MISSISSAUGAWATCH
MississaugaWatch Mississauga Watch

ELIAS HAZINEH v. HAZEL McCALLION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE JOHN R. SPROAT (released June 14, 2013)

June 22nd, 2013  

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

                                               CITATION: HAZINEH v. McCALLION, 2013 ONSC 2164
                                                                 COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-1130-OO 
                                                                               DATE: 2013-06-14

                                                     ONTARIO 

                                            SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:                                                )
                                                         )
ELIAS HAZINEH                                           )  Thomas A. Richardson and Monique 
                                                         )  Atherton, for the Applicant 
                                                         ) 
                                                         ) 
                                          Applicant     ) 
                                                         ) 
                                                         ) 
                                                         ) 
- and -                                                 )
                                                         ) 
HAZEL McCALLION                                         )  Elizabeth J. Mclntyre and Freya J. 
                                                         )  Kristjanson, for the Respondent 
                                                         ) 
                                                         )
                                            Respondent  ) 
                                                         ) 
                                                         ) HEARD: April 3, 8-12, 15-19, 2013

                                      REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SPROAT J.

Table of Contents 
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 
The Issues ............................................................................... 1 
The Witnesses ............................................................................ 3 
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act ..................................................... 5 
The Mississauga Judicial Inquiry .......................................................... 6

OVERVIEW OF THE FACTS ..................................................................... 7 

DID MAYOR MCCALLION HAVE A DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST IN WCD? ................................ 15
The Law ................................................................................. 15 
The Financial Interest of Peter McCallion in WCD ........................................... 16 
What did Mayor McCallion know about Peter’s Interest in WCD? ................................ 18 
Analysis and Conclusion .................................................................. 22 

COULD WCD QUALIFY UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS? ....................................... 23 
Introduction ............................................................................. 23 
The Evidence ............................................................................. 23 
Analysis and Conclusion ................................................................... 27 

WAS MAYOR MCCALLION’S DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST AN INTEREST IN COMMON WITH ELECTORS GENERALLY? .. 31 
The Law ................................................................................... 31 
The Evidence .............................................................................. 33 
Analysis and Conclusion .................................................................... 34 

WAS MAYOR MCCALLlON’S DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST REMOTE AND INSIGNIFICANT? ..................... 36 
The Law ................................................................................... 36 
The Evidence .............................................................................. 37 
Analysis and Conclusion .................................................................... 39

                                                        -2-


WAS ANY CONTRAVENTION DUE TO INADVERTENCE OR BY REASON OF AN ERROR IN JUDGMENT? ................ 45 
The Law ................................................................................... 45 
The Evidence .............................................................................. 46 
Analysis and Conclusion .................................................................... 47 

DID MR. HAZINEH COMMENCE THE APPLICATION IN TIME? ............................................ 48 
The Law ................................................................................... 48 
The Evidence .............................................................................. 48 
Analysis and Conclusion .................................................................... 50 

SHOULD THERE BE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST MAYOR MCCALLION? ................................. 52 

CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 53

INTRODUCTION

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

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

(a) Mayor McCalli0n’s son Peter McCallion (“Peter”) incorporated and
was an owner of World Class Developments Inc. (“WCD”). WCD
agreed to purchase land for the purpose of constructing a hotel,
conference centre and condominium towers.

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

(c) Mayor McCallion cast a number of votes at Peel Regional Council
(“Regional Council”) in September-October, 2007 (“the Votes“),
related to increased development charges. As enacted, the by-law
contained provisions (“the Transitional Provisions”) by which
developers who met certain requirements, including the filing of a


-2-

 

complete site plan application by October 7, 2007, continued to be
eligible to pay the lower rate.

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

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

[3]  The issues are as follows:

(a) What was Peter’s interest in WCD?

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

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

-3-

 

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

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

(ii) Was Mayor McCalli0n‘s deemed financial interest remote and
insignificant such that it cannot reasonably be regarded as
likely to have influenced her?; or

(iii) Were the Transitional Provisions a benefit offered on terms
common to other persons?

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

(f) Did Mr. Hazineh commence the application in time?

The Witnesses

[4] The witnesses and their affiliations are as follows:

Applicant

Elias Hazineh  Applicant
Carolyn Parrish  Supporter and friend

Respondent

Hazel McCallion  Mayor

The City

Edward Sajecki                Commissioner of Planning and Building
Marilyn Ball                     Director of Development and Design
Angela Dietrich               Manager, City Wide Policy Planning
Bentley Phillips               Development Planner

Region of Peel

Robert Elliott                  Manager of Development Financing

WCD

Leo Couprie                    Lender, Trustee of shares
Scott Walker                   Planner, N. Barry Lyon Consultants

Other

Marolyn Morrison         Mayor of Caledon
Susan Fennel                  Mayor of Brampton
Ken Lusk                         Representative of land owner


-5-

 

The Municipal Conflict of interest Act

[5] Section 3 provides that if the child of a member of council has a financial
interest (the MCIA refers to “pecuniary interest”, however, I will use the more
familiar expression “financial interest”) that is known to the member, the member
is deemed to have the same financial interest as the child.

[6] Section 5 provides that if a member has a financial interest in a matter that
is considered at council the member shall disclose the interest, not take part in
the discussion or vote on the matter and not attempt to influence the voting.

[7] Section 4 provides that s. 5 does not apply to a financial interest in any
matter that the member may have:

(a) by reason of the member being entitled to receive on terms common
to other persons any benefit offered by the municipality (s.4(b));

(b) by reason of the member having a financial interest that is an interest
in common with electors generally (s.4(j)); and

(c) by reason only of an interest of the member that is so remote or
insignificant that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to
influence the member (s.4 (k)).

-6-

 

[8] Section 10 provides that if a judge determines that a member has
contravened s. 5, the judge shall order that the member be removed from office
unless the judge finds that the contravention was committed through
inadvertence or by reason of an error in judgment.

[9] Section 9 provides that an elector may apply to a judge for a determination
of whether s. 5 has been contravened within six weeks after it comes to the
knowledge of the elector that the member may have contravened s. 5. Any
application must, however, be brought within six years of when the alleged
contravention occurred.

The Mississauga Judicial lnquiry

[10] On November 11, 2009, City Council passed a resolution requesting a
judicial inquiry (“the Judicial lnquiry”) into matters including whether Mayor
McCallion had a conflict of interest in matters related to WCD and Peter. The
resolution requesting the Judicial lnquiry did not refer to any issues related to
Regional development charges.

[11] The Public Inquiries Act, S.O. 2009, ch. 33 sch. 6 provides that no
answer given by a witness, such as Mayor McCallion, can be used against her in
a subsequent hearing. The transcript of the evidence of other Judicial lnquiry
witnesses is also not admissible as it is hearsay.


-7-

 

OVERVIEW OF THE FACTS

[12] There is undoubtedly much that I do not know about this saga. None of
the WCD decision makers provided evidence although they could have been
compelled to do so. It remains that I must decide the case based upon the
evidence before me.

[13] The parties filed over 5,000 pages of affidavits and documents and 2,500
pages of transcript of out of court examinations and cross-examinations. Mr.
Hazineh and Mayor McCallion also testified in court.

[14] l first provide an overview of the essential facts as l find them. Most are
not in dispute. Without such an overview it would be difficult to comprehend the
discussion of the individual legal issues that follows.

[15] Mayor McCallion has served as Mayor for 34 years. As of 2005, she had
three significant outstanding projects she wished to accomplish, one of them
being the building of a first class hotel adjacent to the City’s Living Arts Centre to
accommodate conferences, tourists and business travellers.

[16] On February 22, 2005, Peter incorporated WCD. According to Mayor
McCallion, in 2005 Peter told her that he was the real estate agent for WCD
which was interested in developing a hotel and convention centre adjacent to the


-8-

 

Living Arts Centre. The lands were owned by OMERS and the Alberta Pension
Fund. l will simply refer to the owner as OMERS.

[17] In March 2005, WCD offered to purchase the OMERS lands. Peter did
not have the funds to pay a substantial deposit. There is little evidence as to
what resulted from this initial offer.

[18] In 2006, Peter approached Leo Couprie (“Couprie”), a business man that
he and Mayor McCallion had met on a trade mission trip to China. By August,
2006, Couprie agreed to lend WCD $750,000 for the purpose of making a
deposit on the purchase.

[19] Couprie gave evidence that Peter brought in Murray Cook (“Cook”), a
businessman and McCallion family friend as a 20 per cent shareholder in WCD.
Peter authorized Cook to negotiate with OMERS.

[20] Mayor McCallion intervened and pressured OMERS to sell the land to
WCD. Mayor McCallion’s evidence is that she did so because this was an
essential first step to realize her objective of a first class hotel and conference
centre. Mayor McCallion’s evidence, which was not challenged, was that she
recommended to OMERS that it stipulate that hotel construction must precede
any condominium development.


-9-

 

[21] By agreement dated January 29, 2007 Couprie agreed to lend WCD
$750,000. WCD agreed to repay Couprie $750,000 and pay an additional
$750,000 fee to him if the land purchase was completed. Peter guaranteed the
payments to Couprie. It was further agreed that the WCD shares would be
registered in Couprie‘s name although a Declaration of Trust was signed in which
Couprie promised Peter that he would hold 80 per cent of the shares of WCD for
Peter as “the beneficiary”.

[22] WCD entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”) dated
January 31, 2007 to purchase the OMERS lands. The purchase price was
$14,492,500. Peter authorized Cook to sign the agreement on behalf of WCD.

[23] On February 28, 2007, WCD, Couprie and Cook entered into a
Shareholders Agreement that provided that even though Couprie held 80 per
cent of the WCD shares, and Cook 20 per cent, they would jointly make
decisions as if each held 50 per cent of the shares. Couprie’s evidence,
however, is that he had little interest in the affairs of WCD. Couprie had no
expertise in land development. He deferred to Peter in relation to all significant
decisions affecting WCD. This makes sense as Couprie’s only economic interest
was in either doubling his money if the APS was completed (meaning the
development was proceeding) or getting a return of his $750,000 deposit if it was
not completed.


-10-

 

[24] Mayor McCallion’s evidence was that at all material times she understood
that Peter‘s only interest was as a real estate agent. The evidence is
overwhelming and, as later explained, l find as a fact that Peter was an owner of
WCD.

[25] On July 31, 2007, WCD filed a “Master Site Plan Application” that
included a hotel, conference centre and eight high-rise condominium buildings
and paid a $50,000 fee being 10 per cent of the ordinary site plan application fee.

[26] Couprie gave evidence that there was a dispute between Peter and Cook
that led to Peter replacing Cook with Tony DeCicco (“DeCicco”). DeCicco was a
developer known to Peter and Mayor McCallion. By agreement dated August 1,
2007 between Couprie and Landplex lnc. (DeCicco’s company), Couprie agreed
that he held 80 per cent of the shares in WCD in trust for Landplex. it was
always recognized that for the development to proceed WCD would have to
secure a major developer-investor and a hotel operator.

[27] Municipalities have the power to impose development charges to assist in
paying for the increased infrastructure necessitated by development. The
philosophy of the Mayor, and the Region of Peel, (“the Region”), was that “growth
should pay for growth”.


-11-

 

[28] The Region initiated a periodic review of its development charges in
2006. On August 13, 2007, Regional staff recommended an 85 per cent
increase in development charges with a transition period whereby the increased
charges would not be payable by developers who had:

(a) submitted a site plan application by September 13, 2007;

(b) submitted a building permit application by February 1, 2008; and

(c) obtained a building permit by April 1, 2008.

[29] At the General Committee Meeting of The Regional Council on
September 6, 2007, a motion was made to adopt the staff recommendation.
Caledon Mayor Morrison’s evidence, which I accept, was that she told Mayor
McCallion that Caledon would benefit from a one month extension of the time to
obtain a building permit. Mayor McCallion offered to move a motion as a favour
to Mayor Morrison given the belief that, as the senior Mayor in the Region, Mayor
McCallion’s views would be given greater weight. The motion, which was
adopted, extended the time to obtain a building permit to May 1, 2008.

[30] Brampton had a particular concern that the imposition of increased
development charges would impede its downtown development initiatives.
Brampton Council passed a resolution on September 12, 2007, asking the
Region to amend the transition provisions to allow developers in downtown


-12-

 

Brampton an additional 18 months, to November 1, 2009, to obtain a building
permit.

[31] On September 13, 2007, Mayor Fennell of Brampton presented a motion
at Regional Council based on the wording of the Brampton resolution the
previous day. Mayor Fennell’s evidence was that the Regional clerk
“regionalized” the wording of the Brampton specific resolution. As presented at
Regional Council the motion provided that developers, in any area designated by
an area municipality (Mississauga, Brampton or Caledon), would have an 18
month extension of the transition period. Mayor McCallion seconded this motion
which passed.

[32] There is no evidence that Mayor McCallion played any role in the
decision to “regionalize” the language of the motion presented at the Regional
Council, or that suggests to me she viewed the 18 month extension proposed by
Mayor Fennell as a fortuitous opportunity to help WCD. l find as a fact that
Mayor McCallion seconded this motion as a matter of routine and to be
supportive of Mayor Fennell.

[33] Regional staff were quite surprised by this motion and requested an
opportunity to report back on the cost implications. On September 14, 2007, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Region wrote to the senior planning officials of the


-13-

 

three Regional municipalities indicating he believed the intention of Regional
Council was to extend the transition period for “identified areas of intensification”.
He also requested a map showing areas of intensification and a list of pending
site plan applications in those areas.

[34] By letter dated September 19, 2007, Edward Sajecki (“Sajecki”), the
Commissioner of Planning for the City, listed the WCD project as one of eighteen
projects within the area the City had previously identified as its Urban Growth
Centre.

[35] l do not construe the Sajecki letter as purporting to bind the City as to the
area of intensification. Sajecki was simply advising of the projects in an area the
City had already determined to be an area of intensification. If the Regional by~
law had passed in that form, it would still have been up to the City Council to
identify areas of intensification within the meaning of the by-law.

[36] On September 24, 2007, Marilyn Ball (“Ball”) the Director, Development
and Design of the City emailed staff at the Region indicating that WCD had only
filed a “Master Site Plan” and not a standard site plan. She advised that the
Master Site Plan “will not be sufficient to satisfy the condition for site plan
approval to obtain a building permit for the hotel or any other buildings”.


-14-

 

[37] At the September 27, 2007, Regional General Committee meeting staff
presented an array of concerns about the extended transition period including
that it would cost $25-$30 million and be contrary to the Regional policy that
“growth should pay for growth.”

[38] On October 4, 2007, Regional Council passed a by-law (“the Transitional
Provisions”) that adopted the transition period originally recommended by staff,
plus the one month extension moved by Mayor McCallion. (Regional Council did
enact an exception for Brampton in accordance with the City of Brampton
resolution of September 12, 2007.) The Transitional Provisions applied to
developments for which:

(a) “an application for site plan approval that is complete” is made by
October 7, 2007;

(b) “an application that is complete” for a building permit is made by
February 1, 2008; and

(c) a building permit is issued by May 1, 2008.

[39] ln November 2007, WCD decided to accelerate its efforts in order to
enable it to qualify under the Transitional Provisions. WCD took the position that
its Master Site Plan filed July 31, 2007, met the first Transitional Provisions
requirement, that being a complete application for site plan approval by October
7, 2007.

-15-

[40] WCD worked feverishly toward addressing various planning issues that
needed to be resolved before building permits could issue. WCD met the second
requirement by filing building permit applications for phase one of its
development which included the hotel and conference centre. WCD went to the
extent of requesting that a special meeting of council be convened on April 30,
2008, in the hope it would meet the May 1, 2008, deadline for issuance of
building permits. WCD could not, however, satisfy all of the City’s requirements
and withdrew the request for a special meeting.

[41] WCD effectively strung the City along to the last minute and circumvented
the by-law requirement that site plan applications not be processed prior to
payment of the application fee. WCD never paid the complete site plan
application fee of $440,000 or even a lesser fee related to the phase one
development. WCD never found a major developer-investor or hotel operator.
The project did not proceed. OMERS remained the owner of the land.

[42] l now turn to the issues that must be decided and make further findings of
fact on contentious matters.

DID MAYOR MCCALLION HAVE A DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST IN
WCD?

The Law

-16-

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

The Financial Interest of Peter McCallion in WCD

[44] in support of her position that Peter was not an owner, Mayor McCallion
placed considerable reliance on a series of answers given by Couprie in cross-
examination. Couprie agreed that, as of September-October, 2007, Peter was
not a shareholder, director or officer of WCD and that he had no other financial
relationship with WCD. Mayor McCallion made further reference to Couprie’s
evidence that Peter’s only financial interest was contingent, being the possibility
that the developer might agree to retain Peter as the listing agent for the
condominiums. On that basis, Mayor McCallion submitted that Peter was not an
owner and any financial interest was remote and insignificant.

[45] Couprie is a businessman not a lawyer. His legal conclusion that Peter
had no ownership interest in WCD does not follow from the evidence he gave.
As Couprie himself described, l would control the shares and wouldn’t give
them back to Peter until such time l got the money [$750,000] back and l
wouldn’t give them to anyone else”. In other words, they were Peter’s shares

-17-

held by Couprie as security. On that basis, alone Peter had a beneficial
ownership interest in WCD as of September-October, 2007.

[46] The evidence is overwhelming, and l find, that Peter was an owner of
WCD:

(a) Peter caused WCD to be incorporated.

(b) Peter recruited Couprie to fund the required $750,000 deposit to
purchase the OMERS lands.

(c) Peter and Couprie entered into the January 29, 2007, Declaration of
Trust in which Couprie agreed that he held 80 per cent of the shares
of WCD in trust for his “beneficiary” Peter.

(d) Peter recruited Cook to play a leading role in WCD, including
negotiating and signing the APS.

(e) While the February 28, 2007, agreement between Couprie and Cook
provided that they would jointly make all decisions, Couprie’s
evidence was that Peter decided “who was staying and going” and
brought in DeCicco to replace Cook.

(f) Peter deposited over $100,000 into the WCD bank account to pay
WCD consultants and withdrew certain amounts for personal

-18-

purposes. Couprie took no objection to this because WCD funds
were Peter’s money.

[47] After the APS was signed, the hunt was on for a major developer who
could fund and/or finance a development in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The developer would have to do a deal with WCD. It is contrary to common
sense and experience to think that the deal with the developer would not reward
Peter for his equity in WCD. Whether this was a lump sum payment for his WCD
shares, a consultancy agreement and/or as a real estate agent for condominium
sales is immaterial. lf this development went ahead, Peter was going to have a
big pay day.

What did Mayor McCallion know about Peter’s Interest in WCD?

[48] Mayor McCallion‘s evidence was that, at the time of the Votes, she
understood that Peter’s only interest in WCD was as a real estate agent. In
deciding what Mayor McCallion knew I will consider:

(a) her relationship with Peter and long-standing interest in the
development of a hotel and conference centre;

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

-19-

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

[49] Mayor McCallion was enthusiastic about attracting a first-class hotel to
the City centre as this was a long time goal. She acknowledges intervening to
encourage OMERS to sign the APS with WCD. Mayor McCallion said she had
regular contact with OMERS representatives. The signing would inevitably have
been raised at such meetings. Mayor McCallion must have known of the APS by
February-March 2007.

[50] This was not only a project near and dear to Mayor McCallion’s heart. lt
was also clearly a transaction that would generate a large commission for the
real estate agent. As a matter of common sense and experience, it would be
natural for Mayor McCallion to inquire about WCD. Mayor McCallion had
frequent contact with Peter. He often drove her to events. Given their close
relationship, it would be natural for Peter to want to tell her about his pivotal role
at WCD.

-20-

[51] Mayor McCallion, however, denies that she ever discussed the status-
progress of the WCD project with Peter. Couprie’s evidence was that Peter did
not want his mother to know too much about the deal until it got closer to fruition.

[52] l appreciate that how people usually act can only take the analysis so far.
Each family dynamic is different. l, therefore, turn to documentary evidence and
admitted facts.

[53] Mayor McCallion admits that she witnessed the Peter~Couprie Loan
Agreement and the Declaration of Trust at a restaurant in late January 2007.
She said the restaurant was dimly lit and she witnessed the signatures without
reading any part of the documents.

[54] The slightest glance at the documents would have revealed that Peter
had an interest in WCD beyond that of a real estate agent. On the “Loan
Agreement” her signature ends less than two inches from the description of Peter
as “Guarantor” and WCD as “Borrower”. On the “Declaration of Trust” her
signature ends less than two inches from the description of Couprie as “trustee”
and Peter as “beneficiary”.

[55] Couprie’s evidence was that the documents were passed across the table
and Mayor McCallion did not read them before signing. Obviously only Mayor
McCallion can say what she did or did not notice when signing. If, however,


-21-

Peter was concealing his ownership interest in WCD, it is highly unlikely that
Peter would allow Couprie to pass these documents to her.

[56] Next l turn to what transpired only one month after the Votes. l regard
this as relevant because Mayor McCallion’s evidence was that, both before and
after the Votes, she had no specific knowledge of the ownership or internal
arrangements at WCD. This is, however, contradicted by the following evidence.

[57] An unsigned Shareholders Resolution and Transfer Agreement between
Cook, Couprie and WCD was faxed by a lawyer representing DeCicco to Mayor
McCallion at her home on October 26, 2007. This agreement is two pages long.
A cursory review reveals that it provides that, in return for $28,000 and
reimbursement for all reasonable consulting fees of Lyon Consulting incurred by
WCD, Cook is to resign as a director and officer of WCD and transfer his WCD
shares to Couprie. Reference is also made to a “Put and Call Agreement”.

[58] Couprie gave evidence that he attended a meeting at Mayor McCallion’s
home because Peter wanted him to give Mayor McCallion his opinion regarding
the Cook-DeCicco dispute.

[59] DeCicco left Mayor McCallion three voicemail messages on November 5,
2007, as follows:


-22-

 

(a) 8:52 A.M. — indicating that he had spoken with Barry [Lyon] at length
about his outstanding accounts and “when Peter comes back we’ll
look at the budget and move fon/vard [ . . . ] thanks for your help”.

(b) 9:03 A.M. — “Were you able to or have you considered getting Murray
[Cook] to sign the agreement terminating the call. The sooner we get
it the better off we are”.

(c) 11:36 A.M. — “I just wanted to keep you updated on this . . followed
by reference to Murray [Cook] and outstanding amounts, budgets and
bills.

[60] Mayor McCallion testified that she does not recall reading the agreement
faxed to her home. She does not recall if she ever responded to DeCicco’s
voicemail messages. The content of the voicemail messages, however, makes
clear that Mayor McCallion was in the loop. DeCicco thanked her for her help
and referred to looking at the budget when Peter gets back. DeCicco spoke of
terminating the “call” which obviously references the “Put and Call” referred to in
the agreement faxed to Mayor McCallion.

Analysis and Conclusion

[61] Taking into account the totality of the evidence including:

(a) The close relationship between Mayor McCl|lion and Peter and her
interest in what he and WCD were doing.

(b) The fact that Peter was prepared to have her witness documents
which clearly disclosed he was an owner of WCD.

-23-

(c) That she witnessed documents which indicated clearly that Peter
was an owner of WCD.

(d) That within one month of the Votes, Mayor McCallion was provided
with draft agreements and effectively asked to inten/ene in a WCD
shareholder dispute.

l find as a fact that, at the time of the Votes, Mayor McCallion knew that Peter
had an ownership interest in WCD. As such, according to s. 3 of the MCIA,
Mayor McCallion had a deemed financial interest in WCD.

COULD WCD QUALIFY UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS?

Introduction

[62] To qualify under the Transitional Provisions “an application for site plan
approval that is complete” had to have been filed by October 7, 2007. Mayor
McCallion submitted that the Master Site Plan application was not “a site plan
application that is complete” and so WCD was not eligible under the Transitional
Provisions. If correct, then WCD had no financial interest in the by-law and so
Mayor McCallion cannot have contravened the MCIA.

The Evidence

[63] Ball’s evidence was that a Master Site Plan is sometimes used for large
developments, to be built over many years, to identify the locations of buildings,

-24-

access points and the general attributes of the site. A general layout for the
entire property is necessary before the planning department will consider a site
plan for any one building. A site plan application is then required before a
building permit can be obtained.

[64] A City by-law governed the fees payable for various applications. The fee
for a site plan application for the entire WCD development was initially estimated
by the City to be $500,000. The by-law further provided that no site plan
application shall be processed until the fee is paid. Master Site Plans are
sufficiently rare that the by-law, which appears to be directed to providing a
comprehensive list of fees for the processing of applications under the Planning
Act R.S.O. 1990, ch. P. 13 (“Planning Act”), does not even refer to Master Site
Plans.

[65] WCD retained N. Barry Lyon Consultants (“Lyon Consulting”). Scott
Walker (“Walker”) of Lyon Consulting was the WCD project manager. WCD and
Lyon Consulting engaged other consultants to assist.

[66] On July 12, 2007, Ball emailed Carol Munroe (“Munroe”), a planner
working for WCD, advising that the City would charge 10 per cent of what would
be the total site plan application fee to review the Master Site Plan.

-25-

[67] On July 24, 2007, Bentley Phillips (“Phillips”), the City planner handling
the WCD file, emailed Munroe explaining the City‘s position that the Master Site
Plan was not itself a site plan under s. 41 of the Planning Act because its
purpose was to serve as the basis for future site plan applications. Phillips made
a note of a conversation the same day in which Walker indicated that legal
counsel for WCD understood that other GTA municipalities had approved Master
Site Plans under s. 41 of the Planning Act subject to an agreement requiring
detailed site plan applications prior to any building permit applications.

[68] On July 25, 2007, Munroe confirmed that no building permits would be
sought based on the Master Site Plan. Further, on July 25, 2007, Phillips
emailed Munroe confirming the position of the City that a Master Site Plan would
not be considered for site plan approval under s. 41 of the Planning Act.

[69] On July 31, 2007, WCD filed a Master Site Plan Application. A place for
the City planner to list the “general requirements” of the plan and the “building
elevations” was not completed. Phillips’ evidence was that it was given a site
plan number because the City had no numbering system for a Master Site Plan.

[70] The City kept a running list of pending site plan applications. WCD did
not appear on that list prior to September 19, 2007. The list submitted by Sajecki
to the Region with his letter of September 19, 2007 listed WCD, but, unlike all

-26-

other entries, the floor area was not specified. This caused Robert Elliott
(“Elliott”) the Manager of Development Financing of the Region to inquire about
the WCD project. Ball advised Elliot on September 24, 2007, that WCD had only
filed a Master Site Plan, and that was not sufficient to obtain a building permit.
Effectively Ball was communicating that WCD could not qualify under the

Transitional Provisions.

[71] Walker‘s evidence was that, when Cook was leading the project, WCD
was not attempting to qualify under the Transitional Provisions. Cook thought
WCD could not reasonably meet the requirements. A financial analysis indicated
that the project was viable even with the increased development charges.
Further, given that it would be built over many years, large parts of the project
would be subject to increased development charges regardless. When DeCicco
took over he thought differently, and the push was on to have at least pan of the
project qualify under the Transitional Provisions.

[72] WCD and its consultants held a meeting on November 21, 2007. The
minutes record that its goal was now to submit building permit applications for the
hotel site by January 31, 2008. WCD was going to try to use the “existing site
plan application” (being the Master Site Plan application) to attempt to qualify
under the Transitional Provisions.

-27-

[73] lt was not until a meeting on January 11, 2008, that WCD advised City
staff that it was seeking to qualify under the Transitional Provisions. This change
in position on the part of WCD led to a Januaiy 25, 2008, legal opinion from the
Assistant City Solicitor which concluded that the July 31, 2007, Master Site Plan
application was a complete application for site plan approval under both s. 41 of
the Planning Act and the Transitional Provisions. Ball’s evidence was that she
did not agree with “the way the opinion was set out” because, in fact, it was only
by January 2008, that WCD had submitted the detail required in a site plan
application.

Analysis and Conclusion

[74] l have had the benefit of reviewing extensive document briefs,
approximately 600 pages of transcript evidence from City planning officials and
hearing extensive legal submissions. l have relatively little information as to the
factual basis for the opinion of the Assistant City Solicitor. ln any event, l am
obliged to reach my own conclusion.

[75] For the reasons that follow, l find that as of October 7, 2007, WCD had
not filed a “site plan application that is complete” within the meaning of the
Transitional Provisions.

-28-

[76] Neither the Planning Act, nor the by~law incorporating the Transitional
Provisions, define the terms “site plan” or “site plan application that is complete”.

[77] The City distinguished between “site plan” applications that require
payment of a fixed fee before being processed and “Master Site Plan”
applications that can be filed on major projects based upon a fee to be
negotiated. The two types of applications are radically different in terms of the
level of detail. The City charged, and WCD paid, only 10 per cent of the site plan
application fee because the work required of City staff to process WCD’s Master
Site Plan application would be roughly 10 per cent of that required to process a
site plan application.

[78] At issue is the proper interpretation of the Transitional Provisions which
require “an application for site plan approval that is complete”. Mississauga is
the largest of the three municipalities in the Region. Mississauga recognized a
clear distinction between site plan applications and Master Site Plan
Applications. (There is no evidence as to Brampton and Caledon). Just prior to
the vote on the Transitional Provisions, the City had advised the Region that
WCD had filed a “Master Site Plan”. The distinction between a “Master Site
Plan” and a site plan was, therefore, evident to the Region. l, therefore, conclude
that if the intent of the Transitional Provisions was to allow a “Master Site Plan” to
qualify that would have been specified. Put differently it defies common sense, in

-29-

the context of the Transitional Provisions, to include in the definition of site plan
application a conceptual plan containing roughly 10 per cent of the detail of a site
plan application.

Further, and in any event, the Transitional Provisions require an application for
approval “that is complete”. Those words can and should be given meaning. The
“City Application for Site Plan Approval” form lists what the application is to
“consist of’. One listed requirement is a checklist completed by the City planner
at the time of submission. (Part of the process is that a City planner reviews the
application at the time of submission). Counsel for Mr. Hazineh agreed that this
checklist had to be completed to constitute a “complete” application.

[79] On the WCD application, all of the checklist boxes under the headings
“general requirements” and “building elevations” were left blank. Phillips, the City
planner, simply noted this was a “Master Site Plan”. The only three boxes ticked
off were under the heading “Floor Plans Note”. Counsel for Mr. Hazineh
submitted that this was sufficient to constitute this as a “complete” application. l
do not agree. When Phillips made the notation “Master Site Plan” and wrote
“okay” beside the unticked boxes, I conclude he did so to indicate that the form
was not complete but that was “okay” because it was a Master Site Plan
application. Phillips‘ evidence was that he would have ticked off the appropriate

-30-

boxes if he regarded this as a site plan application. If this was a site plan
application, WCD would be required to pay the full $440,000 fee.

[80] Counsel for Mr. Hazineh made the point that the APS contained a
provision requiring that WCD file a “full and complete” site plan application by
July 31, 2007. What constituted a “full and complete” site plan application within
the meaning of the APS might well be different from a “site plan application that
is complete” within the meaning of the Transitional Provisions. ln any event
OMERS had no obligation to terminate the APS due to non-compliance with a
condition. The fact that OMERS proceeded with the transaction, following the
filing of a Master Site Plan, is of little or no significance in interpreting the
Transitional Provisions.

[81] The fact that the City allowed WCD to use a site plan application form,
and assigned a site plan application number, is relatively weak evidence that the
Master Site Plan application is a site plan application within the meaning of the
Transitional Provisions. As Phillips explained, there simply was no form for a
Master Site Plan application.

[82] While that is sufficient to reach my conclusion, l add the following. Mayor
McCallion testified, and common sense supports, that the rationale for a
transitional period is that at some point a developer is so far along in the process

-31-

that it would be unfair to impose the higher development charges. As the staff
presentation to Regional Council on September 27, 2007 stated: “The purpose of
a transition is to recognize applications that are imminently proceeding to
approvals stage and thus have difficulty in absorbing notable rate increases.”
This underlying rationale has little application to WCD which, as of October 7,
2007, had only filed a conceptual Master Site Plan and paid 10 per cent of the
site plan application fee.

[83] I, therefore, conclude that WCD could not qualify under the Transitional
Provisions since it had not filed a “site plan application that was complete” by
October 7, 2007. As such, WCD had no financial interest in the development
charges by-law adopted by the Region. On that basis alone Mr. Hazineh’s
application must be dismissed.

[84] ln case l am in error in reaching that conclusion, l will consider whether
certain exceptions and defences in the MCIA are applicable.

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

The Law

[85] Section 4(j) of the MCIA provides an exception to the conflict of
interest prohibition if the financial interest of the member is one “which is an

-32-

interest in common with electors generally”. Section 1 provides the following
definition:

“interest in common with electors generally” means a pecuniary
interest in common with the electors within the area of jurisdiction
and, where the matter under consideration affects only part of the
area ofjurisdiction, means a pecuniary interest in common with the
electors within that part”;

[86] In Tuchenhagen v. Mondou, 2011 ONSC 5398 (CanLll) (Div. Ct.), the
court referred to the fact that the ordinary interpretation of “generally” means “in
most cases” or “widely”.

[87] The fact that electors generally have an interest in common relating to the
level of development charges and taxes does not preclude Peter and WCD
having a distinct interest. For example, in Kizell v. Bristol, [1993] O.J. No. 3369
(Gen. Div.), the respondent councillors were owners or employed in retail
businesses. They voted on matters to do with the granting of exemptions under
the Retail Business Holidays Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.30. O‘Flynn J. concluded
that, although the general public had an interest in the proposed exemptions, the
respondents had contravened the MCIA because they had a financial interest
that was distinct from the interest of electors generally.

[88] The jurisprudence clearly shows that even though a by-law may apply to
the entire body of electors — what Mayor McCallion’s counsel termed a “by-law of

-33-

general application” — this does not preclude an elected official from having an
additional or distinct personal interest in a matter. Indeed, both can be present.

[89] In Kizell, O’Flynn J. also quoted from Edwards v. Wilson (1980), 31 O.R.
(2d) 442 (Div. Ct.) in which Callaghan J. considered whether councillors who
owned or were associated with businesses near a proposed shopping mall had
acted in a conflict of interest when they voted on two proposals which ultimately
defeated the mall project. Though the mall would have equally served all
residents of the town, this did not preclude these councillors from having an
additional interest. Callaghan J. wrote:

while it is true that all ratepayers were interested in the economic
and social development of the community in a general sense, the
respondents had an “added” interest as persons who might be
expected to benefit directly from the failure of the project

The Evidence

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

[91] In cross-examination Mayor McCallion testified that she would not have
declared a conflict of interest even if she understood that WCD could save $11
million in development charges as a result of the Transitional Provisions.

-34-

Analysis and Conclusion

[92] Mayor McCallion’s first submission was that voting on development
charges can never give rise to a conflict of interest. This is because higher
development charges (assuming prospective developers do not opt to go
elsewhere) tend to reduce taxes and lower development charges tend to
increase taxes. Because all residents have an interest in tax levels, development
charge by-laws are of general application. Thus it was not possible for Mayor
McCallion, or anyone else, to have an interest in the vote on the Transitional
Provisions other than the interest that was shared with electors generally.

[93] l put to counsel the following. Assume a council member is a developer.
Development charges are going up. lf a three month transition period is allowed
the developer cannot qualify. lf, however, a six month transitional period is
allowed the developer can qualify. Can the member move a motion to allow for a
six month transitional period? On behalf of Mayor McCallion it was submitted
“yes”. My conclusion is “no”.

[94] lt is necessary to first identify the financial interest of the member. In my
example, the financial interest of the member is as a developer who stands to
save a substantial amount of money depending on the wording of the transitional
by-law. The proper question is whether this financial interest, namely money
riding on whether the transitional period is three or six months, is an interest “in

-35-

common with electors generally”. To ask the question is to answer it. it is
obviously not an interest in common. The developer has a specific financial
interest quite different from electors generally.

[95] Mayor McCallion further submitted, and l agree, that generally
development charges get passed on to the ultimate purchaser. it is elementary
that to stay in business people need to sell products at a price in excess of the
cost. That does not mean, however, that a developer has no financial interest in
qualifying under a transitional provision. For example, take a condominium
developer who is close to the line in terms of being far enough advanced in the
planning process to qualify under a transition provision. If the developer qualifies
under the transition provision, the condominiums are sold at market prices and
the savings in development charges is money in the pocket of the developer. if
the developer is delayed one month, and fails to qualify under the transitional
provision, the condominiums are sold at the same market prices and the
developer absorbs the increased charges.

[96] The alternative submission on behalf of Mayor McCallion is that WCD
had an interest in common with all other developers who might qualify under the
Transitional Provisions. l do not accept that an interest in common with other
developers in the Region qualifies as an interest in common with electors
generally.

-36-

[97] Counsel for Mayor McCallion raised at the hearing the further argument
that s. 4(b) of the MCIA, which provides a member is not in a conflict by reason
of the member being entitled to receive any benefit offered by the municipality on
terms common to other persons, was applicable. A charge or tax would certainly
not ordinarily be characterized as a “benefit”. Similarly, a transition or delay in
implementing an increased charge or tax is not, in my opinion, a “benefit”.

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

The Law

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

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

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

-37-

The Evidence

[100] l now turn to the circumstances that might be considered by the
reasonable elector in determining whether Mayor McCallion’s deemed financial
interest in WCD was likely to influence her vote.

[101] l focus first on the plans and preparedness of WCD as of the Votes.
While no one from WCD testified, there is reliable evidence from Walker of Lyon
Consulting. The project could only move fon/vard by securing the necessary
planning approvals. Effectively Lyon Consulting was driving the bus and WCD
was providing directions. Walker gave direct evidence as to WCD’s instructions
which effectively dictated whether and how the project proceeded.

[102] A July 19, 2007 meeting was attended by 11 City staff and 11 WCD
representatives. Cook and Munroe, on behalf of WCD, advised that a detailed
site plan application for phase one, including the hotel and conference centre,
would likely be filed in the spring of 2008 with “hopes” of securing a building
permit by fall 2008.

[103] Walker stated that DeCicco first mentioned the proposed increase in
development charges in September-October, that being about the time of the
Votes. Minutes record that, at the start of a meeting on November 21, 2007,
attended by 13 WCD owners and consultants, a plan to try to use the Master Site

-38-

Plan application to try to qualify for the lower development charges was
announced. Walker’s evidence was that he had been informed of this intention a
number of weeks before. Given the urgency, it would only make sense that this
change in plan would be communicated to the entire WCD team as soon as
possible. As such, l find that it was only in November that WCD decided to
accelerate its efforts.

[104] As of the Votes, WCD did not plan to file a site plan application until
the spring of 2008. In that event, WCD would not meet the second requirement
of the Transitional Provisions, namely a complete building permit application, by
February 1, 2008. (As discussed, the Master Site Plan, as of the Votes, lacked
detail and so could not be the basis to apply for or receive a building permit.)

[105] Secondly, WCD lacked money. ln this regard:

(a) Couprie made it clear he would not advance funds beyond the
deposit amount.

(b) Peter lacked resources. Couprie said he had previously loaned
money to Peter, secured by Peter’s house. When Peter defaulted,
Couprie assumed ownership of the house. Peter borrowed the
entire $50,000 that WCD paid to the City as an application fee for
the Master Site Plan.

(c) Lyon, the principal of Lyon Consulting, took a “sliver” of equity
presumably in lieu of some portion of fees.

(d) Walker said that the unwillingness of WCD to pay the requisite City
fees was the main stumbling block to obtaining the necessary
approvals.

 

-39-

(e) As of April 30, 2008, Walker said it became apparent Lyon
Consulting might not get paid for its services. it started to do work
for WCD on a handshake agreement between Lyon and Cook, who
knew one another, and then failed to “paper” the financial
arrangements when Cook stepped aside.

(f) When Cook was taking the lead, his intention was to seek not only a
hotel operator but also a developer partner with deeper pockets.

Analysis and Conclusion

[106] The parties agreed that, applying the test from White/y, a reasonable
elector apprised of all the circumstances would take into account that:

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

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

(c) As of the Votes, WCD did not have in place a hotel chain or a major
financial investor.

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

-40-

[107] Counsel for Mr. Hazineh, however, submitted that the reasonable
elector would also take into account that:

(a) WCD’s plan from the outset involved moving from the Master Site
Plans to a more detailed plan.

(b) The process of seeking planning approval commenced in 2006,
even before the APS, and considerable progress had been made by
WCD’s planners, architects and lawyers.

(c) The existing official plan and zoning permitted the proposed
development subject only to removal of the “H” (hold) designation.

(d) The APS had been signed.

(e) This project was supported by Mayor McCallion, Council and staff.

(f) The considerable efforts by WCD after the Votes nearly put it into
position to qualify under the Transitional Provisions.

[108] While l accept that the additional circumstances identified by counsel
for Mr. Hazineh should be considered, the primary focus must be on the situation
as of the Votes. At that time there were multiple layers of improbability. WCD
had no intention of taking the steps necessary to meet the second and third
requirements under the Transitional Provisions. No hotel operator was on board.

-41-

No major financial investor was on board. WCD lacked the funds to pay the site
plan application fee.

[109] A reasonable elector would also consider that Mayor McCallion had
demonstrated greater concern for the public’s interest than for Peter’s interest by
suggesting that the APS contain a provision requiring that the hotel be built first.
This provision caused, or contributed to causing, the project to not proceed.

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

[111] Lastly, l consider the fact that Mayor McCallion also seconded and
voted on Mayor Fennel’s September 13, 2007 motion which recommended an
extension of the transition period to November 1, 2009, for areas to be identified
by each municipality. l consider this separately as the proposed 18 month
extension arguably presents a different set of circumstances for the reasonable
elector to consider. As passed, the resolution stated it was to amend

-42-

“Recommendation GC-174-2007” contained in the Minutes of the General
Committee of Council held September 6, 2007.

[112] The actual wording of the September 13, 2007 resolution is
ambiguous; it simply refers to the transition period being extended to November
1, 2009. lt would certainly not make sense to change all three milestone dates to
fall on November 1, 2009. The Regional staff presentation to Council on
September 27, 2007, is, however, crystal clear. Under the heading
“interpretation of Proposed Amendment”, staff interpreted the intention as being:

(a) to maintain the requirement to have submitted a site plan
application by September 13, 2007; but

(b) to extend the date to obtain a building permit to November 1,
2009.

[113] While Brampton staff may have had a different intention, the
considered interpretation of Regional staff is reasonable. it was based upon the
wording of the resolution and informed by experience. l find that a reasonable
elector would so interpret the resolution. On this interpretation, the resolution
required a site plan application by September 13, 2007, even earlier than the
Transitional Provisions date of October 7, 2007.

[114] As previously discussed, WCD had not filed a complete site plan
application as of October 7, 2007. if l am wrong, and if WCD can be considered

-43-

as having filed a complete site plan application on July 31, 2007, the September
13, 2007 resolution presented additional layers of improbability.

[115] The distinction between a resolution and a by-law was discussed by
Bielby J. in Tanner v. The Municipality of Brockton, 2011 ONSC 6329 (CanLll).
The Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, ch. 25, provides that a municipality must exercise
its power by by-law. A resolution is usually employed to indicate the intention of
council relating to a particular matter of a temporary nature.

[116] The reasonable elector would have to consider the likelihood of the
recommendation to extend the transition period to November 1, 2009 ever being
enacted. In this regard:

(a) The resolution was akin to a trial balloon proposed with virtually no
advance notice to council members.

(b) The sole impetus for the resolution was a Brampton-specific concern
and the wording was “regionalized” by the clerk according to routine
practice.

(c) The financial implications of the resolution had not been analyzed.

-44-

(d) Regional staff, drawing on Regional Council policy that ‘growth
should pay for growth”, were strongly opposed to implementing the
resolution.

[117] Considering all the circumstances, l conclude that the likelihood that
the September 13, 2007 recommendation would be incorporated in a by~law was
remote. Even if it was, it remained uncertain whether the City would identify an
area that included the proposed WCD development.

[118] As previously discussed, a reasonable elector would also consider
that Mayor McCallion’s suggestion that the APS require the hotel be built first put
the public interest ahead of the interest of WCD.

[119] ln my opinion, a reasonable elector would not regard the deemed
financial interest of Mayor McCallion as likely to have influenced her in seconding
Mayor Fennel’s motion and voting on September 13, 2007.

[120] As such, l conclude that Mayor McCallion did not contravene the
MCIA. l will, however, for the sake of completeness address whether the
defences of error in judgment and inadvertence would be available to her.

-45-

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

The Law

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

[122] in Magder v. Ford, 2013 ONSC 263 (CanLll), the court stated that
inadvertence and error in judgment are “two distinct lines of inquiiy”. As to error
in judgment the court stated:

[90]. . . in order to obtain the benefit of the saving provision in s.
10(2), the councillor must prove not only that he had an honest belief
that the MCIA did not apply; he must also show that his belief was
not arbitrary, and that he has taken some reasonable steps to
inquire into his legal obligations.

[123] As to inadvertence, in Baillargeon v. Carroll, [2009] O.J. No. 502
(S.C.J.), Kelly J. stated:

The defence of inadvertence applies where the breach can be linked
to an oversight of fact or law that was not reckless or wilfully blind.
(See Benn v. Lozinski, [1982] O.J. No. 3356, 1982 CarswellOnt 772
at paras. 33-34 (Co. Ct) and Re Blake and Watts et al (1982), [1973]
O.J. No. 2225, 1973 CarswellOnt 372 at pars. 24-31 (Co. Ct.)

[124] ln Re Blake and Watts et al. [1974], 2 O.R. (2d) 43 (Co. Ct.) Killeen
J. stated:

-46-

The weight of authority, in fact practically all the authorities, are to
the effect that “inadvertently” is a wide enough term to include
ignorance of the law, carelessness, negligence, or inattention… The
dictionaries give various meanings for the word, including
inattention, carelessness or negligence, and for the purpose of this
decision l shall hold that the term “inadvertently” includes ignorance
of the law, inattention, neglect or carelessness, on the part of the
deputy returning officer.

The Evidence

[125] Mayor McCallion knew that Peter was an owner of WCD. She knew
that she had a deemed financial interest in WCD. WCD had proposed a major
development that had been in the City planning process for many months.
Mayor McCallion’s evidence, which is supported by other City witnesses and l
accept, was that she was not briefed on the details or even the status of the
WCD project. She decided that she did not want to know anything.

[126] When Mayor McCallion participated in the Votes she did not know
whether or to what extent a transitional period would benefit WCD. She
participated in the Votes based upon her interpretation of the MCIA which was
that a development charge by-law, and transitional provisions in particular,
cannot give rise to a conflict of interest.

-47-

Analysis and Conclusion

[127] As discussed, l reject the argument that the MCIA permits a member
with an actual or deemed financial interest in a development to vote on the
development charges applicable or potentially applicable to the development. In
my opinion, the belief by Mayor McCallion that she could vote is “arbitrary” within
the meaning of Magder. First, such a belief is contrary to common sense. It
does not pass the “smell” test. Secondly, Mayor McCallion testified she had
attended many municipal education sessions, and read many publications, on
the subject of conflict of interest prior to the Votes. Nothing from these sessions
or publications was cited as supporting her interpretation of the MCIA. As such,
the defence of error in judgment is not available.

[128] Further, having a deemed financial interest in WCD, Mayor
McCallion states that she made no inquiry as to the status of WCD’s application
for planning approval. In my opinion, this constitutes wilful blindness. For all she
knew, the WCD project might have been far enough along that the Transitional
Provisions could have saved WCD several million dollars on the initial phase of
the project.

[129] In my opinion, the defence of inadvertence is also not available.
Mayor McCallion’s evidence was that she deliberately participated in the Votes
based upon herjudgment that there can be no conflict in relation to a

-48-

development charge by-law. Further, as discussed, Mayor McCallion was wilfully
blind in relation to what WCD was doing which also precludes reliance on the
defence of inadvertence.

DID MR. HAZINEH COMMENCE THE APPLICATION IN TIME?

The Law

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

The Evidence

[131] Mr. Hazineh‘s affidavit indicates that in the fall of 2009, he became
interested in allegations of conflict of interest against Mayor McCallion. He
generally followed the Judicial inquiry that took place from December 14, 2009 to
February 11, 2011. The Judicial Inquiry Report was released October 3, 2011.
He read an October 11, 2011 article in the Mississauga News written by Clay
Connor, a municipal lawyer, entitled, “McCallion may not be out of the woods”.
From the article he learned that, in 2007, Mayor McCallion had voted at Regional
Council on transitional development charge provisions which had the potential to
save WCD $9 million. Mr. Hazineh commenced this Application on November
21, 2011.

-49-

[132] At an out of court cross-examination on his affidavit, Mr. Hazineh
was shown an article in the National Post dated July 17, 2010, which reported
that Parrish and six other councillors alleged that Mayor McCallion had violated
the MCIA when, in 2007, she voted at Regional Council on transitional provisions
which could save Peter $11 million on the proposed WCD development. Ms.
Parrish was quoted as saying “l’m absolutely convinced there was a conflict of
interest there . . The article went on to note that Ms. Parrish and the
councillors have a six week window, following their discovery of the conflict of
interest, to launch a legal action.

[133] Mr. Hazineh was asked a number of questions about the article over
five pages of transcript. Mr. Hazineh was then asked:

Q. Did you read this article at the time?

A. l’m sure l did. The picture looks familiar, so l probably read it.

[134] Mr. Hazineh testified in court. He was directed to the apparent
conflict between his affidavit evidence indicating that he first learned about Mayor
McCallion’s conflict of interest from the October 11, 2011 Connor article and his
evidence when cross-examined on his affidavit that he had read the July 17,
2010 National Post article at the time it was published.

-50-

[135] Mr. Hazineh explained that he had come across the National Post
article during the preparation of his court application and incorrectly assumed
that he had read it at the time. He went on to state that he did not read the
National Post on principle given its editorial stance on the Middle East. He said
that his evidence when cross-examined on his affidavit was a mistake, and that
he had not been aware of any possible conflict on the pait of Mayor McCallion at
Regional Council prior to the October 11, 2011 article. He also cited the fact that
in filing his Court Application he used the $9 million figure used in the 2011
article, and not the $11 million figure used in the 2010 article, as additional
evidence that he had not read the 2010 National Post article.

[136] Mr. Hazineh and Parrish could not be much closer. They have been
friends since 1991. He worked as a special assistant to her while she was a
federal M.P. He managed campaigns for her federally and provincially. Their
families socialized. ln July 2010, Mr. Hazineh was managing her election
campaign for municipal council.

Analysis and Conclusion

[137] Let me first consider the two matters Mr. Hazineh identified as
supporting his explanation for the discrepancy in his evidence.

-51-

[138] First, his aversion to the National Post. When Mr. Hazineh was
cross-examined on his affidavit, the July 17, 2010, article was reviewed at length
before he was asked if he had read it at the time. He knew it was from the
National Post. If Mr. Hazineh in fact had a principled objection, and so never
read the National Post, he would have said so. l conclude the National Post
aversion was an after the fact rationalization to explain the discrepancy in his
evidence. Further, while a person might refuse to purchase a particular paper
on principle, it does not make sense that Mr. Hazineh would refuse to even read
an article featuring a picture of his close friend and political ally.

[139] Secondly, his use of the $9 million figure in his Application. l accept
that Mr. Hazineh read the October 11, 2011 article, and it was utilized as the
triggering event beginning the six week period. it follows that he would use the
$9 million figure from that article. Mr. Hazineh would not want to use the $11
million figure from a July 2010, article as it would tend to prove he was out of
time to bring the application.

[140] The two reasons suggested to prefer Mr. Hazineh’s corrected
evidence in court, over his evidence when he was cross-examined on his
affidavit, carry no weight for the reasons discussed. I find it more probable that
Mr. Hazineh’s evidence when cross-examined on his affidavit was true than his
evidence in court. By the time he testified in court, he appreciated that his earlier

-52-

evidence might doom his application to failure. As such, l find as a fact that Mr.
Hazineh read the National Post article in July 2010.

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

SHOULD THERE BE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST MAYOR
MCCALLION?

[142] For the sake of completeness, l will explain why in assessing the
evidence l have not drawn an adverse inference against Mayor McCallion on the
basis that she did not call evidence from Peter, Cook and DeCicco. Whether to
draw an adverse inference must be assessed in light of the issues to be decided.

[143] Peter could have provided evidence regarding his interest in WCD
and whether Mayor McCallion had knowledge of it. For the reasons provided, I
have concluded that Peter was an owner of WCD, and that Mayor McCallion
knew that, without the necessity of resorting to an adverse inference.

-53-

[144] Cook and DeCicco’s evidence would have been most relevant to
WCD’s plans and preparedness as of the Votes. Walker was managing the
project for WCD. Walker was relatively independent and provided detailed
evidence in that regard. At its highest, Mayor McCallion had a friendly relation
with Cook and DeCicco. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to draw an
adverse inference due to her failure to call these witnesses.

CONCLUSION

[145] The application is dismissed. I would like to thank all counsel for
their thorough and helpful submissions.

[146] If costs cannot be agreed upon Mayor McCallion shall make written
cost submissions within 14 days. Mr. Hazlneh shall respond within 14 days. Any
reply by Mayor McCallion shall be filed within a further seven days.

__________________________Sproat J

Released: June 14, 2013

CITATION: HAZINEH v. MCCALLION, 2013 ONSC 2164
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-1130-O0
DATE: 2013-06-14
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
RE: ELIAS HAZINEH
Applicant
V.
HAZEL McCALLlON
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Released: June 14, 2013
Sproat J.

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


ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Justice Sproat’s Decision


MISSISSAUGAWATCH court notes

 

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

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

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

June 17th, 2013  

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

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

 

The Decision released June 14, 2013

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

ELIAS HAZINEH v. HAZEL McCALLION

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

(released June 14, 2013)

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

-2-

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

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

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

[3]   The issues are as follows:

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

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

-3-

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

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

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

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


DID MAYOR MCCALLION HAVE A DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST IN

WCD?

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

-4-

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

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

[7] Having regard to the following:

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

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

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

 

-5-

 

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

COULD WCD QUALIFY UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS?

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

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

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

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

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


-6-

 

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

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

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

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

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


-7-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-8-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-9-

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

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

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

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

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

-10-

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

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

DID MR. HAZINEH COMMENCE THE APPLICATION IN TIME?

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

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

-11-

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

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

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

-12-

CONCLUSION

[31] The application is, therefore dismissed.

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

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Justice Sproat’s Decision


MISSISSAUGAWATCH court notes

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

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

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

June 16th, 2013  

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

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


ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Justice Sproat’s Decision


MISSISSAUGAWATCH court notes

 

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

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

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

April 25th, 2013  

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

COURT NOTES DAY 8 April 15, 2013  Elias Hazineh testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Sproat explores what the procedure would be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECESS  UNTIL RECALLED

10:40 am COURT RESUMES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson asks Hazineh if he were aware of the results?

Richardson then asks if Parrish shared outcome with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson asks Hazineh about his relationship with Carolyn Parrish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McIntyre now gives Hazineh Zingaro’s Inquiry transcript.

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

Exhibit 174 in Zingaro testimony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She reads:

 Q: Did you read the article at the time?

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

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

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

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

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

COURT RESUMES AT 12:05

[Ed. I arrive a bit late.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Sproat objects on behalf of Richardson.

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

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

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

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

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

McIntyre counters with is “we” not Parrish?

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

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

And that pretty much ends it.

Richardson will not re-examine.

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

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

COURT  RESUMES

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

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

Content, Kristjanson sits down. Richardson now up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson states that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson introduces the concept of an adverse inference.

He says that:

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

Richardson finishes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kristjanson goes on about:

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

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

Kristjanson now address the defense of Remoteness

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kristjanson now introduces Issue #4. The Time Limitation.

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

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

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

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

Kristjanson refers to Peel Regional bylaw Tab 32.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COURT RECESS

COURT RESUMES AT 3:55

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

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

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

Now evidence of Scott Walker. Page 51.

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

I stopped taking notes… this actually hurts….

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

 

 

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing. 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… ]

SPROAT BREAK TIL 11:50.

COURT RESUMES 11:52 AM

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.

RESUME AT 2 PM. PREDICTS FINISHING AT 4.

COURT RESUMES 2 PM

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.

FINAL QUESTIONS.

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…

QUESTIONS FINISHED.

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!

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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)

 VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS

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.

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS
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.

ROYSON JAMES, TORONTO STAR 2007 billboard "MISSISSAUGA, WHERE THE MOST OVERPAID MUNICIPAL POLITICIANS RESIDE"

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.

RECESS TIL 11:55.

COURT RESUMES at 12:00

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.

COURT NOTES END

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

April 10th, 2013  

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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


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

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

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

Freya Kristjanson, lawyer for Mayor Hazel McCallion, now up

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

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

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

Thomas Richardson, the lawyer representing Elias Hazineh, now up

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

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

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

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

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

Freya Kristjanson back again…

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

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

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

Richardson now presents his case and some background.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court recess.

Judge Sproat enters at 11:55.

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

Richardson still on.

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

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

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

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

Richardson now refers to his Apply Factum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEXT SECTION –ON LIMITATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson is still on the Reply Factum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break til 2:15 PM

Court starts precisely at 2:15 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now onto transition period.

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

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

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

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

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

After recess  3:55 pm and beyond…

Richardson still up.

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson then outlines a chronology of events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson has come to a break in his submission.

Judge will be here tomorrow at 8 am.

COURT NOTES FOR APRIL 8, 2013 END

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

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

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

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

February 7th, 2013  

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

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

As always, the video, complete with video transcript.

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

 [VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there,

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

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

Anyways, I hope you’ll consider it.

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

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

I was more interested in ethical issues.

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

Anyway, “Joe Citizen” writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. Here we go:

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

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

And that’s the last of the thing here.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

 

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

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

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

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

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

December 2nd, 2012  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antonella Artuso quotes as saying:

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

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

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

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

From warrenkinsella.com

Punk and politics: the Ford begone party (updated)

November 30th, 2012, 3:48 pm

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

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

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

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

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

As I tweeted earlier on:

MISSISSAUGAWATCH@MISSISSAUGAMUSE

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

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

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

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

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

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

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

DSC_6011c » Councillor Ron Starr ~ Mississauga Ward 6

So who’s Lorry Smith?

[cut-and-paste]

Name: Lorry Smith

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

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

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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

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

November 29th, 2012  

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

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

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

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Council Chambers, November 29, 2012

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

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

He’s Above the Rules.

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

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

Never in a million years.

And a lot of people are in shock.

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

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

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

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Council Chambers, November 29, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

Was it willful?

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

ROB FORD MIDDLE FINGER

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

This guy does not do Rules.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

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

And gets almost some answers.

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



(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

 

 

 

 

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

October 13th, 2012  

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

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

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

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

JIM TOVEY, DECEPTIVE FLYER, WARD 1, MISSISSAUGA

So here’s the video I made.

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

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

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

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

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

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

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

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:

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

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

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera, October 28, 2009

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

DIP TO BLACK

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

Councillor Corbasson…

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON, October 28, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you…

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 15) Compliance with the Code of Conduct

January 30th, 2012  

 

MISSISSAUGA GOOD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE   January 23 2012
This blog is a continuation of the following blog entries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 14) Acting on Advice of Integrity Commissioner. Page 30 of the Code.

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

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

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


The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 31 –final page begins)

 Rule No. 18

Compliance with the Code of Conduct:

1. Upon receipt of recommendations from the Integrity Commissioner, Council may, in
circumstances where the Integrity Commissioner has determined there has been a violation
of the Code of Conduct, impose either of two penalties:

i) a reprimand; or
ii) suspension of the remuneration paid to the Member in respect of his/her services as a Member of Council or a local board, as the case may be, for a period of up to 90 days

[Interesting reference to “a local board”. It’s not really defined. However, regarding “board” it looks like the Code’s Rule No. 9 Conduct of Council at Committee Meetings and When Representing the City states:

3. Members shall make every effort to participate diligently in the activities of the committees, agencies, boards, commissions and advisory committees to which they are appointed by the City or by virtue of being an elected official.

The 2001 Municipal Act defines “local board” as:

“local board” means a municipal service board, transportation commission, public library board, board of health, police services board, planning board, or any other board, commission, committee, body or local authority established or exercising any power under any Act with respect to the affairs or purposes of one or more municipalities, excluding a school board and a conservation authority; (“conseil local”)

The 2001 Municipal Act authorizes municipalities to establish their own codes of conduct as seen here:

Code of conduct

223.2(1)  Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize the municipality to establish codes of conduct for members of the council of the municipality and of local boards of the municipality. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.

So, the City’s Council Code of Conduct’s reference to “local board” and the 2001 Municipal Act’s definition of “local board” would suggest that conduct of elected officials sitting on the Peel Police Services Board would fall within the mandate of the Integrity Commissioner.

Nope, sorry —citizens can’t get there from here. The 2001 Municipal Act ensured that elected officials sitting on police services boards are exempt from investigations by municipal integrity commissioners!

For the record, the 2001 Municipal Act, Part V.1, (ironically named) the “ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY” section, authorizes integrity commissioners to investigate “local boards”, then changes the meaning of “local boards” as defined in Part 1 of the Act!

“local board” means a local board other than,

(a) a society as defined in subsection 3 (1) of the Child and Family Services Act,

(b) a board of health as defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act,

(c) a committee of management established under the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007,

(d) a police services board established under the Police Services Act,

(e) a board as defined in section 1 of the Public Libraries Act,

(f) a corporation established in accordance with section 203,

(g) such other local boards as may be prescribed; (“conseil local”)

And any elected officials sitting on any of these “local boards” are exempt! And notice that malevolent “(g) such other local boards as may be prescribed; (“conseil local”)”?  If I’m reading that correctly, elected officials can exempt any other local board they don’t want the integrity commissioner peeping into. Most obvious example would be elected officials sitting on the Enersource Board! Back to Page 31 of the Code.]

2. The Integrity Commissioner may also recommend that Council take the following actions:

i) removal from membership of a committee;
ii) removal as chair of a committee;
iii) repayment or reimbursement of monies received;
iv) return of property or reimbursement of its value;
v) a written and/or verbal request for an apology to Council, the complainant, or both.

[Items i) and ii) should prove interesting… Back to Page 31 of the Code.]

Commentary

Members are accountable to the public through the election process. Between elections they
may become disqualified and lose their seat if convicted of an offence under the Criminal
Code of Canada or for failing to declare a conflict of personal interest under the Municipal
Conflict of Interest Act, or for certain violations of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

[This paragraph is a wordy-wordy way of saying, “Members are only accountable on during the few hours every four years when the voting booth is open” … Back to Page 30 of the Code.]

In addition, the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes Council to impose either of the two penalties
on a Member following a report by the Integrity Commissioner that, in his/her opinion, there
has been a violation of the Code of Conduct.

[A “reasonably informed person” would suspect that the Municipal Act, 2001 was written to favour municipalities, not the citizens they serve. A “reasonably informed person” would also suspect that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) lobbied into overdrive massaging the Act to their advantage —meaning, create the illusion of accountability for the naive reader.  “Naive” is not meant to be derogatory —few people could be as naive as I once was.

Here’s something else. The 2001 Municipal Act grants integrity commissioners the power to transfer their powers and duties to “any person”. From the Act:

(3)  The [Integrity] Commissioner may delegate in writing to any person, other than a member of council, any of the Commissioner’s powers and duties under this Part. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.

Imagine how that section can be misused!

And the Municipal Act’s truly contemptuous of the public with this statement:

(5)  The [Integrity] Commissioner is not required to be a municipal employee. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.

Fact is, once hired by Mayor and Councillors, the Integrity Commissioner becomes a municipal employee!

The public are such SUCKERS!

31

END OF PAGE 31, THE LAST PAGE OF THE CODE.

I’ve finished going line by line through all 31 pages of the City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct.

Now comes the hard part…

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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

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

January 26th, 2012  

 

MISSISSAUGA GOOD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE   January 23 2012
This blog is a continuation of the following blog entries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, for the record, my goal is to go through The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word as preparation for future Council deputations. Once again, I will cut-and-paste the City of Mississauga Code of Conduct directly into this blog entry and offer comment/criticism [bold italics square brackets] when the need arises. Those interested in accessing the full version of City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct April 2011 please click here.

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 27 begins)

Rule No. 14

Employment of Council Relatives/Family Members

1. No Member shall attempt to influence the outcome, or to influence any City employee to
hire or promote a Family Member.

[File a complaint under Item 1 and good luck with that! And if you suspect something rotten happening with hiring, you certainly can’t build a case using Freedom of Information. Hiring practices and employee relations are beyond the reach of the province’s Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. Back to Page 27 of the Code.]

2. No Members shall make any decision or participate in the process to hire, transfer,
promote, demote, discipline or terminate any Family Member.

[Notice how Item 2 left out,”No Members shall make any decision or participate in the process of salary negotiations.”

And same criticism can be leveled in Item 1. If you suspect something rotten happening with hiring, you certainly can’t build a case using Freedom of Information. Employment issues and employee relations are beyond the reach of Freedom of Information. Back to Page 27 of the Code.]

3. No Member shall supervise a Family Member, or be placed in a position of influence over
a Family Member.

4. No Member shall attempt to use a family relationship for his or her personal benefit or
gain.

[Like Items 3 and 4 are enforceable… Back to Page 27 of the Code.]

5. Every Member shall adhere to the City’s Candidate Selection Process policy.

[Before reading this I had no idea the City had a Candidate Selection Process policy. I discover any new Corporate policy like this and I’m reminded of the City’s chronic disregard for compliance and its corporate culture of looking the other way.  Back to Page 27 of the Code.]

Commentary

If a Family Member of a Councillor is an applicant for employment with the City or is a
candidate for promotion or transfer, the Family Member will proceed through the usual
selection process pursuant to the City’s hiring policies, with no special consideration.

[So what do you think your chances are if you’re competing for the same City position as (say) Ron Starr’s daughter or for the same Peel Police job as (say) Hazel McCallion’s son?]

27

END OF PAGE 27 OF THE CODE.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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

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

January 11th, 2012  

Yesterday’s blog, Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 5) WTF?! “information deemed to be ‘personal information’ under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act”?! dealt with Rule No 4 of the City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct.

Rule No 4, Item 2 of the Code made reference to a Corporate Policy that I’d never heard of before —the City of Mississauga’s Elected Officials’ Records policy.

The City of Mississauga’s Elected Officials’ Records policy appears nowhere online, so we figured that we needed to make it accessible to the public before going on to Rule No 5.

We offer the Policy here in its entirety —making it searchable and “cut-and-pastable”.  Please click here for the City of Mississauga’s Elected Officials’ Records policy pdf file kindly provided by the City Clerk’s office.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Corporate
Policy and
Procedure
[Logo of Corporation of City Of Mississauga] Policy No. 03-02-09
Page 1 of 3
Effective Date  2008 02 13
Supersedes

 TAB:  CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION
 SECTION:  RECORDS MANAGEMENT
 SUBJECT:  ELECTED OFFICIALS’ RECORDS

POLICY STATEMENT Records held by City of Mississauga elected officials will be identified and dealt with in accordance with this policy.
PURPOSE The City of Mississauga differentiates between official civic records held by elected officials and constituency records. The purpose of this policy is to define “official” and “constituency” records and to outline the procedures for dealing with these records.
SCOPE This policy applies to all records held by City of Mississauga elected officials.
DEFINITIONS “Constituency Record” means a Record which relates to a member of Council acting in the capacity of an elected representative of a constituent and relates to the member’s mandate and function as an elected representative only.”Non-Record Material” means material that is not included in the scope of Official Records and that has no documentary value to the City (e.g. convenience copies, reference material, publications).”Official Record” means an original Record which is either created or received by a department, division or officer of the City, related to a business function of the City.”Record” means any record of information regardless of format (i.e. paper, microfilm, electronic mail, documents or systems).

Corporate
Policy and
Procedure
[Logo of Corporation of City Of Mississauga] Policy No. 03-02-09
Page 2 of 3
Effective Date 2008 02 13
Supersedes

OFFICIAL RECORDS Official Records generally relate to a business function of the City, and include:
•    any Record received or created by an elected official for inclusion in committee meeting agendas;
•    any Record received or created by an elected official acting in the capacity as a Committee Chair, including correspondence;
•    any Record received or created by an elected official acting in the capacity of a representative of the City;
•    the Mayor’s records that relate to mayoral duties, since the Mayor, as Head of Council is considered an “officer” of the City;
•    any Record regarding office space allocation, supplies, equipment, and services;
•    any Record related to expenses paid by the City, including reimbursements to the elected official;
•    any Record related to the elected official’s staff, if kept by the particular elected official;
•    operating procedures-and manuals; and
•    any Constituency Records that have been transmitted to City staff for action by the business unit or for information purposes.

Official Records will be deemed to be within the City’s custody or control.

 CONSTITUENCY RECORDS  Constituency Records relate to issues the elected official is dealing with involving one or more members of the public and may include:
•    personal papers;
•    mailing lists;
•    the elected official’s own records on any Committee or Board;
•    subject files;
•    Non-Record Material.

Corporate
Policy and
Procedure
[Logo of Corporation of City Of Mississauga] Policy No. 03-02-09
Page 3 of 3
Effective Date 2008 02 13
Supersedes

Constituency Records are generally deemed not to be within the City’s custody or control and may be dealt with by each elected official as he or she chooses. However, any Constituency Record that is transmitted to City staff for action by a business unit, or for information purposes, is deemed to be within the City’s custody or control and will be treated as an Official Record.
REFERENCE: GC-0059-2008 – 2008 02 13
LAST REVIEW DATE: May, 2011
CONTACT: For more information, contact the Office of the City Clerk, Corporate Services Department.

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

January 10th, 2012  

This blog is a continuation of the following blog entries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct.

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


Rule No. 4

Confidential Information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14

END OF PAGE 14 OF THE CODE. PAGE 15 BEGINS

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

15

END OF PAGE 15 OF THE CODE.

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Ursula
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

1. The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct April 2011

2. Canada in the Making Common Law and Civil Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Ted Woloshyn, Toronto Sun

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

November 3rd, 2011  

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

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

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

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

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

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

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

How do you ensure that Youth thrive?

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

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

And let’s put here, “(and buses)”

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

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

[CLOCK-WIPE]

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

Councillor Iannicca.

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

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

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

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

Yee-up.

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

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

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

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

Period. Full Stop.

That’s what he actually said.

[DIP TO BLACK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DIP TO BLACK]

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

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

[DIP TO BLACK]

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

Do any of you read a newspaper?

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

That’s right.

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

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

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

“Ethical Infrastructure”.

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

Right.

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

To use the words that the Justice used.

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

Do you know what happened to me a week ago?

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

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

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

Well, I’m not.

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

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

[applauds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good for you.

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

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

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

[applauds] Good for you.

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

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

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

My God.

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

Absolutely.

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

Nando—

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

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

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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

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

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

November 2nd, 2011  

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

Memorandum [Corporate logo for City of Mississauga]

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

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

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

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

  1. Mayor’s Gala Fund

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

  2. Need for a Judicial Inquiry

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

  3. Enersource/Borealis Veto

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

  4. The City must have a Hotel Convention Centre

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

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

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

  6. Role of the Office of the Mayor

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

[Iannicca memo ends]

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

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

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse

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

October 11th, 2011  

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

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

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from Mississauga Council Chambers, October 3, 2011

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

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

Ethical Infrastructure.

[CROSS DISSOLVE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

 

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

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

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)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

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—

[DIP TO WHITE]

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):

Yes

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—

[DIP TO BLACK}
[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT END]

GENERAL COMMITTEE
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MISSISSAUGA
http://www.mississauga.ca
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.

RECOMMENDATION

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
FA.16.Com

MISSISSAUGA NEWS

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. 

HAZEL MCCALLION CONFLICT OF INTEREST: FAILURE TO DECLARE AUDIO MAY 21, 2008 (1:22 min)

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

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Hazel McCallion and “mega-builder” Harold Shipp strut their stuff at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry!

September 22nd, 2010  

It was one remarkable week at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry with Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion testifying yessirholyjumpin’.

Regular readers will know that the focus of MISSISSAUGAWATCH is to document the chronic (and callous) disregard of policies, procedures, guidelines, by-laws and even provincial legislation by City of Mississauga Staff. This isn’t idle allegation, but an evidence-based conclusion based of over $2,000 worth of Freedom of Information and audio/videotape that goes back all the way to 2004 —actually, even earlier.

So imagine my disgust when Hazel McCallion testified under that oath that her City Staff are:

 13  very professional and they follow the policies very,
 14  very, very diligently. 

And Commission Counsel have video submissions by me confirming flagrant violation to policies. Indeed isn’t that what the entire Inquiry has revealed?

I repeat. The City of Mississauga is morally beyond redemption.  Or—in the words of a youth who emailed me—the System is “CORRUPT there is no way to fix it.” And now this City of MYTHissauga is poised to hire their own integrity commissioner to ratch up The Pretend another notch!

So that’s been my week and I hope yours was better.

On to the videos.

The first features Hazel McCallion arriving, departing, avoiding answering pithy media questions on September 20, 2010 in and around the Burnthamthorpe Courthouse.

The second video gives the viewer an idea of what happened September 20, 2010—the Mayor coming, going, coming out of a pre-trial meeting with her lawyers, you know, the usual. Should you watch to the end, you get a special treat.

The last video, Harold Shipp demonstrates support of public transit at Hazel McCallion’s testimony is just a reminder to citizens that Harold Shipp owns Mississauga. With this video, we also provide a transcript.

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION Mississauga Judicial September 20, 2010 arriving, leaving etc (6:57 min)

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

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION Mississauga Judicial September 21, 2010 arriving, leaving etc (7:27 min)

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

Video: Harold Shipp demonstrates support of public transit at Hazel McCallion’s testimony (1:14 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

“Mega-builder” HAROLD SHIPP, threatening any Mississauga Councillors who’d vote for the Judicial Inquiry (October 28, 2009):

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

MISSISSAUGAWATCH as she watched “Mega-builder” HAROLD SHIPP, drive away after attending Hazel McCallion’s testimony at the Judicial Inquiry (September 21, 2010):

We now record Harold Shipp’s commitment to public transit.

(closeup) Yeah, this is a Mississauga Transit articulated bus here.

Yeah, developers do really really really well in this fine city. There he goes…

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS

[Music: “Make a Move” courtesy Probangers.com]

Mega-developer Harold Shipp's commitment public transportation

No matter where you are in Ontario, MISSISSAUGAWATCH urges you to ask your municipal candidates:

Are you prepared, as part of your platform, to demand change in Provincial legislation and extend the investigative authority of the Ontario Ombudsman to include Municipalities (MUSH sector)?

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry: Corporate “ethical” Policies apply when Testifying (Plus MISSISSAUGAWATCH now in High Definition)

August 16th, 2010  

MISSISSAUGAWATCH is now in High Definition!

What follows is video of a report I filed outside the Mississauga Burnhamthorpe Court House yesterday introducing two City of Mississauga Corporate policies that will have relevance at this week’s Judicial Inquiry hearings.

We combine our High Definition video narrative with archival footage from the May 23, 2007 Mississauga Council meeting as well as the May 11, 2009 Audit Committee meeting.

We begin. The video and the transcript.

Video: Mississauga Judicial Inquiry: Corporate “ethical” Policies apply when Testifying (4:50 min HD)

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

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (Reporting outside Burhamthorpe Court House, August 15, 2010):

It is Sunday, August the 14th, 2010 —at least I think it’s the 14th, I do know that it’s a Sunday, and I’m parked here outside the Burnhamthorpe Court House where tomorrow we’re going to start a week of very interesting testimony.

City Manager, Janice Baker is due to testify at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry hearings this week. And it’s going to be really interesting —fascinating! It’s of all of the testimony, it’s Ms. Baker’s that I’m the most interested in this week.

And that’s because I’m reminded of a -an exchange between her and Mayor Hazel McCallion in May 2007 and that was when the City introduced its Respectful Workplace Policy. And Hazel McCallion said—

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Could you put the Mission Statement on again?

I’m wondering why you haven’t included “Based on its values of Honesty Trust, Quality and Excellence”—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (Reporting outside Burhamthorpe Court House, August 15, 2010):

And then she said—

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Why you haven’t included the word “honesty”?

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (Reporting outside Burhamthorpe Court House, August 15, 2010):

You have Trust, Quality and Excellence, why didn’t you use Honesty? Honesty with the citizens.

MISSISSAUGA CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Um, Madam Mayor, I think from our perspective, these are the values that come out of a series of discussions and workshops certainly at the staff level. I think we all believe that honesty is the basis of trust. So I—

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

I hope so.

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Oh well—

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

I hope so.

MISSISSAUGA CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Well, clearly. I mean you can’t, you cannot ha—

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

On the part of Council. And on the part of Staff.

MISSISSAUGA CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Well our values—

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Honesty with the citizens.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (Reporting outside Burhamthorpe Court House, August 15, 2010):

And —it was fascinating, especially considering what Freedom of Information has shown me about the Dishonesty. That is the lack of an ethical infrastructure at the City of Mississauga. And what’s interesting is Janice Baker responded with—

MISSISSAUGA CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007):

Our Values are universal.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (Reporting outside Burhamthorpe Court House, August 15, 2010):

“Our Values are universal.”

Given the chronic lack of compliance to Corporate policies, that either have been confirmed —definitely Freedom of Information. That the Audit Committee has confirmed time and again! Chronic lack of compliance to Corporate polices including Hazel McCallion herself bemoaning the complete disregard for Policy by City Staff.

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION  (Audit Committee meeting, May 11, 2009):

So now we’re gonna set one up. Fine.

Someone:

Yeah.

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

If we set one up, it better be followed. That is the key. No use setting it up if it’s not going to be followed. You know, I don’t know why there’s such a disregard for policy.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (Reporting outside Burhamthorpe Court House, August 15, 2010):

There are two Corporate policies that apply when Staff are giving testimony at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Not just that they’re going to raise their hands and say, “I do solemnly swear” and stuff like that.

There’s also two Corporate policies. The first is, as I’ve already mentioned, the Corporate Respectful Workplace Policy that governs the honesty with the citizens and just Trust, Quality and Excellence. Their Universal Values.

So it’s going to be really interesting how both City Manager, Janice Baker as well as the Director of Planning and Building [sic] are going to testify.

The other Corporate policy that is going to apply is the City of Mississauga Corporate Employee Code of Conduct which applies to all employees and not just while they’re at work. They say that even out-outside they represent the City of Mississauga and they’re not to do anything that in any way jeopardize the reputation of the City. Which is an interesting way of putting it.

So. We’ve got two policies —the Employee Code of Conduct which applies only to employees and the Corporate Respectful Workplace Policy that applies both to City employees but also to the politicians themselves.

So, what’s interesting though is that the- there’s two Corporate —

—BRAND NEW SONY HIGH DEFINITION CAMERA FALLS TO THE FLOOR.
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

EMAIL RECEIVED FROM A (perceptive) YOUTH THROUGH YOUTUBE

Lawyer’s conclusion: That Peter McCallion could not be considered to be the son of the Mayor (Hazel McCallion)

August 10th, 2010  

Yes, just the video and transcript again today.  You won’t believe it. The City got a legal opinion from Stanley Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers) concluding that Peter McCallion, for material purposes, was not actually the son of the Mayor, Hazel McCallion.

Yep.

And so here’s the video of that exchange —followed by the court transcript.

Video: Peter McCallion could not be considered to be the son of Mayor Hazel McCallion (2:31 min)

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

August 10, 2010 VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS
[note: “he” refers to Stanley Makuch Cassels Brock Lawyers]


WILLIAM MCDOWELL (Commission Counsel):

—And then you’ll see, going down that page, that he comes to the conclusion that Peter McCallion, for material purposes, was not actually the son of the Mayor.

MARY ELLEN BENCH (City Solicitor, City of Mississauga):

Yeah.

WILLIAM MCDOWELL (Commission Counsel):

Go to the next page, page 7. He came to the view, I gather, that unless there was a financially dependent relationship that Peter McCallion could not be considered to be the son of the Mayor?

MARY ELLEN BENCH (City Solicitor, City of Mississauga):

That’s correct.

WILLIAM MCDOWELL (Commission Counsel):

All right. Apart from this letter, did he ever offer any authority for that view?

MARY ELLEN BENCH (City Solicitor, City of Mississauga):

He never offered an explanation at all. And it’s contrary to the case he cited and it’s contrary to the definition of child in the lac — in the Act, so…

WILLIAM MCDOWELL (Commission Counsel):

Right. And — and I guess we could add out of that, I take it that he was not aware that the Mayor was one of the trustees of a trust to provide for the benefit of Peter McCallion?

MARY ELLEN BENCH (City Solicitor, City of Mississauga):

I certainly would not have provided that information to him —

WILLIAM MCDOWELL (Commission Counsel):

Right. So — so as far as we know he didn’t know that either?

MARY ELLEN BENCH (City Solicitor, City of Mississauga):

That is correct.

[CROSSZOOM]

Part Two. The above exchange is repeated and pairs video of Peter McCallion and Not-his-Mom Mayor Hazel McCallion at the January 1, 2009 Mayor’s New Year’s Levee at Mississauga Council Chambers. Orphan Peter also talks story with Councillor Katie “Friends of Hazel” Mahoney and her hubbie Steve Mahoney. Complete with music!

Last, here is the Stanley Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers) report, “Conflict of Interest – Ltr November 11, 2009 – from Mary Ellen Bench To Stanley Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers)“.

THE MISSISSAUGA MUSE (MISSISSAUGAWATCH)

Below is Mississauga News coverage of the judicial inquiry to date.

Mayor was ‘in a conflict situation’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/858706–mayor-was-in-a-conflict-situation

WCD bid skirted usual fees
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/858489–wcd-bid-skirted-usual-fees

Minutes not altered: witness
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/858318–minutes-not-altered-witness

Consultant didn’t deal with McCallions
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/858089–consultant-denies-dealings-with-mccallions

Inquiry resumes next week
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/857352–inquiry-resumes-next-week

City may sue mayor’s son for $150,000
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/856831–city-may-sue-mayor-s-son-for-150-000

Council okays $250,000 more for mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/856578–council-okays-250-000-more-for-mayor

What price truth?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/855846–what-price-truth

Mayor should step down
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/855844–mayor-should-step-down

McCallions’ inquiry tab could top $500,000
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855622–mccallions-inquiry-tab-could-top-500-000

Mayor not helped by son’s testimony
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855587–mayor-not-helped-by-son-s-testimony

McCallion should pay: Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855047–mccallion-should-pay-parrish

‘I did nothing wrong’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854557–i-did-nothing-wrong

Firm thought McCallion was a real estate agent, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854348–firm-thought-mccallion-was-a-real-estate-agent-inquiry-told

City wasn’t fleeced in land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854255–city-wasn-t-fleeced-in-land-deal

Son misled mayor, lawyer suggests
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853946–son-misled-mayor-lawyer-suggests

McCallion sticks up for mom
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853823–mccallion-sticks-up-for-mom

McCallion’s memory tested
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853442–mccallion-s-memory-tested

Mayor pushed her son’s project
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853143–mayor-pushed-her-son-s-project

Mayor’s son on the hot seat
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853105–mayor-s-son-on-the-hot-seat

Not a principal: McCallion
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852904–not-a-principal-mccallion

McCallion co-signed loan
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852871–mccallion-co-signed-loan

Mayor an ’emissary’ for son’s company: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852774–mayor-an-emissary-for-son-s-company-lawyer

O’Brien was also involved in Sheridan deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852668–o-brien-was-also-involved-in-sheridan-deal

Lawyers prepare for battle at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852401–lawyers-prepare-for-battle-at-inquiry

Hazel vouched for son’s partner
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852375–hazel-vouched-for-son-s-partner

Mayor’s son to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852244–mayor-s-son-to-testify

OMERS denies inflating land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/848667–omers-denies-inflating-land-deal

Code needed at City
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/847289–code-needed-at-city

Company received $4M payout
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/847088–company-received-4m-payout

City seeks public review of ethics code
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846865–city-seeks-public-review-of-ethics-code

Company received $4M pay-out over hotel deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846702–company-received-4m-pay-out-over-hotel-deal

Voters will decide
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/845495–voters-will-decide

Process can’t be muzzled
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/845494–process-can-t-be-muzzled

Mayor pushed deal, Inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845386–mayor-pushed-deal-inquiry-told

Mayor linked to meeting
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845348–mayor-linked-to-meeting

Mayor pushed for hotel in City Centre
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845305–mayor-pushed-for-hotel-in-city-centre

Judge shoots down mayor’s request
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844957–judge-shoots-down-mayor-s-request

Was it legal?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/844106–was-it-legal

Mayor cries foul at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844048–mayor-cries-foul-at-inquiry

Inquiry hits another roadblock
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/842350–inquiry-hits-another-roadblock

Questions remain
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/841093–questions-remain

Inquiry costs now expected to hit $5 million
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/840203–inquiry-costs-now-expected-to-hit-5-million

Inquiry may hurt Enersource: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/839993–inquiry-may-hurt-enersource-lawyer

‘I am not stepping down’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838087–i-am-not-stepping-down

Inquiry’s second phase begins in July
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838006–inquiry-s-second-phase-begins-in-july

‘I forget‚’ doesn’t cut it
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/837377–i-forget-doesn-t-cut-it

Council told of veto: Mahoney
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833782–council-told-of-veto-mahoney

Mahoney set to testify at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833374–mahoney-set-to-testify-at-inquiry

Mahoney called to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/832789–mahoney-called-to-testify

Councillor asks for fees
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831724–councillor-asks-for-fees

Mayor’s legal fees capped
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831432–mayor-s-legal-fees-capped

Inquiry costs climb
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/830589–inquiry-costs-climb

Lawyers want more to represent mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/829779–lawyers-want-more-to-represent-mayor

McCallion calls out Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/828112–mccallion-calls-out-parrish

Mayor denies knowing of veto
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/827766–mayor-denies-knowing-of-veto

Deal negotiated improperly, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/826715–deal-negotiated-improperly-inquiry-hears

Mayor on stand tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823922–mayor-on-stand-tomorrow

Enersource deal ‘terrific’ for Mississauga
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823722–enersource-deal-terrific-for-mississauga

Enersource deal nixed by inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823414–enersource-deal-nixed-by-inquiry

We’ll all pay a share
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/822510–we-ll-all-pay-a-share

Former City manager vague in details
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/822193–former-city-manager-vague-in-details

Councillors should have known about veto, deal maker says
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821795–councillors-should-have-known-about-veto-deal-maker-says

Files stay sealed
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821442–files-stay-sealed

City set to approve full funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821229–city-set-to-approve-full-funding-for-mayor-s-son

City key to OMERS, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821186–city-key-to-omers-inquiry-told

No common sense
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/821055–no-common-sense

High stakes drama
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/821054–high-stakes-drama

Enersource powers ‘changed’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820981–enersource-powers-changed

Hydro deal took years to probe, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820827–hydro-deal-took-years-to-probe-inquiry-hears

Judicial inquiry starts today
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820606–judicial-inquiry-starts-today

Inquiry starts tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820581–inquiry-starts-tomorrow

Mayor to testify June 2
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818995–mayor-to-testify-june-2

Councillors consider code of ethics
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818976–councillors-consider-code-of-ethics

Council code of conduct on agenda
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818368–council-code-of-conduct-on-agenda

More money for Mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817504–more-money-for-mayor-s-son

Commissioner to rule on funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817197–commissioner-to-rule-on-funding-for-mayor-s-son

Inquiry costs at $1.5M and rising
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/815604–inquiry-costs-at-1-5m-and-rising

Lawyer wrong about campaign, mayor says
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/812946–lawyer-wrong-about-campaign-mayor-says

Inquiry schedule released
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/808796–inquiry-schedule-released

Inquiry will hurt campaign: Lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/808205–inquiry-will-hurt-campaign-lawyer

The News makes motion at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/808197–the-news-makes-motion-at-inquiry

Keep inquiry open
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/806192–keep-inquiry-open

No go for ‘citizen journalists’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/806075–no-go-for-citizen-journalists

The News wants affidavit made public
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/805668–the-news-wants-affidavit-made-public

Split decision for citizen journalists
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/805386–split-decision-for-citizen-journalists

Council nixes legal fees for councillors
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/801673–council-nixes-legal-fees-for-councillors

‘Layers’ of land deal probed
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/704572–layers-of-land-deal-probed

Inquiry to hear from ‘citizen journalists’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/661747–inquiry-to-hear-from-citizen-journalists

Judicial inquiry costs continue to grow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/658728–judicial-inquiry-costs-continue-to-grow

Mayor submits documents
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/650744–mayor-submits-documents

Someone should pay
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/650294–someone-should-pay

Mayor’s record-keeping under scrutiny
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/650221–mayor-s-record-keeping-under-scrutiny

Cut off the cash
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/647500–cut-off-the-cash

Inquiry searches for paper trail
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/627010–inquiry-searches-for-paper-trail

City ‘targeting’ mayor’s son?
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/626648–city-targeting-mayor-s-son

No apologies
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/625718–no-apologies

Mayor’s son to ask for more public money
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/625569–mayor-s-son-to-ask-for-more-public-money

Delay sparks speculation
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/625357–delay-sparks-speculation

Councillors rethinking legal fees for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/621333–councillors-rethinking-legal-fees-for-mayor-s-son

Inquiry to begin May 17
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/620801–inquiry-to-begin-may-17

Taxpayers shoulder Mayor’s legal bill
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/607170–taxpayers-shoulder-mayor-s-legal-bill

Stand up and vote

http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/603522–stand-up-and-vote

Costs mounting at judicial inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/507888–costs-mounting-at-judicial-inquiry

Inquiry probe ‘going well’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/412749–inquiry-probe-going-well

Ground broken for college campus
http://www.mississauga.com/news/local/article/244665–ground-broken-for-college-campus

City asked to foot legal bills

http://www.mississauga.com/news/local/article/244243–city-asked-to-foot-legal-bills

Judicial inquiry begins
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/230647–judicial-inquiry-begins

Judicial inquiry gets underway
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/230043–judicial-inquiry-gets-underway

Hundreds back mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/219491–hundreds-back-mayor

McCallion accused of negotiating commissions
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/218099–mccallion-accused-of-negotiating-commissions

Duty bound
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/217940–duty-bound

Matter of priorities
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/217379–matter-of-priorities

‘Support Hazel’ rally planned
http://www.mississauga.com/news/local/article/217336–support-hazel-rally-planned

Optics over ethics
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/216653–optics-over-ethics

Don’t ease up
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/216174–don-t-ease-up

Stay on point
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/216171–stay-on-point

Letter of the week
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/162030–letter-of-the-week

Judge picked for inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/161865–judge-picked-for-inquiry

Council votes to limit judicial probe
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/161601–council-votes-to-limit-judicial-probe

Petition aims to cancel judicial probe
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/161286–petition-aims-to-cancel-judicial-probe

Call to account
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/160097–call-to-account

Scrap the inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/159468–scrap-the-inquiry

Road cleared for City probe
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/157939–road-cleared-for-city-probe

Wide net cast for judicial inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/157162–wide-net-cast-for-judicial-inquiry

Needs review
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/154742–needs-review

Judicial inquiry ‘extraordinary’: Solicitor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/154725–judicial-inquiry-extraordinary-solicitor

Parameters for inquiry in the works
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/152884–parameters-for-inquiry-in-the-works

Investigation or witch hunt?
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/152614–investigation-or-witch-hunt

Inquiry the only choice
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/152584–inquiry-the-only-choice

Mayor could face inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/152355–mayor-could-face-inquiry

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

August 6th, 2010  

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

Quote:

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

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

And so the video and of course, the transcript.

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

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

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

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

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

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

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

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

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

That’s right.

CITY SOLICITOR MARY ELLEN BENCH:

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

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

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

Thank you.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

Good.

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS:

&quot;MISSISSAUGA  CONFLICT OF INTEREST JUDICIAL INQUIRY OCTOBER 28&quot; &quot;2009 COUNCIL MEETING (Audience AGAINST the Review)&quot;

Judicial inquiry coverage

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

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

Related Stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is our coverage of the judicial inquiry to date.

Council okays $250,000 more for mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/856578–council-okays-250-000-more-for-mayor

What price truth?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/855846–what-price-truth

Mayor should step down
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/855844–mayor-should-step-down

McCallions’ inquiry tab could top $500,000
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855622–mccallions-inquiry-tab-could-top-500-000

Mayor not helped by son’s testimony
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855587–mayor-not-helped-by-son-s-testimony

McCallion should pay: Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855047–mccallion-should-pay-parrish

‘I did nothing wrong’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854557–i-did-nothing-wrong

Firm thought McCallion was a real estate agent, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854348–firm-thought-mccallion-was-a-real-estate-agent-inquiry-told

City wasn’t fleeced in land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854255–city-wasn-t-fleeced-in-land-deal

Son misled mayor, lawyer suggests
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853946–son-misled-mayor-lawyer-suggests

McCallion sticks up for mom
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853823–mccallion-sticks-up-for-mom

McCallion’s memory tested
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853442–mccallion-s-memory-tested

Mayor pushed her son’s project
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853143–mayor-pushed-her-son-s-project

Mayor’s son on the hot seat
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853105–mayor-s-son-on-the-hot-seat

Not a principal: McCallion
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852904–not-a-principal-mccallion

McCallion co-signed loan
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852871–mccallion-co-signed-loan

Mayor an ’emissary’ for son’s company: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852774–mayor-an-emissary-for-son-s-company-lawyer

O’Brien was also involved in Sheridan deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852668–o-brien-was-also-involved-in-sheridan-deal

Lawyers prepare for battle at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852401–lawyers-prepare-for-battle-at-inquiry

Hazel vouched for son’s partner
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852375–hazel-vouched-for-son-s-partner

Mayor’s son to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852244–mayor-s-son-to-testify

OMERS denies inflating land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/848667–omers-denies-inflating-land-deal

Code needed at City
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/847289–code-needed-at-city

Company received $4M payout
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/847088–company-received-4m-payout

City seeks public review of ethics code
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846865–city-seeks-public-review-of-ethics-code

Company received $4M pay-out over hotel deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846702–company-received-4m-pay-out-over-hotel-deal

Voters will decide
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/845495–voters-will-decide

Process can’t be muzzled
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/845494–process-can-t-be-muzzled

Mayor pushed deal, Inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845386–mayor-pushed-deal-inquiry-told

Mayor linked to meeting
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845348–mayor-linked-to-meeting

Mayor pushed for hotel in City Centre
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845305–mayor-pushed-for-hotel-in-city-centre

Judge shoots down mayor’s request
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844957–judge-shoots-down-mayor-s-request

Was it legal?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/844106–was-it-legal

Mayor cries foul at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844048–mayor-cries-foul-at-inquiry

Inquiry hits another roadblock
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/842350–inquiry-hits-another-roadblock

Questions remain
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/841093–questions-remain

Inquiry costs now expected to hit $5 million
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/840203–inquiry-costs-now-expected-to-hit-5-million

Inquiry may hurt Enersource: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/839993–inquiry-may-hurt-enersource-lawyer

‘I am not stepping down’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838087–i-am-not-stepping-down

Inquiry’s second phase begins in July
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838006–inquiry-s-second-phase-begins-in-july

‘I forget‚’ doesn’t cut it
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/837377–i-forget-doesn-t-cut-it

Council told of veto: Mahoney
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833782–council-told-of-veto-mahoney

Mahoney set to testify at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833374–mahoney-set-to-testify-at-inquiry

Mahoney called to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/832789–mahoney-called-to-testify

Councillor asks for fees
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831724–councillor-asks-for-fees

Mayor’s legal fees capped
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831432–mayor-s-legal-fees-capped

Inquiry costs climb
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/830589–inquiry-costs-climb

Lawyers want more to represent mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/829779–lawyers-want-more-to-represent-mayor

McCallion calls out Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/828112–mccallion-calls-out-parrish

Mayor denies knowing of veto
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/827766–mayor-denies-knowing-of-veto

Deal negotiated improperly, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/826715–deal-negotiated-improperly-inquiry-hears

Mayor on stand tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823922–mayor-on-stand-tomorrow

Enersource deal ‘terrific’ for Mississauga
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823722–enersource-deal-terrific-for-mississauga

Enersource deal nixed by inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823414–enersource-deal-nixed-by-inquiry

We’ll all pay a share
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/822510–we-ll-all-pay-a-share

Former City manager vague in details
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/822193–former-city-manager-vague-in-details

Councillors should have known about veto, deal maker says
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821795–councillors-should-have-known-about-veto-deal-maker-says

Files stay sealed
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821442–files-stay-sealed

City set to approve full funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821229–city-set-to-approve-full-funding-for-mayor-s-son

City key to OMERS, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821186–city-key-to-omers-inquiry-told

No common sense
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/821055–no-common-sense

High stakes drama
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/821054–high-stakes-drama

Enersource powers ‘changed’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820981–enersource-powers-changed

Hydro deal took years to probe, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820827–hydro-deal-took-years-to-probe-inquiry-hears

Judicial inquiry starts today
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820606–judicial-inquiry-starts-today

Inquiry starts tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820581–inquiry-starts-tomorrow

Mayor to testify June 2
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818995–mayor-to-testify-june-2

Councillors consider code of ethics
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818976–councillors-consider-code-of-ethics

Council code of conduct on agenda
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818368–council-code-of-conduct-on-agenda

More money for Mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817504–more-money-for-mayor-s-son

Commissioner to rule on funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817197–commissioner-to-rule-on-funding-for-mayor-s-son

Inquiry costs at $1.5M and rising
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/815604–inquiry-costs-at-1-5m-and-rising

ON: HAZEL MCCALLION FACES JUDICIAL REVIEW –COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA’S “WELL, THIS IS MISSISSAUGA. IT’S NOT VAUGHAN” SPEECH

October 1st, 2009  

Recall in this morning’s Blog that I made reference to the Toronto Star article,  Mayor McCallion faces judge’s audit For us to have turned a blind eye to this and said, `Trust us, it’s nothing’ well, this is Mississauga; it’s not Vaughan.”

As promised, here’s Councillor Nando Iannicca’s “For us to have turned a blind eye to this and said, `Well, this is Mississauga; it’s not Vaughan” speech.

First the video,

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION FACES JUDICIAL REVIEW “THIS IS MISSISSAUGA. IT’S NOT VAUGHAN” (3:26 sec)

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

and the TRANSCRIPT.

Councillor Nando Iannicca:

Uh, Councillor Parrish, I follow on your heels. I take some exception to some of the comments that have been made as well. I think it’s shameful and I think you’re all raising a red herring.

But be that as it may, as the mover of the motion I really believe that we have no choice whatsoever.

Now that the documents have [sic] made public I’m very pleased on behalf of my constituents –and Councillor Prentice, clearly I have different constituents than you have. But on behalf of my constituents, two weeks ago when it was brought up, I’m happy to  make it a matter of public record that it was I that moved the motion and say, “Let’s not be quick to judgment. Let’s go ask these questions and  have this analysis come back.”

That happened today –and in-camera. And I want to take a moment to speak to you with something in regards to in-camera.

I don’t know if I’ve ever told you all of any of this but when I speak to my constituents and they ask “What’s your role? What’s the most important thing you do?” I say to them, by far, the greatest privilege you give me is when you allow me by virtue of this office to  go in-camera and make a decision.

Because you have no idea what I’m doing. I’m not accountable to anyone. The minutes aren’t transcripted [inaudible —properly?].

And under The Act, so much of what we do is done in-camera. So if one is so willing, it’s a great time to sweep things under the rug.

But what we did as a responsible Council and I might add, agree to it unanimously, we said, “Let’s go get more information. Let’s get the facts. The facts came back and contrary to what you’re being told, the documents are all going to be made public.

One of the things I read was this simple.

“No member of Council other than Mayor McCallion contravened Section 5 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with respect to his or her involvement with matters related to WC [inaudible] Property period full stop.

What I am not going to do, unlike other members of Council is say “Okay, so she may not have—  but it’s minor, let’s sweep it under the rug.

[a councillor takes exception]

Councillor Nando Iannicca:

I’m sorry, I have the floor.

[a Councillor takes exception]

Councillor Nando Iannicca:

I beg your, well, it’s pretty simple to me. For anybody not to take that to its logical conclusion and say we’ve asked the questions, here’s what’s come back, I think in moving the motion, all we can do in fairness to the Mayor —and understand some of my staff are named. Understand that other members of Council are named, but most important of all, when I go grab a cup of coffee at the Orchard Restaurant, I hear what people are saying.

And for us to have turned a blind eye to this and said [sic] “We know what’s going on. No need to let you know. We don’t have to make a- Trust us, it’s nothing.

Well, this is Mississauga. It’s not Vaughan.

And the highest level of obligation that I have to constituents, they had better know the integrity of this place is the most important thing to me. So on behalf of them, on behalf of my council colleagues including the Mayor, on behalf of my senior staff, on behalf of all of our employees I’ve said in moving the motion, we’re gonna come clean, let some other party review it and let that course unfold as it may.

To do anything other than that in my opinion, in moving the motion makes you unworthy of public office.

[MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers “Yes!” into the camera]

Councillor Nando Iannicca:

Thank you Madam Chair, and as I’ve said I’ll support—

[Councillor Katie Mahoney interrupts]

Councillor Nando Iannicca:

That’s my thought, Thank you.

VIDEO CAMERA  STAYS ON COUNCILLOR IANNICCA

Councillor Eve Adams (Acting Mayor)

Thank you Councillor Iannicca. I’m also been told by the City Manager that the document is being posted online imminently.

City Manager Janice Baker

Yes, it should be operational—

Councillor Eve Adams (Acting Mayor)

Thank you. Councillor Prentice

[END OF TRANSCRIPT]

Signed,

The (I don’t agree with that part about “On behalf of my senior staff, on behalf of all of our employees”, they’d prefer it swept under the already very lumpy Mississauga rug)  Mississauga Muse



Bear