and got it!

This leaves me free to be court sketcher. Like this sketch I made on April 2, 2007 when Donald Barber had to fight off the Misstapo (rhymes with Gestapo) and the evil empire at Brampton Courthouse.


Commissioner J. Douglas Cunningham just helped UNstick public inquiries!

Thank you to Commissioner Cunningham but also to “friend of the court”, media specialist/lawyer Peter Downard, for speaking up on behalf of us-citizens and yet still providing that crucial “balance” that I define as “Canadian” and anti-evil-empire.

Okay. Enough from me.

Here’s Commissioner Cunningham’s decision letter.

You can access it directly at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website:  Decision of Commissioner Cunningham on Motion by Citizen Journalists for Permission to Record Inquiry Hearings (April 26, 2010)  (1,306Kb / 3 pages).

We’ve scanned the pdf file so Google can access it as HTML, people can do word searches in this document and of course, for ease of cut-and-paste. (The Commissioner’s words are a thing of Beauty.)

Last, if an eagle-eye spots an error, I’d appreciate being advised. Thanks.

[Decision Letter Begins]

City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry

The Honourable J. Douglas Cunningham, Commissioner

Decision of Commissioner Cunningham

Motion by Citizen Journalists for Permission to Record Inquiry Hearings

The open court principle is a “hallmark of a democratic society”1. Public access to our courts allows all those who are interested to see that justice is administered in a non-arbitrary manner and according to the rule of law. As Mr. Downard explained in his submissions as amicus curiae, it enables justice to be done, and to be seen to be done. This principle is particularly important for public inquiries: open and public hearings instill confidence in the fact-finding, thoroughness and objectivity of a judicial inquiry.

While all who are interested can enter an open court, the reality is that most people will not be able to attend in person. This Inquiry will occupy many weeks and hearings will be held during regular business hours, making it prohibitive for the majority of people to observe the testimony themselves. As a result, they will depend on news organizations to report on the Inquiry’s events and progress.

Representatives of a range of accredited media organizations have attended and reported on the preliminary hearings to date. In addition, two Mississauga residents have been attending and reporting on the Inquiry. Donald Barber of the Democratic Reporter and Ursula Bennett of Mississauga Watch have demonstrated an interest in following and reporting on the Inquiry.

Non-accredited “citizen journalists” can play an important role in the reporting and analysis of events. As both Mr. Downard and Commission Counsel Mr. McDowell explained, the advent of social media and the proliferation of blogs have expanded the role of non-traditional journalists. Indeed, in 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that in this age of electronic media and the blogosphere, it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between media representatives and ordinary citizens.2 I recognize, of course, that this development is not without its dangers.3

The question before me today is whether, as citizen journalists, Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett should be permitted to videotape the Inquiry proceedings. To date, Inquiry staff have arranged for Rogers Communications to videotape the entire Inquiry, on the condition that it provides feed to all journalists and media representatives with access to the media room.

In light of this, and in response to the request from Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett, I must answer two questions. First, should Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett be permitted to tape the Inquiry? Second, if not, should they be provided access to the Rogers feed? I answer these questions pursuant to the Rules of Procedure for the Inquiry, which provide that television cameras or other recording electronic or photographic equipment are permitted in the hearing room at my discretion.

The courts have identified three interests that I must balance to decide whether citizen journalists can record the proceedings. First, the interest in freedom of expression; second, the interests of the individuals directly involved in the proceedings; and third, the integrity of the process itself.

Freedom of expression includes the freedom to know what is happening in public proceedings, and to communicate about them. As well, as Mr. Barber noted in his submissions, for freedom of expression to be meaningful, members of the public should have access to a broad range of opinions and coverage. To ensure that a variety of perspectives is presented, journalists should have access to the raw footage of the Inquiry, and not only to edited videos.

Second, I must consider the interests of the individuals directly involved in the process. A public inquiry puts individual reputations at risk, and the procedures following at the Inquiry should manage these risks. Personal dignity and privacy should be protected. For example, while a witness’ evidence is a key part of the Inquiry and should be accurately recorded, it is not necessary to record that witness’ facial reactions throughout the other weeks of testimony .4

The third interest is the integrity of the inquiry process itself. This is a legal process, requiring appropriate decorum. Witnesses should not feel targeted or intimidated, and counsel’s written and oral communications should remain privileged. Our procedures should strive, to the extent possible, to prevent even inadvertent capturing of documents or conversations.

In balancing these three considerations, I conclude that citizen journalists should have access to unedited, raw footage of the Inquiry proceedings. This access will promote freedom of expression, and allow Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett to report on aspects of the Inquiry that may not be covered by the accredited media. While the transcripts for each day’s proceeding will be posted on the Inquiry website, usually within five hours of the conclusion of that day’s hearing, I recognize that video footage is often more compelling and journalists have a legitimate interest in accessing it.

Citizens journalists will not, however, be permitted to record the proceedings with their own devices. Rogers has experience recording judicial inquiries, and is familiar with the protocols for doing so. As an accredited news organization, Rogers will be held to the standards of decorum and journalistic integrity that must govern the recording of any inquiry.

Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett, the only two citizen journalists who requested permission to record these proceedings, are to be granted access to the media room and to the Rogers feed. They will make arrangements with Rogers to accept the raw footage, and they are encouraged to contact the Inquiry Communications Officer, Peter Rehak, for assistance with the technological requirements.

Rogers will provide its feed to the media room. All accredited news organizations, Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett will have access to the media room and to the feed. For all news organizations and journalists, this privilege is subject to the following restrictions:

  1. All journalists and news organizations must comply with the Inquiry rules and with rulings that I may make during the course of the proceedings, including publication bans.
  2. Mr. Rehak will arrange an official photographing opportunity. Photographs are not to be taken in the Inquiry courtroom at any other time.
  3. No video recordings may be taken in the courthouse hallways, nor of individuals entering and exiting the courthouse.
  4. It is my hope that all journalists will report on the Inquiry in a fair and accurate manner. Our courts have developed guiding principles for responsible publication, and I encourage anyone not familiar with these principles to learn about them. By way of example, I note that to be protected under our law of defamation, a fair and accurate report must be balanced and must reflect both sides of an issue. It cannot leave out important information that would give a different view of what transpired, embellish with circumstantial detail or select only fragments of material for their “spiciness”. While I cannot prevent biased reporting, it is not protected by our law of defamation, and will not be condoned in this Inquiry.

If any citizen journalist or news organization fails to abide by these restrictions, I will entertain submissions as to whether I should cancel their access to the media room and the Rogers feed. (Of course, I recognize that individuals could record from the Rogers feed at home, albeit without the sanction of the Commission.)

It is a privilege to conduct this Inquiry in a democracy where citizens are engaged and eager to report on the events. I am grateful for the interest and involvement of citizen journalists, and believe that this ruling strikes an appropriate balance of the interests at stake.

1 Vancouver Sun (Re) [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332 at para. 23.

2 Named Person v. Vancouver Sun, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 252 at para. 153 (in dissent).

3 See, e.g., Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc., 2009 BCCA 392.

4 In this regard, see Justice Sopinka’s analysis in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia, where the Court upheld a restriction on hand-held cameras in the Nova Scotia legislature’s public gallery although the restriction may “on occasion detract from the atmosphere of what is going on and no doubt may from time to time deprive the public of a considerable source of amusement”. New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319 at para. 163.

Cunningham, A.C.J.O. (Commissioner)
April 26, 2010

[Decision Letter Ends]

Oops. This just in from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

Inquiry to hold hearing on Friday

City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry to hold hearing on Friday, April 30, 2010, on Mississauga News motion

Mississauga, Ont., April 26 /CNW/– The City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry will hold a hearing on Friday, April 30, 2010, to hear a motion by the Mississauga News newspaper for an order that the affidavit of Peter McCallion regarding his ability to pay for counsel at the Inquiry and the cross-examination on that affidavit be made part of the Commission’s record.

The hearing will commence at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 at 950 Burnhamthorpe Road West.

Mr. McCallion was granted standing at the Inquiry on December 14, 2009. He also requested funding for legal counsel for the Inquiry. Mississauga City Council approved funding of up to $100,000 , on the condition that he provide evidence of his inability to pay, and only covering the time that Mr. McCallion was testifying.  On March 4, 2010 Mr. McCallion brought a motion before the Commissioner, asking him to request the City of Mississauga to reconsider the limit in order to give him the ability to fully participate in the Inquiry. The Commissioner ruled that further evidence was required in order to enable him to make such a recommendation.  The Commissioner ordered that Mr. McCallion swear an affidavit as to his ability to pay for legal counsel, and that Commission Counsel cross-examine Mr. McCallion on that affidavit.  That cross-examination took place earlier this month.

The affidavit and cross-examination transcript are currently confidential and have been provided only to Commission Counsel.  The Commissioner will review the affidavit and the transcript of the cross-examination and make a recommendation to Mississauga City Council as to whether Mr. McCallion should receive additional funding for counsel.

The City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry is an independent judicial inquiry that was established under Section 274 of the Municipal Act 2001 by a vote of the Mississauga City Council on November 11, 2009. The mandate of the Inquiry is to investigate issues in connection with the acquisition by the City of Mississauga of approximately 8.5 acres of land in the city centre. Mr. Justice J. Douglas Cunningham, Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, has been appointed Commissioner.

Further information about the Inquiry is available on its web page: www.mississaugainquiry.ca


For further information:

William McDowell, Commission counsel: 416-865-9500; wmmcdowell@mississaugainquiry.ca

Last. Peter Downard’s presentation is just so Perfect that I want repeat it all and end today’s Blog with it.

Video: Peter Downard (Lawyer/media specialist) addresses Mississauga Judicial Inquiry –On: citizen journalism

Click here to go directly to the clip on MISSISSAUGAWATCH Vimeo


 23                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:  I would ask that we
 24  now hear from Mr. Peter Downard who's here acting as
 25  amicus on this suite of media issues.


  1                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  2  you.  Mr. Downard, thank you very much for assisting us.
  5                 MR. PETER DOWNARD:   I hope I can,
  6  Commissioner.  Thank you.  Good morning.
  7                 Commissioner, the -- the law in this area
  8  primarily involving the openness of public proceedings
  9  has been subject to much careful review and analysis in
 10  the twenty-five (25) years, since the -- the courts have
 11  been rethinking issues of freedom of expression and
 12  public access to -- to justice under the Charter.
 13                 And I think it's fair to say that, in
 14  summary, the jurisprudence identifies that in such cases
 15  there are, essentially, three types of interests that
 16  have to be balanced in any particular situation.
 17                 Those are, first, the interests in freedom
 18  of expression; second, the legitimate individual
 19  interests of those directly involved in the process; and
 20  third, the integrity of the process itself.
 21                 And if I may first speak to the subject of
 22  freedom of expression briefly.  It is very clear that
 23  freedom of expression in our democracy includes the
 24  freedom to know what is going on in public proceedings
 25  and to communicate with others about it.  And to be able


  1  to communicate about that, it is necessary for there to
  2  be access to the proceeding.
  3                 Now, the reality is that the public at
  4  large necessarily depends on reporters to obtain that
  5  access for them and to re -- report what goes on to them
  6  because they just can't do it for themselves.
  7                 And in the modern world it is clear that
  8  access to means of mass communication has been extended
  9  far beyond the limits of traditional media organizations.
 10  To -- it has [correction: is] extended to -- to bloggers, to users of --
 11  of social media, the people who have websites.  And if
 12  freedom of expression is to be truly democratic and alive
 13  in the modern world, it must give way to their interests
 14  too.
 15                 Now next, though, I turn to the individual
 16  interests that have to be balanced in this sort of a
 17  situation.  And it was very interesting to -- to hear the
 18  references to 1984 in the submissions today and -- and
 19  the great Orwell since he is one (1) of the great writers
 20  about how the individual may become lost in -- in the
 21  wake of mass interests.
 22                 And in a democratic society, it's clear
 23  under our law that the interests of individuals directly
 24  involved in public proceedings can also never be
 25  forgotten, and reputation is of vital importance, and it


  1  is reputation that is often put at risk in public
  2  inquiries in particular.
  3                 Reputation is -- is so important in our
  4  society because it is closely linked to the building of
  5  people to participate in society itself.  And secondly,
  6  there is respect for the emotional security, the dignity
  7  of people involved in a -- in a process, which needs to
  8  be respected.
  9                 And there can be circumstances where a
 10  public process may intrude upon areas of life, of
 11  individual life, where there is a reasonable expectation
 12  of privacy, and that has to be considered too.
 13                 And third, after freedom of expression and
 14  individual interest, one has to consider the integrity of
 15  a process.  And it is indeed clear, and I think it's been
 16  said once today, that the principle that public
 17  proceedings should generally be [sic] open exists so that
 18  justice will be done and can be seen to be done.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (whispers in unison): “Seen to be done, that’s right.”

 19                 An open process allows the public to
 20  scrutinize and, if they see fit, to criticize the process
 21  and its participants.  It allows the public also to be
 22  assured about the fair conduct of the process because
 23  they can see it for themselves.
 24                 Now that being said, a public inquiry is
 25  not a public scrum.  First, it is a legal process.  It's


  1  appropriate for the Commission to take appropriate steps
  2  to ensure suitable decorum of the proceedings, a suitable
  3  tone.
  4                 Second, witnesses must be respected as
  5  individuals and not be subjected to undue intrusions or,
  6  at worst, intimidation.
  7                 Third, as it is a legal process there is
  8  going to be much that occurs in the hearing room that is
  9  properly private.  There will be written communications
 10  or oral communications which -- among counsel that are
 11  privileged.
 12                 There will be a lawyer's documentary work
 13  product that is also properly confidential.  And any
 14  inadvertent or even intentional intrusion upon those --
 15  those rights of confidentiality should be prevented.
 16                 So those, in my submission, are three (3)
 17  general areas of considerations that have to be weighed
 18  in the balance, and -- and, of course, in this area what
 19  -- what the Supreme Court has said repeatedly is that one
 20  must try to give a reasonably equal weight to all of
 21  those values and not -- not privilege some over -- over
 22  others.
 23                 And in -- in my submission, I -- I would
 24  suggest -- I would suggest that as a -- as a
 25  recommendation perhaps that -- that it would be an


  1  appropriate balancing of these principles if persons
  2  could be allowed access to a single video feed, which I
  3  understand can be prepared, an unaltered videotape of the
  4  proceedings, to use words that have been used with you
  5  this morning, so that not only established media
  6  organizations but individuals acting responsibly can
  7  exercise their appropriate rights of freedom of
  8  expression.
  9                 With respect to the cameras, I would
 10  suggest that it will be consistent with decorum for --
 11  for there only to be one (1) video camera, one (1) video
 12  feed, and that there should not be roaming video cameras
 13  or roaming audio devices in the courtroom.  There may, on
 14  occasion, be times in a public inquiry when -- when any -
 15  - any reporter, any member of the media, will be allowed
 16  to take photographs for a brief time and it should be one
 17  (1) rule for all in my -- my submission.
 18                 And with respect to audio recording, there
 19  is a precedent for allowing unobtrusive audio recording
 20  in courtrooms.  One (1) solution that might be adopted
 21  there that would respect confidentiality interests would
 22  be that if audio recording were to be allowed, it would
 23  be -- to be from a stationary position and should be at a
 24  distance, a reasonable distance, away from counsel tables
 25  to avoid any inadvertent intrusion upon matters of


  1  confidentiality.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (whispers): “This guy is good.”

  2                 So those are the suggestions I would make
  3  in light of the balancing of those factors.  And I -- I
  4  suggest also that it would be appropriate for -- for the
  5  Commission to -- in -- in seeking to provide appropriate
  6  scope for free expression is to -- it would be helpful to
  7  remind members of nonprofessional media -- who -- who may
  8  be more or less experienced in these matters, I'm not
  9  sure -- but it may be appropriate to remind them that in
 10  the modern law of reporting on proceedings such as this,
 11  there are important limitations upon what people can say
 12  properly.
 13                 There is a civil liability in defamation
 14  which can result in matters of -- in statements of
 15  opinion or comment.  In matters of public interest,
 16  they'll be broadly protected as long as they are based on
 17  fact and made without malice.  But if they are not based
 18  on fact and not made without malice, those expressions of
 19  opinion or comment can lead to civil liability.
 20                 And, similarly -- similarly, statements of
 21  fact on matters of public interest are protected as long
 22  as they are responsibly published, and in this sort of
 23  situation [cell phone rings] -- I beg your pardon.
 24                 In this sort of situation, it is very
 25  important to bear in mind that the legal protection for


  1  reports of public proceedings has had a fundamental
  2  principle, which is, that those reports of public
  3  proceedings must be fair and accurate [cell phone rings again]. They must be
  4  balanced.  Can you put that somewhere for me, please? They must be -- be balanced.  They must
  5  reflect both sides of an issue.  If someone is going to -
  6  - whether they're a large organization or a single
  7  individual, if they're going to report an allegation,
  8  they have to identify it as an allegation.  If it is
  9  disputed, or if it may be disputed, they have to say
 10  that.  They have to be fair.
 11                 And there -- there's no licence for
 12  biassed reporting.  If someone engages in biassed
 13  reporting to the public because of an axe to grind or --
 14  or a -- a malicious intent, that falls outside the law.
 15                 And so -- and, as well, one has to bear in
 16  mind in the age of the Internet, the audience for the --
 17  the Internet in a -- in a particular matter may, in fact,
 18  be very small, but it is always potentially very large.
 19  And if we have an -- an example of an Internet --
 20  Internet publication that somehow becomes terribly
 21  popular, or goes viral in the popular term, the damage,
 22  if it is a wrongful publication, can be very significant.
 23                 So, in light of all of that, I would
 24  suggest -- I put it -- I'd have to put an asterisk on the
 25  recommendations I -- I submitted previously.  I would


  1  suggest that the Commission reserve a discretion to deny
  2  any reporter, organized or not, in the -- in the business
  3  sense, access to the video feed if that were to be abused
  4  in any future interest.
  5                 And so, subject to any questions you may
  6  have, Sir, those are essentially my submissions.
  7                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  8  you, Mr. Downard.
  9                 Does any other... audio fade...

Court transcript cut-and-pasted from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website and modified as a video transcript.


The Mississauga Muse

The Mississauga Muse at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry


August 7th, 2009  

This Blog is dedicated to the 9/10 year old girl who was banned for 30 days from three major City of Mississauga facilities at once (Mississauga Civic Centre, Mississauga Central Library and Mississauga’s Living Arts Centre). The ban, by City of Mississauga Corporate Security guards, was for “Disturbance”. It was issued on November 14, 2008, the same day that Roy McMurtry and Dr. Alvin Curling released their  Review of the Roots of Youth Violence report. Meanwhile, documents reveal that not much earlier that year (May 9, 2008) two 15/16 year old girls were banned for 30 days from just one facility, the Mississauga Civic Centre, for “Drugs”.  Parents/Guardians were not advised in either case —the only consistency found in these bans.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH is currently researching Brampton, Mississauga and Peel municipal governance through Freedom of Information (FOI) on many fronts.  Every query, every FOI filed —indeed every tangent we take, relates to Youth and ultimately what we believe to be a Major Root of Youth Violence, municipalities themselves.

Today we post a transcript of the October 25, 2007 endorsement of the Peel Youth Charter by Peel Regional Council.

The Peel Youth Charter was presented with much ceremony and even former Ontario Premier William G. Davis was there to smile for the Photo Op.

Below is video of Larry Zacher’s presentation of the Peel Youth Charter followed by the transcript: vital, historical, Youth Violence related-material that must be posted now.

Please know that when I was videotaping this, I was not aware that Charter-presenter, Larry Zacher, Executive Director of Safe City Brampton is spouse of City of Brampton Councillor, Gael Miles, who is also Chair of the Peel Youth Violence Prevention Network. Apparently neither of them thought this was worth mentioning.

To  begin, Google Video uploaded January 5, 2008.

PEEL YOUTH CHARTER endorsed by PEEL REGIONAL COUNCIL (Oct 25 2007) – 08:09 min

Please click here to go directly to the clip on Google Video

TRANSCRIPT of Google Video, “PEEL YOUTH CHARTER endorsed by PEEL REGIONAL COUNCIL (Oct 25 2007)” (Please advise of any errors in the transcript, thanks)

Larry Zacher, Executive Director, Safe City Brampton:

“Good morning, Chairman Kolb and Members of Council.

I have mixed emotions here this morning. I’m very proud to be presenting the Peel Youth Charter but also very intimidated to be following the Honourable William Davis. (laughter)

It’s a hard act to follow before but now that’s he’s bringing children up to his presentations (more laughter) what do you think, Valerie? (more laughter)

I would like to introduce Judge Valerie-Arnold, the Trustee from Brampton in Dufferin-Peel –oh! In the Peel District! -and also a member of the Peel Youth Violence Prevention Committee.

Thank you for having us here today.

First, I would like to congratulate the Honourable William Davis and the Success by Six Committee for the work that they’ve done when creating the Children’s Charter.

The absolute best thing we can do to Youth is provide seamless care for our children, from the day they’re born right though til they become responsible adults.

So it’s very timely that they are here with the Children’s Charter and we’re here with the Peel Youth Charter.

Council supported the development of this document by establishing the Peel Youth Violence Prevention Committee. I guess it was about January 06 and in the following spring we held a Youth Forum because we wanted to get input from the Community.

We had over a hundred and forty agencies represented as well as quite a few young people themselves, came, and we had a full day –it was one of those days where [sic] you’re pretty drained at the end of it, and looking at what are the issues facing Youth, where do we need to go and how can we tackle this as a Community (inaudible).

The outcome of that was the Peel Youth Violence Prevention Strategy, which was published in September of last year –very comprehensive document, a very innovative document, that is probably one of the first that comprehensive an approach anywhere in North America.

I know that for a fact we recently had the World Health Organization in Brampton designating us as an international safe community and one of the programs and one of the issues that they were very very impressed with was the Peel Youth Violence Prevention Strategy and seeing that it was very cutting edge and a very important program for our region.

Out of this Strategy, we’re currently, since it was published in September, we’ve established four working groups that are working comprised of people from all walks of life and all communities and all neighbourhoods in the Region of Peel.

Those working groups are focusing on Youth activities and Youth support and just as importantly, Family support, Community development –these all good ideas take money and resources to put into place, and Educational policies. And they have been working for the last year and a half and will continue to work and develop approaches and programs and strategies as we go forward.

The second very important outcome to come out of the Youth forum and out of the Strategy is the Peel Youth Charter. With that mounted, it’s a big document, I think that some of you have seen it, many of you have seen it and it sets out really how to accomplish two things.

The first is that it’s a statement from all of us that we value Youth and the skills and the energy and everything they bring to our community

And the second part is a –it’s a commitment from all of us to provide a safe and supportive environment for our young people and to do our utmost best to provide Safety initiatives for them and to ensure that they have the opportunities for education, future employment opportunities, that they have a good quality of life in our region and that they have access to the resources and activities they need to develop into happy, healthy, responsible adults.

The Charter has been signed by community leaders throughout the Region and includes the Mayors –Chairman Kolb has already signed it, the Police Chiefs, the Heads of the School Boards, the Community agencies.

We’ve also very strategically left a blank line in there because as we go forward, we want every business, every community agency, every organization that can contribute to Youth to sign on there and become a partner in this.

And by signing it, it’s not just saying, “Hey this is a great thing to hang on the wall”, it is a commitment to do what we can in those key areas –whether it’s Education, Jobs, Safety, any of those areas to support our young people.

So this week our committee has been visiting community leaders, media, going everywhere, presenting the Charter. I’m proud to say also this week the Charters are about to be going up in every school in the Region of Peel.

They’re going up in libraries, recreation centers and wherever other public [sic] –public buildings.

One of the things we’re asking today, Chairman Kolb, is that the Region endorse these Charters going out in Regional buildings, police stations and again where people will see them and wherever we have an organization that can contribute to this Charter.

At this time I would like to ask Chairman Kolb, and he mentioned that there are a number of Regional Councillors who sit on the Peel Violence [sic] Prevention Committee… Councillor Gael Miles, Councillor Katie Mahoney and Councillor Pat Saito and –sorry?

Councillor Gael Miles or Sue McFadden (unsure which) : That’s ok.

Larry Zacher, Executive Director, Safe City Brampton:

So if you can join us at the front, we’ll present —as well, Trustee Tony da Silva, from the Duffeirn-Peel Catholic District Board is here.

(Everyone goes to the front. Mississauga News, Ron Lenyk takes photo. Video ends.)

FACT:  Freedom of Information has confirmed that (at least at the City of Mississauga), the Peel Youth Charter is merely, “Hey this is a great thing to hang on the wall”.

OPINION: As a result, all Peel Youth Charters should be removed from City of Mississauga facilities and properties, ASAP.

To review the Peel Youth Charter, [underlined emphasis mine]

PEEL YOUTH CHARTER (signed March 29, 2007)

We believe that young people are valuable members of the Region of Peel. Young people bring a unique, diverse set of ideas, perspectives and skills, and make a valuable and significant contribution to our community. They deserve the same respect, dignity and human rights as all members of the community.

We believe all Peel youth have the right to:

These rights will apply without discrimination or prejudice to all youth in Peel.

By signing this charter we are committed to use our best efforts to ensure the safety, health, education and future employment of Peel’s youth.

Signed by: (left to right on the original Charter)

Susan Fennell (Mayor-Brampton), Marolyn Morrison (Mayor-Caledon), Hazel McCallion (Mayor-Mississauga) Emil Kolb (Chair Region of Peel), Janet McDougald (Chair Peel District School Board), Bruno Iannicca (Chair, Dufferin-Peel Catholic School Board), Andy Karski (Inspector Caledon OPP), Mike Metcalf, (Chief, Peel Regional Police), Jim Bird (Vice-President Brampton Safe City Association), Katie Mahoney (Mississauga Crime Prevention Association), Shelley White, (CEO, United Way)


The Mississauga Muse


William G. Davis at the endorsement of the Peel Youth Charter (Peel Regional Council) October 25, 2007

Bob Dechert and Hazel McCallion field question, “ACCOUNTABILITY? WHERE?” at Safe City Mississauga town hall meeting

June 14th, 2009  

[UPDATE: June 15, 2009. I’ve just been advised of an error in yesterday’s Blog. I’d used “Progressive Conservative” instead of “Conservative” when referring to Mississauga-Erindale MP Bob Dechert. This means I’ll have to rework the video which made reference to “P.C.” and post the corrected version. So please be patient as I make this fix. Thanks also to the reader who pointed out that I spelled “ostensibly” as “bstensibly”. Apologies especially  to Mr. Dechert for referring to his party as “Progressive”. Now only yesterday’s Blog.]

On  June 11, 2009, the former Mississauga Crime Prevention Assocation, aka Safe City Mississauga, hosted a town hall meeting at Ruth Thompson Middle School to assure the assembled that “The federal government has been working tirelessly in the fight against violent crime”.

Canadian Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Rob Nicholson was there as special guest and believe me, there was a lot of toughness going on.

According to the Mississauga News article “Tories tough on crime, residents told”, about 60 people turned out to hear Nicholson outline “his government’s commitment to cracking down on crime.”

I was one of those 60 people and I blew my chance to ask the Justice Minister my question which was basically, “Where do you get off getting tough on youth when you don’t get tough on provincial and municipal governments ostensively there to serve them?” But alas… it was not meant to be.

However, I did get to ask a similar question that both Mississauga-Erindale MP Bob Dechert (Conservative) and Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion responded to but predictably didn’t answer as in answer-answer.

Here is the video of that exchange, followed by the  transcript.

Bob Dechert and Hazel McCallion field question, “ACCOUNTABILITY? WHERE?” (3:35 min)

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


Brad Butt (Chair: Safe City Mississauga):

Okay, we’ll go to our final question. Ursula, you got a question over here to end us up?

The Mississauga Muse (Witness: MISSISSAUGAWATCH):

Yeah, just regarding Youth programs, I’m just wondering when funding and money is given to various Youth programs (and it really doesn’t matter whether it’s Peel or anywhere else, I’m talking about any municipality specifically in Ontario). I’m interested, what kinds of Accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that there’s effectiveness in the program.

I know that Peel Regional Police had a summit back in 1994 –94 I think it was. And their first recommendation was to ensure that there was Accountability in place for various programs, for cost-effectiveness and everywhere else.

It still isn’t happening!

And I’m just wondering if there’s going to be any kind of effort on the part of the Federal government to kind of make the Provincial government more accountable, who then might turn the screws on the municipal government? Thank you.

Bob Dechert (Mississauga-Erindale MP (Conservative):

Thanks for the question, Ursula. I think the question as to —how do we monitor the programs, the Federal programs at the Federal level for things like at-risk Youth programs to make sure that they’re effective.

The Federal government doesn’t hold the Provincial government accountable or audit their functions but I know that they

The Mississauga Muse (Witness: MISSISSAUGAWATCH):

I know  i—

Bob Dechert (Mississauga-Erindale MP (Conservative):

But we certainly do and Julius can tell you that the programs that his centre operates, there is a separate function of the Department of Safety and Security and other departments that fund the programs at his centre and on an annual basis. They measure effectiveness of the program that his centre and all these centres are delivering to ensure that they are reaching their goals.

Their goals set [sic] for them when they apply for funding and then there is an audit department of that ministry that at the end of the year audits to see if they’ve met their goals. And if they don’t meet their goals they don’t get continued funding for the next year. And they’re told, you know, what they need to do to improve to meet their goals and objectives.

I’m pretty sure that the same thing happens at the Provincial level and I’m sure (turns to Hazel McCallion) Mayor, the same thing happens at the municipal level as well.

(To Mayor McCallion) I don’t know if you want to say something about that provided it’s short.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

At the local level, our Staff [inaudible] applications for grants very thoroughly. It has to meet certain criteria.  And especially they have to have audited statements of their finances. And if they don’t meet, as you say, Bob, they don’t meet the criteria that we set down, then the next year they don’t get the grant. Simple as that.

It’s a very detailed analysis that’s done on every application. It’s done by the Staff and you know, they don’t monitor the program all year round but when they come back to the application the next year, then they got to show proof how they spent the money. Was it spent the way —the purpose for which it was granted? And we ask for audited statements.



The Mississauga Muse

MISSISSAUGAWATCH and a www.connect2endviolence.ca billboard (Britannia Rd, Mississauga)

Hazel McCallion saves Sheridan Library: “…please, spread the news that this library is NOT closing!”

April 17th, 2009  

Hey Missy Dudes and Dudettes,

Apologies for not having a fresh Blog since April 14th but there’s just been so much to document/research that there’s simply been no time to report on what’s happening.

To give you an idea of what MISSISSAUGAWATCH has been up to in the data collection department since Monday’s Blog here’s a list.

Data collection, researching through Freedom of Information and bearing witness to what needs to be witnessed are far more important than regular Blogging.

You’d think that would go without saying. But no.

The Internet is thoroughly polluted with Blogs spouting opinion —the situation made worse by comments to opinion-focussed Blogs spouting opinion from readers spouting their opinions.   Far too many Blogs assault readers with hundreds of words before actual supporting documents/data are presented.

The very worst Blogs are 100% opinion.

I can tell you this —consider it a reader alert. As of this week, one more Blog (already toxic with unsubstantiated opinion) has joined our virtual world.

As for MISSISSAUGAWATCH.CA,  all I can say is Freedom of Information research continues…

Next. Today’s Blog.


I’ve been observing Mississauga Council since June 2006 and I can’t tell you the number of times Budget deliberations have threatened the Sheridan Library. Cut hours. Cut hours. Cut hours.

Cut hours so much that here’s what Sheridan Library service looks like today (from the mississauga.ca website). Hint: When you scan the hours, think of when kids are in school and parents at work.

NEW! Hours – Winter 2009

Mon 11 a.m. – 5 p.m.
Tues 3 p.m. – 9 p.m.
Wed 11 a.m. – 5 p.m.
Thurs 3 p.m. – 9 p.m.
Fri 1 p.m. – 5 p.m.
Sat 11 a.m. – 5 p.m.

There’s a worrisome trend at the City of Mississauga that I’ve already mentioned in previous Blogs. Two years worth of Freedom of Information documents reveal that City of Mississauga Staff aren’t strong on social issues.

Cut-and-pasting from a previous Blog that dealt with cuts to hours of library service, Councilor Saito said it best.

PAT SAITO: They are probably the four libraries that are in the area of most need.”

“I guess when I look at the, the hours, or sorry, the libraries that are suggested to be closed for the saving on the Friday evenings and the Sundays.. You know (small chuckle) they’re the four libraries —four of them, Meadowvale, Burnhamthorpe, Malton and South Common. They are probably the four libraries that are in the area of most need.” —Mississauga Councillor Pat Saito (October 15, 2008 Budget Meeting)

Now speaking of areas with most need, we have Sheridan Library. And I have to say I found the presentation by the Mississauga consultant fascinating. For one thing, she used 2004 data. For those who need the Obvious spelled out for them 2004 was five years ago!

The other odd item was the difference of opinion about the needs of the community in the immediate area. The City of Mississauga consultant downplayed the need —that there were other parts of Mississauga more “at-risk”. Then the E.S.L. (English as a Second Language) teacher for the nearby Oakridge Public School, who attended to support his kids, provided data showing that the Peel District School Board identified his school —Oakridge, as Number One in terms of  need.

Two studies. Two very different findings. Something is very wrong here.

I suppose that this is as good a place as any to tell readers that in my former life, I taught at Oakridge Public School back in the mid 70’s. Many youngsters were needy back then!

A lot of people attended this meeting to defend the Sheridan Library. But I have to congratulate that Oakridge E.S.L. teacher because he served up data. Facts.

As a result of the information he provided, he’s made it possible for me to file Freedom of Information on various aspects of the Sheridan Library. (I won’t reveal more because I know the minions of evil empire move their lips to this Blog.)


Here’s the bottomline.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion  has the following message.

“Please, spread the news that this library is NOT closing. “

And I’m only too happy to.


And not only that but just from examining the Mayor’s face during her speech and afterwards, it’s a pretty good guess that she’s going to see that this needy community’s largely new immigrants (and the Oakridge kids) get a library reflective of those needs.

Ward Councillor Katie Mahoney has defended Sheridan Library every single time it was threatened. Afterwards, I even stood in line to speak with her and thank her for the resolute defence she played on behalf of these people. Mahoney squawked every single time. And her last Council squawk made it clear to Mississauga Staff not to bring up the topic of closing again.

Still, a Councillor has surprising little power.

What has guaranteed a brighter future for Sheridan Library is McCallion herself.  I’m convinced that the Mississauga Mayor did not know the embarrassing conditions at Sheridan Library. Frankly I had my eyes opened too Wednesday evening as well.

The cramped conditions and aging books sure turned the mississauga.ca News Release,  “Service Options Review for the Sheridan Community” into an Orwellian joke.

Down at the very bottom of the City’s News Release. it states:

Mississauga is Canada’s sixth largest city with a population of more than 700,000. With well-established infrastructure and state of the art facilities, the City is considered to be an employer of choice, delivering quality municipal programs and services to its citizens. Mississauga is a dynamic, diverse, and progressive municipality, known for its economic strength and for being Canada’s safest city.

“state of the art facilities”?! STICK IT YOU SPINMEISTERS IN COMMUNICATIONS!

Well, I certainly feel better now…

So here is video of Mayor McCallion’s wonderful address to the Sheridan Library Community Wednesday evening.  And the transcript of the video. All for the record.


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

TRANSCRIPT  Mayor Hazel McCallion Sheridan Library April 15, 2009 public meeting:

Thank you very much and I came to listen. And there are some excellent suggestions put forward.

And I want you to know that your Councillor has protected this library.

And I want you to know that myself and the Councillor and even Councillor Mullin, is concerned about reducing the library hours.

Because I really believe the library, in many years, is the community centre as much as it is, especially for the students.

And you know, today, in order for Canada to be competitive, it is so important that our children get every opportunity to learn more because that’s the only way will remain competitive.

[Apologies, battery change]

The services, by the way, Paul, [Ed: Commissioner of Community Services, Paul Mitcham] that we provide in this library obviously is not adequate. I hate to hear that there’s not enough computers. Today, the children, when they’re doing their research, the computer is such a key to it.

So I heard two things tonight –how the library is stocked. Is it that same as others libraries in the area? I don’t mean all libraries. We DO have the Central Library. And we DO have a district library. And we have a [inaudible] library and therefore they should be all equal, whether the neighbourhood is here or in Streetsville or Erin Mills or wherever it is.

So we heard tonight, there is a need. As I say, your Councillor has protected the library. There was a movement to close it and she stood up and made sure it wasn’t closed.

Now we’re here tonight and Councillor Mullin has joined us.

The library, you know, years ago, when there weren’t community centres and there weren’t arenas and there weren’t all those things, there were libraries. Think about that. There were libraries because that was the key to a community.

And so the library is an extremely important facility in the community.

In regard, I agree with Councillor Mahoney as well, that the library should be located in the right location and that is important as well –to be able to be available to as many people as possible.

Not all –we can’t have a library on every corner –we can’t have a library right next to your house, I wish we could, but we can’t. So we have to choose a good location. And I think your Councillor is well aware of where the library should be.

We will attempt –I will try to negotiate with the owner of this plaza as well. And I would think that the economic downturn and the fact that plazas are not doing as well –and this one, I understand is not doing as well as others and I think that there’s a pretty good negotiating opportunity.

Secondly, we will look at land within this area that Councillor has clearly defined to see if there is. It’s tough to purchase land these days, you know. You can’t force people to sell it to you but we will make every effort.

I know that Paul, our Commissioner here tonight, will bring me up to date on the negotiations that are taking place with the owner of this plaza and I will get involved.

So tonight you gave us some ideas –I think they’re great– I want you to know that we are here to serve you and to serve this community as we try– [McCallion cut off by applause]

So thank you for coming and please, spread the news that this library is NOT closing!



The Mississauga Muse

HAZEL MCCALLION: READ "TRANSCRIPT Mayor Hazel McCallion Sheridan Library April 15, 2009 public meeting: ...and please, spread the news that this library is NOT closing"

Addtional resources.

I was unaware that the young man sitting in the chair to my right was Peter, the person who left an announcement about the Sheridan Library meeting in “About the Mississaugas Muse”.  I Googled him and found his excellent summary of the Sheridan Library meeting.

Peter Browne describes himself as a “Peter Browne student. nerd. politics activist” and I encourage you to read his “Sheridan Branch Library Meeting” summary. Clearly Peter is a Blogger committed to informing his readers. He’s actually posted an audiotape of the  meeting as an mp3!  Audio and video cut through the He Saids and She Saids of differing opinions of what actually happened.

Also please visit Peter’s Flickr site for his photographs of the information slides presented at that meeting.

Last. Here is the Mississauga News article, “Neighbourhood needs its library, residents say”.

Councillor Carolyn Parrish slams City’s $731,485.00 “goof up” that “flew through” Mississauga Council with ZERO discussion.

April 2nd, 2009  

Just thought I’d share video of yesterday’s $731,485.00 General Committee meeting.

Long story short, regarding Mississauga’s transit revenue loss of $731,485.00 , I was advised (thanks to the tipster) that the Ottawa Citizen first broke the story of Infoplace Ticket Centre woes on January 27, 2009 but didn’t name Mississauga as a creditor.

Money woes shut lottery kiosks

Five area booths affected; company owes $9.7M

By Tony Lofaro, The Ottawa Citizen January 27, 2009

OTTAWA — Five lottery kiosks in Ottawa and others across the country closed on the weekend, and threw close to 800 people out of work.

The kiosks, owned by Infoplace Ticket Centres Ltd. and located in Carlingwood Mall, Billings Bridge Plaza, Place d’Orléans, Lincoln Fields and Hazeldean Mall and 180 other locations across Canada, shut down Friday night. The kiosks sold lottery tickets, bus passes and postage stamps and were franchise operations with five or six employees at each location.

“We disabled the terminals so that lottery business could no longer be conducted, given their situation. We had no alternative,” Don Pister, a spokesman for the Ontario Lottery Corp., said Monday.

He said the Infoplace Ticket Centres Ltd. represented “less than one per cent” of retailers that sold lottery tickets across the province. In Ontario, more than 10,000 outlets sell tickets on behalf of the lottery corporation, he said.

“It’s too soon to say what happened, but the company ran out of money,” said Hassan Jaffer, a trustee with Grant Thornton Ltd. Trustees in Toronto. He said the Toronto-based company owes 40 creditors about $9.7 million…

By February 11, 2009, The Ottawa Citizen listed Mississauga out by $600,000.

Bankrupt ticket firm owes city $1.9M

Ottawa officials to attend upcoming court hearing in hopes of getting money back

By Jake Rupert, The Ottawa Citizen February 11, 2009

The city’s 2009 financial outlook has taken a potential $1.9-million hit with the bankruptcy of a kiosk company that used to sell bus tickets and passes, and one councillor is angry the municipality was doing business in a manner that left it exposed to that high of a loss.

Infoplace Ticket Centres Ltd. had five kiosks in Ottawa shopping malls. The company largely sold lottery tickets and bus passes and tickets near major transit stations. It filed for bankruptcy at the end of January.

According to the trustee appointed to oversee the bankruptcy process, the company owes $9.7 million and the City of Ottawa is its largest unsecured creditor. Infoplace Ticket Centres operated 180 kiosks across Canada.

The list of creditors includes several other municipalities including:

Yet it took the Toronto Star (and Mississauga News) until March 25, 2009 to pick up the story. Why?

Mississauga mayor calls for audit after city fails to collect $731,000 owed by bus ticket firm

Mar 25, 2009 04:30 AM

Comments on this story (4)


Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion has ordered a city-wide audit of money owed to the municipality after she learned her city could be out $731,485 in transit ticket revenues with the collapse of a kiosk chain.

Why did it take two months after the story appeared in the Ottawa Citizen for it to break in Toronto/Mississauga?

And it seems that I’m not the only one asking for details.

The $731,485 revenue-loss appeared as Item 29 on yesterday’s General Committee “additional” agenda.

Zero discussion, just “flew through” and it was moved for receipt in 19 seconds then neatly swept behind the secrecy of closed doors.

However Council did talk for over ten minutes on whether to spend $15,000 to remove a wall that was ordered built by just one councillor who wanted a wall where one originally wasn’t (you’re getting all this down, right?). I managed to videotape eight minutes of wall-discussion but there was actually more that didn’t get documented (perilously low battery).

To Councillor Carolyn Parrish’s credit, she’d finally had enough. Here is the transcript.

Councillor Carolyn Parrish:

I find it fascinating that we’re spending this much time on it [talking about $15,000 on a wall] and the report where we lost $750,000 on bankrupting [inaudible because I said, “Exactly” into the camera] just flew through. And I’m going to tell you the reason it flew through without my asking the questions that I want to ask is that I think it involves personnel.And I want to know why —and it’s coming up again in-camera, and I want to know why it took four months for us to be informed and I want to know who goofed up when it says in the policy, “Cash or cheque on delivery arrangements for tickets”. But I don’t want the audience or the people watching on television to think we spend all our time on a $15,000 wall and we’re ignoring the $750,000 mess up on tickets that we’ll never get back plus the other amounts —the outstanding tickets that we won’t get back.”

Then they went behind closed doors (called “in-camera”) came back to make their announcements. All except for Parrish. Her seat was empty (the lady’s not good with pretending)…

Called out the Item then —nothing. “Flew through” again and adjourned.

Here is video.


(1:37 min: 8 minutes of which was compressed into 5 seconds)

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

Ask yourself why Mississauga Council  “flew through” Item 29 without a word, whisked it behind closed doors ( in-camera) and then “flew through” again once out from behind closed doors.

Control the Message.

If Rick Mercer is reading this, that’s how you “stay in power for 31 years.”

And that’s why citizens need The Province to grant  the Ontario Ombudsman  full investigative powers into municipalities as well as the rest of the MUSH sector.


The Mississauga Muse

UPDATE: THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2009 11:30 pm Special thank you to the YouTuber who emailed me and requested that I cut down the wall-discussion even further. So now the 8-minute wall-discussion is compressed down to 5 seconds. And I’ve replaced the original vid. Thanks again to the viewer for the comment. You made the video much better.

Mississauga Muse at April 1, 2009 General Committee meeting (splitting headache in need of caffeine)

“But I don’t want the audience or the people watching on television to think we spend all our time on a $15,000 wall and we’re ignoring the $750,000 mess up on tickets that we’ll never get back plus the other amounts —the outstanding tickets that we won’t get back.”