Mississauga News “bombed” with e-graffiti with “Friends of Hazel” hypocrite’s “FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!”

July 22nd, 2011  

MISSISSAUGAWATCH Investigation Series, Volume 2, “Peel Youth Violence Prevention as related to McMurtry/Curling’s Roots of Youth Violence” (#2)

Today’s blog builds on our last one, Why research graffiti? (Peel Youth Violence Prevention as related to McMurtry/Curling’s Roots of Youth Violence).  Graffiti is what “bad” youth do and “bad” people do, right?

Can an online newspaper comments section be “bombed” with graffiti?

We say yes.


In our April 19th, 2010 blog, GRAFFITI in MISSISSAUGA: Preliminary Report (April 19, 2009 – April 19, 2010) baseline, we chose to use the Mirriam-Webster definition of “graffiti”.


: usu. unauthorized writing or drawing on a public surface

The functional word here is “unauthorized”.

In their July 14, 2011 Editorial, “Cutting off the dialogue”, the Mississauga News announced:

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

The Mississauga News even cut off commentary on their editorial with “Commenting on this story has been suspended“.

First, we submit that the readers comment section of the Mississauga News online is a “public surface”. Given the internet’s global reach, it’s tough to find a more public, “public surface”.

Metroland, the owner of this “public surface” announced that it was suspending “public online commentary on all stories related to the Ward 5 vote and candidates.”

The meaning is quite clear —any “public online commentary on all stories related to the Ward 5 vote and candidates” is unauthorized.

And what you’d expect to happen did happen. The commenters simply commented on the Ward 5 race in other stories and heaped scorn at the Mississauga News demanding “FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!” and served up “DOWN WITH THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS!”

And this is what the Mississauga News front page looked like on July 16th, courtesy of  “Friend of Hazel”, “Prol”. (“Prol”, we should point out supports “Friend of Hazel” Jake Dheer’s Ward 5 candidacy.)

"Prol", co-designer of the "Friends of Hazel" Rally flyer "bombs" Mississauga News articles with "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!"110716

MISSISSAUGA NEWS front page: "Prol", co-designer of the "Friends of Hazel" Rally flyer "bombs" Mississauga News articles with "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!"110716

Having documented some of these commenters, I can confirm how they loathe graffiti artists and taggers. How they refer to them as punks, scumbags and losers.

For the record, what follows are just some of the comments left by “Prol” (alternate alias “AV8R”) after the Mississauga News made its announcement to suspend public online commentary on all stories related to the Ward 5 vote and candidates.

We focus on “Prol” (aka “AV8R”) for one reason. He is an identifiable person, just one of two people who co-designed the Friends of Hazel Rally flyer. The same flyer (in this photo), presented to Hazel McCallion by Lorry Smith (left) and Ron Starr.

Do Lorry Smith and Ron Starr know who “Prol” is?…

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

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

“Friends of Hazel” Rally organizer, Betty Merkley certainly does. As perhaps co-organizer, Councillor Katie Mahoney.

We know that “Prol” (by his own admission) is a liar.

He’s also a hypocrite.

Witness “Prol”s call for “FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!”

Fact is,  “Prol” (aka “AV8R”) was part of a massive “sanitation” squad, deleting entire Mississauga News threads back in April 2010 and again in January 2011. Just three clicks of the “Offensive” feature and comments were erased. “Prol” would click once as “Prol” and log in again as “AV8R”. And likely had a third alias as well.

After all, the “Friends of Hazel” have prospered for decades under Mississauga’s media-barren environment and do their all to keep it that way.


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

Such are the Mayor’s “people”. These are the “Friends of Hazel”.

So. Take a look at samples of a new kind of  e-graffiti  —unauthorized writing left on a public surface by one of Hazel McCallion’s finest: “Prol” (aka “AV8R”).

Mayor Hazel McCallion is quite fond of saying that Her Town flourishes with a “team approach”. Witness a TEAM HAZEL’s “Prol”, an e-sociopath doing his all “in the best interests of the City” of course.

This One Message “team approach” is how Hazel McCallion stayed in power for over thirty years.

"Friend of Hazel" (McCallion) "bombs" the Mississauga News with a different kind of "graffiti". "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" and "DOWN WITH THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS!"

"Friend of Hazel" (McCallion) "bombs" the Mississauga News with a different kind of "graffiti". "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" and "DOWN WITH THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS!"

For the record, here’s a cut-and-paste.


Jul 16, 2011 1:01 AM

Good one CR Your ironic posting helps to expose the absurdity of censorship. Apparently, the proletariat can be trusted with commenting on a sporting event or a story about parking violations but not anything as important as a by-election. THAT is best served by the commissar approved arbiters of public consumption, the Mississauga News. THE PEOPLE WILL SPEAK! LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY! DOWN WITH MISSISSAUGA NEWS!

  • Agree
  • Disagree 1
  • Offensive
"Friend of Hazel" (McCallion) provides insight into how McCallion stayed in power.

Hazel McCallion's "TEAM APPROACH". "Friend of Hazel" "Prol" teams with "ConcernedResident" and the Mayor's "Mantis"

This comment from the Mississauga News article, “Nomination fiercely contested”.


Jul 17, 2011 7:57 PM

“In some ways, it’s a sad day for The Mississauga News and for community journalism. “In some ways? How could it be sadder? How could it be more blatantly and transparently partisan? Sad? Try pathetic and anti-democratic. Where was your concern for decency while reporting on the Mississauga Enquiry or the last municipal election? Some of the most libellous and “unfair” comments still live on this site. Hypocrites. Some will see this posting before you delete it.

  • Agree
  • Disagree 1
  • Offensive

Note reference to “libellous”.

So typical of the “Friends of Hazel” deceitful ways, Prol fails to mention his “Psycho” comment in the article, “Don’t Elect Parrish”. (Note, “CP” is referring to Carolyn Parrish):


Jul 13, 2011 11:51 PM

Ursula PsychoYou are one twisted bitch. Can’t you please get some help? You will feel so much better when you deal with whatever made you this way. Are you lobbying to run CP’s campaign? You would get along famously. The similarities are astounding.

  • Agree
  • Disagree 1
  • Offensive 1

And in his “Psycho” comment in another article, “Dheer joins Alzheimer Society team“, “Prol/AV8R”, with typical lack of self-awareness, fails to see the irony in a psychotic post calling me a psycho:


Jul 14, 2011 2:43 PM

I knew the wait would be short for Ursula Psycho to jump on this. The quote you selected from Andre Marin sounds much like what anyone buying into your endlessly repeated lunatic drivels should expect. Picture me giving you the MMuse salute. Cut and paste that – psycho.

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 1
  • Offensive

That’s right. Referring to Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin’s address to The Canadian Centre for Ethics and Corporate Policy, (2007) as “lunatic drivel”.

These are the “Friends of Hazel” —cowards so proud to be supporting their Mayor that they hide behind aliases.

Or just hide.

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

If the "Friends of Hazel" are so proud of supporting their Mayor, why all the hiding?...

E-graffiti. Cyber-cowards. Enough’s enough of these “Friends of Hazel’ aliases and multiple aliases.

It’s time to report on real “Friends of Hazel” —with real names. Names we’d never know about had it not been for the big hole the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry blasted into this Company Town’s “media-barren environment”.

A youth once wrote me with “The System is too corrupt, there is no way to fix it.” That’s what both video and Freedom of Information confirms. No way to fix it.

But you can document, document, document, document document…. and warn one person at a time.

Take home message? If you want to see the REAL Mississauga, see what Mississaugans really believe when their identities are tucked safely behind aliases —peer into their racism, their quasi-fascism, read the Mississauga News readers comments! And see this city’s Future!

The Mississauga Muse.


Peter McCallion: My mother being Mayor of Mississauga, is “more so a detriment than a benefit”. Oh, REEEEEEEALLY?

October 3rd, 2010  

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

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT (cut-and-paste from Judicial Inquiry website)

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 15                 Q:   Now, we -- we've heard a rumour that
 16  your mother is the mayor of Mississauga, Mr. McCallion.

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 17                                     A:      I've heard the same rumour. 

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 18                 Q:   I understand that your mother has
 19  been involved in municipal politics since you were a
 20  teenager.

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 21                                     A:      Yeah, since high school, that I
 22     recall. 

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 23                 Q:   And that her involvement in municipal
 24  politics predates the creation of Mississauga itself; is
 25  that right, sir?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  1                                     A:         Yes. 

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  2                 Q:   Now, you've told us that you've been
  3  involved in real estate for some twenty-five (25) years
  4  or so; do you have a perception as to whether your
  5  mother's role as mayor for some thirty (30) years or
  6  more, thirty-two (23) I suppose, by my arithmetic, has
  7  been a benefit or a detriment to you in your work?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  8                                     A:        More so a detriment than a benefit. 

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  9                 Q:   What do you mean by that, Mr.
 10  McCallion?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 11                                     A:          Some people don't want to deal with 
 12     me because of the perception of conflict. 

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 13                 Q:   Do you perceive -- now, you say,
 14  "more so a detriment than a benefit."

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 15                                     A:             Definitely. 


Councillor Pat Saito (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

— So they’re asking us to once again defer the item until the May 21st Council meeting.

Councillor Dale, do you wish to speak to this?

Councillor Frank Dale (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

I do and I will –I’ll move it, the deferral.

I just have first a question to Staff. Do you know if they’ve granted an extension with OMERS with respect to the Purchase of Sale?

Commissioner of Planning and Building, Ed Sajecki (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

I don’t know the details of their arrangements with OMERS—

Councillor Frank Dale (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

Because I think that’s–

Commissioner of Planning and Building, Ed Sajecki (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

I think that they have indicated that [inaudible] as a possibility but whether it’s happening, I don’t know the specifics.

Councillor Frank Dale (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

Because I think it’s important to know because, whether or not there will be another Council meeting, or whether they will  be here on May 21st or not.

And I just –and the only thing I just want to say is I know our Staff, particularly the Planning Department Staff as well as our Legal Department Staff worked extremely hard to try to accomplish what needed to be done in order to remove that “H” symbol and get all the documents in order.

And I think a message should go to them though, cuz they worked a lot of hours –on weekends and the evenings. That if they ‘re gonna come back, you know, basically, I think the reason they were doing it and it makes sense cuz they wanted to come in under the wire with the development charges.

Well now that they’ve come into effect, I think business as usual. We got a lot of other business in the City Centre –a lot of other business throughout the whole city itself.

And, like, you know, we don’t mind helping people but I think you went over beyond –all of the Staff did to try to get this come before us in time for them to, I guess pay less development charges than would be come May 1st.

So I think a message should go out to them that we have no problem if they come back because we certainly would welcome the opportunity to have hotel, hopefully a 5-Class Star in the City Centre.

But I think a message should go to them. But I—

Commissioner of Planning and Building, Ed Sajecki (Special Council Meeting, April 30, 2008):

[inaudible] I’ll pass that message on. I do want to also add that CNW and Community Services have also been involved in it. Legal for sure. Burning the midnight oil over the weekend. But several departments in addition too. Thanks.


William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  2                 At a unit cost of two hundred thousand
  3  (200,000), which is low, at 1 1/2 percent, that would
  4  generate 3 million?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  5                                     A:    Yes.

William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  6                 Q:   And then we can -- we can play with
  7  the numbers.  You know, if the unit costs are higher,
  8  it's 1 1/2 percent of that.
  9                 But -- but your upside is actually in the
 10  millions of dollars?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 11                                     A:      Yes.

William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 12                 Q:   And you may need employees, you may
 13  have to split this and so on?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 14                                     A:    Correct

William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 15                 Q:   But if you are the Peter McCallion
 16  Real Estate Inc., in gross terms, as you say, you may
 17  generate $10 or $12 million?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 18                                     A:    Gross.

William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 19                 Q:   Gross.

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 20                                      A:      Yes.

William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 21                 Q:   Right.  But that's what was in it for
 22  you, in --

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 23                                      A:      That's what was in it for me. 

William McDowell (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

 24                 Q:   Right.


Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  4  ...do you have a perception as to whether your
  5  mother's role as mayor for some thirty (30) years or
  6  more, thirty-two (23) I suppose, by my arithmetic, has
  7  been a benefit or a detriment to you in your work?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  8                                     A:        More so a detriment than a benefit. 

Brian Gover (lawyer for Peter McCallion, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry  July 27, 2010):

  9                 Q:   What do you mean by that, Mr.
 10  McCallion?


Yeah, no frikkin’ kidding!


The (I ain’t got ‘STUPID’ stamped on my forehead!) Mississauga Muse

FACT: Betty Merkley, campaign organizer for the December 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally lauded the City’s outside legal opinion by McLean & Kerr as all that was necessary to put issues to rest. So did the Mayor’s long-time supporter, Harold Shipp. The McLean & Kerr report left out any reference to the exchange between Councillor Frank Dale and Commissioner Ed Sajecki in their “interpretation” of the April 30, 2008 Special Council meeting exclusively called just to discuss Peter McCallion’s World Class Developments.



September 9th, 2010  

No time today for anything except to present this video of Mayor Hazel McCallion’s pinstriped handler stopping Toronto Sun’s Joe Worthington as Mr. Worthington tried to ask a question about the Judicial Inquiry. To his credit Worthington held his ground.

The Mayor’s response? “No comment.”


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


PATRICK MENDES (“Friends of Hazel” Oppose the Judicial Inquiry Rally, December 2, 2009):

Judicial inquiries are very expensive and they’ve already got a legal opinion on this. I repeat —we’ve got to send them a message that what they’re doing is wrong!

They are wasting our money.

PATRICK MENDES (“Friends of Hazel” Oppose the Judicial Inquiry Rally, December 2, 2009 raising the Ontario Ombudsman cap to the camera):

That’s why we need the Ontario Ombudsman investigating Municipalities. Right there.

PATRICK MENDES (“Friends of Hazel” Oppose the Judicial Inquiry Rally, December 2, 2009):

They are driving our Mayor and our city through the [inaudible]. And for what? For their own political ambitions.


MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY TRANSCRIPT, July 27, 2010. Mr. William McDowell “Q” and Peter McCallion “A”):

 13                 Q:   Now, let me just spend a -- a moment
 14  or two (2) on the question of what it was that you were
 15  going to get from a successful transaction.
 16                 So if the -- if the Agreement of Purchase
 17  and Sale had actually closed and this project was going
 18  to be built, let's just look at some of these things.
 19                 First of all, you had in mind that you
 20  would be the agent who would sell the condominium units.
 21                 A:   Correct.  
 22                 Q:   And you'd earn a commission on those.
 23                 A:   Yes.  
 24                 Q:   Standard commission is what -- 3
 25  percent for a unit like that?


  1                 A:   No.  On a condominium, maybe one and
  2  a half (1 1/2).  
  3                 Q:   One and a half (1 1/2).  And so there
  4  were going to be something like two thousand (2,000)
  5  units over time?
  6                 A:   I think there was twenty-five hundred
  7  (2,500).  
  8                 Q:   Twenty-five hundred (2,500), so it
  9  maybe a variance.  So if it's two thousand (2,000) at 1
 10  1/2 percent, then the upside or gross commission for you
 11  is $3 million, is that right?
 12                 A:   It'd probably be more than that.  
 13                 Q:   More than that.  So if you go to
 14  twenty-five hundred (2,500) it would be three million,
 15  seven fifty (3,750,000)?
 16                 A:   I think it's more like ten (10) or 12
 17  million.  
 18                 Q:   More like ten (10) or twelve (12) --
 19                 A:   Yes.  
 20                 Q:   -- on 1 1/2 percent?  Your math is
 21  probably better than mine, but --
 22                 A:   Well, it was a $1 1/2 billion
 23  project.

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):


JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Name’s Joe Warmington, Toronto Sun.

Mayor McCallion, on the Judicial Inquiry —I know you don’t want to talk much about it. But it is Out There and there’s a report that will come after the election.

HAZEL MCCALLION (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):


JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Well, this is what we understand. And you hav—

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

The Mayor has indicated she’s—

JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Excuse me. I’m talking now.

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

—not going to respond to those questions right now.

JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

I’m going to finish my question. This is a question —it a Media time.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Good for you.

JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Is it okay Madam Mayor?

HAZEL MCCALLION (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Yeah, I—

JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

So, so, I guess the question is —I’m rattled, I wasn’t expecting —this Hall is a place of Freedom and Free Speech so—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Silly person…

JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

So, so, I guess the question is —if for some reason that were to show some wrong-doing on your part with your son and this development, what kind of position would that put you in as Mayor? You know, it’s a complicated question, but you understand—

HAZEL MCCALLION (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

It is a complicated —my question [sic] is no response.


MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY TRANSCRIPT, July 27, 2010. Mr. William McDowell “Q” and Peter McCallion “A”):

  2                 At a unit cost of two hundred thousand
  3  (200,000), which is low, at 1 1/2 percent, that would
  4  generate 3 million?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   And then we can -- we can play with
  7  the numbers.  You know, if the unit costs are higher,
  8  it's 1 1/2 percent of that.
  9                 But -- but your upside is actually in the
 10  millions of dollars?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   And you may need employees, you may
 13  have to split this and so on?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   But if you are the Peter McCallion
 16  Real Estate Inc., in gross terms, as you say, you may
 17  generate $10 or $12 million?
 18                 A:   Gross.
 19                 Q:   Gross.
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   Right.  But that's what was in it for
 22  you, in --
 23                 A:   That's what was in it for me.



MISSISSAUGA CITY HALL ---morally beyond redemption

“…the system is CORRUPT and this is why there is youth violence this is why there are guns on the street and drugs in the hands of children the youth are fighting with the system because it is CORRUPT there is no way to fix it because the people higher up are sitting nice in their big leather chairs, driving their nice cars, living their perfect life when some people in this world have to work hard to get by and even by doing so they get nothing, and after they realize how hard they have to work to get by they break down and no longer want to live life being part of the system because they realize that living life by the rules of the system gets you no where because it is CORRUPT!”      —email from youth (age 19)

LIVE Tweets from this week’s Mississauga Judicial Inquiry: a compilation

August 18th, 2010  

As always your absolute best source is the Inquiry’s website itself. Here are the links to Transcripts, Exhibits. Hearings Schedule and to:

Live and archived webcasts of the Inquiry Rogers TV

For today’s Blog, I’ve decided to share all my live Tweets from this week’s Judicial Inquiry hearings. Note. Any errors/typos are the result of my contact lenses not seeing my Android screen all that well and I’m keeping them original.


Tweeting LIVE from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. OMERS. CEO,Michael Nobrega now on stand. Monday, August 16, 2010 10:08:18 AM via twidroid

Michael Nobrega says that Michael Kitt responsible for dealing with World Class Developments. Monday, August 16, 2010 10:13:04 AM via twidroid

Nobrega email “our interest in. Mississauga is mainly Sq 1; we have only10% interest in Enersource” (will do) what is best interest of Sq 1″ Monday, August 16, 2010 11:57:52 AM via twidroid

Evidence shows that OMERS CEO, Michael Nobrega showed zero concern about being told Peter McCallion involved. Yet AIMCo was VERY pro-active. Monday, August 16, 2010 12:18:44 PM via twidroid

Clearly AIMCo has a higher ethical standard regarding conflict of interest than OMERS. OMERS has no current policy?! Holy Jumpin’. Monday, August 16, 2010 12:30:06 PM via twidroid

Tweeting LIVE from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Michael Nobrega called Peter McCallion “not a person of interest to me.” Monday, August 16, 2010 12:51:04 PM via twidroid

Tweeting LIVE from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Nobrega back up. Clifford Lax questioning him. Monday, August 16, 2010 2:18:22 PM via twidroid

Clifford Lax asks Michael Nobrega why another highly regarded pension fund expresses “unfavourable optics” re Peter McCallion yet OMERS not. Monday, August 16, 2010 3:12:06 PM via twidroid

Tweeting LIVE from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Nobrega continues refrain “Peter McCallion is not a person of interest to me”…. Monday, August 16, 2010 3:22:22 PM via twidroid

Tweeting LIVE from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. OMERS’ Nobrega excellent on stand until very end. Then does a wobble and FTTTtttttttttttt. Monday, August 16, 2010 3:52:28 PM via twidroid

Tweeting LIVE from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Mr. Jack (lawyer for AIMCo co-owner) now questioning Nobrega. Monday, August 16, 2010 4:00:55 PM via twidroid

Mr Jack establishes that Nobrega/OMERS did not inform AIMCo about negotiations. Or consulted at any time. Monday, August 16, 2010 4:03:20 PM via twidroid

WOW! Is there EVER a HUGE difference in ethics between AIMCo and.OMERS! Monday, August 16, 2010 4:15:35 PM via twidroid

It’s clear ethical (conflict of interest) standards are higher in Alberta/AIMCo than Ontario/OMERS! Monday, August 16, 2010 4:19:09 PM via twidroid

HOLLLLLLLLYYYYY! Mayor’s lawyer absolutely SHOVELLING sweetheart questions!!! WOW! Monday, August 16, 2010 4:51:05 PM via twidroid

Mayor’s lawyer absolutely alien to me! I mean her questions could fool average person but sure hope Justice Cunningham isn’t! Monday, August 16, 2010 4:55:33 PM via twidroid

Bizarre… turns out there IS a positive to the (2008) recession! It scuttled Peter McCallion’s. hotel “vision” as a “/isionary”. Monday, August 16, 2010 5:01:00 PM via twidroid

HOLY *CRAP*! McCallion’s lawyer just asked Michael Nobrega if hewere “a fan of Accountability”! And he said, yes! HAHAHAHAhaahaahaahaaaaaa Monday, August 16, 2010 5:18:10 PM via twidroid

McDowell comes up after Mayor’s lawyer and says to Nobrega, “I know that questioning was particularly vicious” . Talk about understatement! Monday, August 16, 2010 5:24:10 PM via twidroid

OMERS lawyer now up flinging sweetheart questions. Monday, August 16, 2010 5:26:06 PM via twidroid

Nobrega “not a fan of litigation”. But said he believesin accountability. Mississaugans would never know truthof this STINK otherwise.. Monday, August 16, 2010 5:28:46 PM via twidroid


Tweeting LIVE from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Proceedings begin shortly. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:27:23 AM via twidroid

Leo Couprie now on the stand. Said Peter McCallion approached him in 2006 to invest $750,000 to”tie up the land” (at City Centre). Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:43:55 AM via twidroid

Leo Couprie testified that only three were at the signing. Mayor, MrCouprie and Peter McCallion. Vs five as Peter McCallion testified. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:51:09 AM via twidroid

Leo Couprie confirms that Hazel McCallion didn’t read the Declaration of Trust. Mayor’s signature just an “autograph” . (WOW!) Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:57:18 AM via twidroid

There is no document that terminates original declaration of trust signed/witnessed by the Mayor Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:04:16 AM via twidroid

Peter McCallion is behind $10,000 (three month’s rent) Leo Couprie confirms. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:09:25 AM via twidroid

Leo Couprie says he’s given up the hope of getting his additional $750,000 back. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:13:12 AM via twidroid

Peter McCallion told Leo Couprie not to discuss deal hotel idea with the Mayor. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:15:06 AM via twidroid

Peter McCallion’s rent on his former house is $4254.48 a month. He owes Leo Couprie about $200,000 in total right now Tweeting from Inquiry Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:30:54 AM via twidroid

Clifford Lax suggests that declaration of trust effectively hid Peter McCallion as principle. Hid his involvement… Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:37:18 AM via twidroid

Peter McCallion’s lawyer now up. Tweeting LIVE ffrom Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:51:03 AM via twidroid

Leo Couprie confirms Peter McCallion was his “best friend”. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:52:38 AM via twidroid

Leo Coupie confirms he had no idea what Hazel McCallion knew when signing declaration of trust. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:00:31 AM via twidroid

Irony, Leo Couprie now interrogated by his “best friend”s lawyer… Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:02:59 AM via twidroid

Leo Couprie confirms that his “best friend”Peter McCallion wouldn’t volunteer information. He’d have to ask. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:06:02 AM via twidroid

If I’m interpreting things right, World Class Developments was nothing but multiple layers of loans!… Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:12:09 AM via twidroid

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry in recess. Ya gotta wonder how many other stink-deals have been orchestrated inside municipalities in Canada!.. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:25:34 AM via twidroid


Tweeting LIVE from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Session now resumes. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:42:30 AM via twidroid

Peter McCallion was to have 16 shares of World Class Developments if deal closed with OMERS. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:46:58 AM via twidroid

Mayor’s lawyer re-affirms that the Mayor did not read the declaration of trust that she signed. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:50:35 AM via twidroid

Leo Couprie claims being son of Mayor a DISADVANTAGE because of “scrutiny” (ie press). [“scrutiny”?! HAHAHAHAAHahahahaah ] Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:55:49 AM via twidroid

Tweeting LIVE from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Tony Dicicco now on stand. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:00:50 PM via twidroid

Peter McCallion’s lawyer asking questions of TonyDicicco. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:03:39 PM via twidroid

Tony Dicicco confirms he’s “huge admirer” and”good friend” of Mayor Hazel McCallion. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:07:24 PM via twidroid

Apologies on spelling. It is Tony DeCicco, not “DiCicco” Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:10:46 PM via twidroid

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry interrupted by citizen-journalist, Donald Barber found audio-recording proceedings… Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:29:40 PM via twidroid

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry now in session. TonyDeCicco back on stand. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:12:50 PM via twidroid

Mississauga Judical Inquiry resumes. Tony DeCicco back on stand. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:33:15 PM via twidroid

Tony DeCicco FAXed the Put and Call agreement (Exhibit 629) to the Mayor’s office. Also sent voice mail with specifics re: WCD. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:41:19 PM via twidroid

Tony DeCicco researched for a 4-Star “destination” vs 4-Star hotel. Only operator prepared to try hotel was Gupta. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:57:29 PM via twidroid

Tony DeCicco said Mayor didn’t want 4-star hotel but FIVE STAR! Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:00:15 PM via twidroid

At their first meeting, Tony DeCicco said he was unable to get any kind of dialogue going with OMERS’s Michael Kitt Disagreem’t from GetGo Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:08:25 PM via twidroid

Tony DeCicco noticed City staff nervous about Peter McCallion. DeCicco felt optics bad & asked Peter not to go to any more meetings. Did any Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:11:54 PM via twidroid

Tony DeCicco adds his voice saying he felt involvement of Peter McCallion was a concern. “Optics were bad”. Peter continued attending meeti Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:17:49 PM via twidroid

Tony DeCicco one bright BRIGHT businessman! Highly organized, HUGE knowledge/experience. Highly credible to boot… Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:21:17 PM via twidroid

Oops! Tony DeCicco just gave out two back-to-back “I don’t remember”s on voice-mails to Mayor… Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:27:21 PM via twidroid

Tony DeCicco sent Peter McCallion to talk to OMERSs’ Michael Kitt. (since his first meeting went so. badly) Tuesday, August 17, 2010 4:09:24 PM via twidroid

Tony DeCicco admits “I put the Mayor in an awkward situation” . Asked how he felt now realizing this now… Sadly says “Not good”. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 4:16:00 PM via twidroid

Tony DeCicco did not know that Mayor McCallion sent David O’Brien to meet with him. DeCicco didn’t know O’Brien’s relationship to Mayor. Tuesday, August 17, 2010 4:27:28 PM via twidroid


Documents show that Tony DeCicco phoned Mayor and OMERS top brass, Michael Nobrega and Michael Kitt move to “consider it done.” about 9 hours ago via twidroid

Email Jan 8, 2009 to Tony DeCicco showing a potential buyer for the land VALUCORP.”purchaser can move forward quickly if a deal is reached.” about 8 hours ago via twidroid

Document 619. (Sept2009)TonyDeCicco wanted the court files sealed. “I’m a private person” and don’t want anything in public. about 8 hours ago via twidroid

McDowell presses DeCicco. Why is it “awkward”? (Reasons) Peter’s involvement and the Mayor having to intervene. about 8 hours ago via twidroid

Court reconvened. Our guy, Clifford Lax now up. Shows another document with $27 mil price tag for South Block. Prep’d to settle for $25 mil about 8 hours ago via twidroid

New exhibit created by forenic investigators to show who gets paid what in the $4 million settlement. DeCicco got $2.2million. about 8 hours ago via twidroid

Peter McCallion not paid in the settlement. Why? Tony DeCicco’s legal advice. about 8 hours ago via twidroid

Lax now pressing about details regarding “aggressive” $100,000,000 lawsuit. about 8 hours ago via twidroid

Lax asks why sue for $100,000,000 when couldn’t get $25 mil when testing the.buyer-waters. “Can’t get $100 mil on your best day” says Lax. about 8 hours ago via twidroid

Exhibit 341. Lyons letter promised $220,000. DeCicco said he “cut the check” then changed his mind. Didn’t pay. about 7 hours ago via twidroid

CLIFFORD LAX *ROCKS*!                                                                         about 7 hours ago via twidroid

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry now resumes. Clifford Lax still up questioning Tony DeCicco. about 6 hours ago via twidroid

Re PeterMcCallion everywhere even after he was”out” “Why was he here?” Asks Clifford Lax toTony DeCicco. about 6 hours ago via twidroid

Clifford Lax introduces concept of “hip pocket” agreement. Lax suggests “hip pocket” split from Management Agreement to hide Easy-Out. about 6 hours ago via twidroid

THE SHIT HAS HIT THE PROVERBIAL FAN AT THE MISSISSAUGA JUDICAL INQUIRY. OVER FERTILIZER! Court recessed.(The plot sickens…) about 5 hours ago via twidroid

Tweeting LIVE from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Court back in session. about 5 hours ago via twidroid

CLIFFORD LAX *ROCKS*1                                                                         about 5 hours ago via twidroid

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. WOW! Ontario citizens have GOT to wonder how many other shady land deals fester in Ontario municipalities. about 5 hours ago via twidroid

It was Tony DeCicco’s decision 2 include Hazel McCallion name in the lawsuit affidavits. Tweeting LIVE from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry about 5 hours ago via twidroid

Tony DeCicco confirms he has different recollections of the settlement meeting than David O’Brien and Peter McCallion. about 5 hours ago via twidroid

Mr. Jacks of AIMCo now up, askiing about Barber House dinner. Tony DeCicco disputes Kitt’s version of involvement of Peter McCallion discuss about 5 hours ago via twidroid

Mayor’s lawyer disputes that Tony DeCicco is “good friend” of the Mayor. Brampton and Vaughan also has Mayor’s Gala. REPEAT Gotta wonder… about 4 hours ago via twidroid

Mayor’s lawyer now showing Mayor’s Gala spread sheets. (Has anyone ever audited the Mayor’s Charity?) … about 4 hours ago via twidroid

Interesting! Vaughan keeps getting mentioned… (Tweeting LIVE from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry) about 4 hours ago via twidroid

It’s clear that Hazel McCallion will go with”I had no clue that Peter was a principal” for her defense. (Plus “best interests of the City”) about 4 hours ago via twidroid

To DeCicco, “Would it surprise you if the Mayor did not know that Peter McCallion was” -a principal. Tony Decicco, “No”. (but it SHOCKS me!) about 4 hours ago via twidroid

CRIPES! Can you see it? A five-star hotel (when no one believed in a four) beside the existing Living Artts white elephant! about 4 hours ago via twidroid

Commissioner Cunningham asking deep questions. Ie: Peter McCallion wanted out? Why did he still go to meetings? What did he do?! about 3 hours ago via twidroid


The Mississauga Muse



Below is our coverage of the judicial inquiry to date.

Mayor signed loan agreement

Mayor kept calling: Nobrega

Help son’s company: Mayor

Witnesses announced

Inquiry: Myth and facts

Inquiry report unlikely before vote

Obvious bias

No worries about Hazel: O’Brien

One opinion counts


O’Brien engineered $4-million buyout

Mayor was ‘in a conflict situation’

WCD bid skirted usual fees

Minutes not altered: witness
Consultant didn’t deal with McCallions

Inquiry resumes next week

City may sue mayor’s son for $150,000

Council okays $250,000 more for mayor

What price truth?

Mayor should step down

McCallions’ inquiry tab could top $500,000

Mayor not helped by son’s testimony

McCallion should pay: Parrish

‘I did nothing wrong’

Firm thought McCallion was a real estate agent, inquiry told

City wasn’t fleeced in land deal

Son misled mayor, lawyer suggests

McCallion sticks up for mom

McCallion’s memory tested

Mayor pushed her son’s project

Mayor’s son on the hot seat

Not a principal: McCallion

McCallion co-signed loan

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

O’Brien was also involved in Sheridan deal

Lawyers prepare for battle at inquiry

Hazel vouched for son’s partner

Mayor’s son to testify

OMERS denies inflating land deal

Code needed at City

Company received $4M payout

City seeks public review of ethics code

Company received $4M pay-out over hotel deal

Voters will decide

Process can’t be muzzled

Mayor pushed deal, Inquiry told

Mayor linked to meeting

Mayor pushed for hotel in City Centre

Judge shoots down mayor’s request

Was it legal?

Mayor cries foul at inquiry

Inquiry hits another roadblock

Questions remain

Inquiry costs now expected to hit $5 million

Inquiry may hurt Enersource: lawyer

‘I am not stepping down’

Inquiry’s second phase begins in July

‘I forget‚’ doesn’t cut it

Council told of veto: Mahoney

Mahoney set to testify at inquiry

Mahoney called to testify

Councillor asks for fees

Mayor’s legal fees capped

Inquiry costs climb

Lawyers want more to represent mayor

McCallion calls out Parrish

Mayor denies knowing of veto

Deal negotiated improperly, inquiry hears

Mayor on stand tomorrow

Enersource deal ‘terrific’ for Mississauga

Enersource deal nixed by inquiry

We’ll all pay a share

Former City manager vague in details

Councillors should have known about veto, deal maker says

Files stay sealed

City set to approve full funding for mayor’s son

City key to OMERS, inquiry told

No common sense

High stakes drama

Enersource powers ‘changed’

Hydro deal took years to probe, inquiry hears

Judicial inquiry starts today

Inquiry starts tomorrow

Mayor to testify June 2

Councillors consider code of ethics

Council code of conduct on agenda

More money for Mayor’s son

Commissioner to rule on funding for mayor’s son

Inquiry costs at $1.5M and rising

Lawyer wrong about campaign, mayor says

Inquiry schedule released

Inquiry will hurt campaign: Lawyer

The News makes motion at inquiry

Keep inquiry open

No go for ‘citizen journalists’

The News wants affidavit made public

Split decision for citizen journalists

Council nixes legal fees for councillors

‘Layers’ of land deal probed

Inquiry to hear from ‘citizen journalists’

Judicial inquiry costs continue to grow

Mayor submits documents

Someone should pay

Mayor’s record-keeping under scrutiny

Cut off the cash

Inquiry searches for paper trail

City ‘targeting’ mayor’s son?

No apologies

Mayor’s son to ask for more public money

Delay sparks speculation

Councillors rethinking legal fees for mayor’s son

Inquiry to begin May 17

Taxpayers shoulder Mayor’s legal bill

Stand up and vote


Costs mounting at judicial inquiry

Inquiry probe ‘going well’

Ground broken for college campus

City asked to foot legal bills


Judicial inquiry begins

Judicial inquiry gets underway

Hundreds back mayor

McCallion accused of negotiating commissions

Duty bound

Matter of priorities

‘Support Hazel’ rally planned

Optics over ethics

Don’t ease up

Stay on point

Letter of the week

Judge picked for inquiry

Council votes to limit judicial probe

Petition aims to cancel judicial probe

Call to account

Scrap the inquiry

Road cleared for City probe

Wide net cast for judicial inquiry

Needs review

Judicial inquiry ‘extraordinary’: Solicitor

Parameters for inquiry in the works

Investigation or witch hunt?

Inquiry the only choice

Mayor could face inquiry

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

August 1st, 2010  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ursula Bennett
The Mississauga Muse

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion leaves after winning 2006 election on 061113

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


Joe Chin
Jul 30, 2010 – 8:08 AM

‘I did nothing wrong’

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

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

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

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

July 31st, 2010  

Source: The Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website:

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Transcript – July 27, 2010 (Peter McCallion Day 1 testimony)

July 31st, 2010  

Source: The Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website:

July 27, 2010 Hearing transcript (Peter McCallion Day 1 testimony) at: http://mail.tscript.com/trans/mississauga/jul_27_10/index.htm


  9  Before:        Associate Chief Mr. Justice J. Douglas
 10                 Cunningham
 19  HELD AT:
 20                    Provincial Offence Court
 21                       Mississauga, Ontario
 22                          July 27, 2010
 24                       Pages 1784 to 2004


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


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


  1                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  2                                                       Page No.
  3  Exhibit List                                             1788
  6   Examination-in-chief by Mr. Brian Gover                 1792
  7   Cross-examination by Mr. Don Jack                       1875
  8   Cross-examination by Mr. Michael Barrack                1881
  9   Cross-examination by Ms. Linda Rothstein                1884
 10   Cross-examination by Mr. William McDowell               1889
 11   Cross-examination by Mr. Clifford Lax                   1973
 13  Certificate of transcript                                2004


  1                     LIST OF EXHIBITS
  2  EXHIBIT NO.      DESCRIPTION                        PAGE NO.
  3  187            COM001002761 Form 1CIA Initial Return/
  4                 Notice of Change, confirmation of
  5                 filing dated August 9, 2006
  6  189            COM001002004 W.C.D. Loan Agreement
  7                 between Leo Couprie and World Class
  8                 Developments Limited dated January 29, 2007
  9  190            COM001002778 Declaration of Trust
 10  192            COM001002781 World Class purchase from
 11                 OMERS dated February 2nd, 2007
 12  193            COM001002019 Shareholders Agreement
 13                 dated January 28, 2007
 14  194            COM001002005 Termination of Put and
 15                 Call Agreement dated October 19, 2007
 16  195            COM001002001 Financial document dated
 17                 January 1, 2000
 18  196            COM001002820 Promissory note dated
 19                 July 27, 2007
 20  197            COM001002023 Declaration of Trust and
 21                 Shareholders Agreement dated August 1,
 22                 2007
 23  206            MIS002003162 Affidavit of Peter
 24                 McCallion dated September 11, 2009


  1                 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd)
  2  Exhibit No.      Description                        Page No.
  3  207            MIS002003175 Affidavit of Peter
  4                 McCallion dated September 15, 2009
  5  212            MIS00101004 - legal document -
  6                 MIS.001.010.144 (page 141
  7  215            MIS020004150 - notes - conversation
  8                 re WCD settlement
  9  234            MIS078001001 - Chronology
 10  236            MIS079001009 - telephone records
 11                 dated November 5, 2007
 12  238            MIS079001014 - telephone records
 13                 dated December 21, 2007
 14  242            MIS079001041 - telephone records
 15                 dated October 9, 2008
 16  247            OMR002002852 - email - re: WCD Request
 17                 to drop hotel conditions
 18  249            OMR002002899 - email - fw: World Class
 19                 Developments - block 29, plan 43M-1010
 20                 Mississauga
 21  257            WCD001002880 - email - WCD discussion
 22                 with Marilyn Ball dated February 25,
 23                 2008
 24  258            OMR002002891 - email re: Hazel and
 25                 Oxford dated October 4, 2005


  1                   LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd)
  2  Exhibit No.      Description                        Page No.
  3  261            OMR001002340 - email - re Hazel and
  4                 Oxford dated October 4, 2005
  5  262            OMR001002335 - email - WCD request to
  6                 drop hotel conditions dated October
  7                 24, 2008
  8  265            OMR002002871 - email re: WCD - update
  9  269            WCD001001260 - email attachment World
 10                 Class.pdf dated June 09, 2010
 11  272            MIS079001007 - telephone records dated
 12                 October 26, 2007
 13  273            OMR001002322 - email - Re: WCD - Tony
 14                 Dicico call back dated December 2, 2008
 15  275            OMR002002558 - memorandum - WCD - update
 16                 on sale of blocks 9 and 29 at Square One
 17                 dated December 15, 2008                   1955


  1  --- Upon commencing at 10:05 a.m.
  3                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
  4  please. This Inquiry is now in session.  Please be
  5  seated.
  7  morning.  Mr. McDowell...?
  8                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Yes.  By agreement
  9  with counsel for Mr. McCallion, Mr. McCallion will be
 10  examined by Mr. Gover.
 11                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Okay.
 12                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   And then I think
 13  we'll have a bit of a discussion as to who gets the pole
 14  position after that, but let's get the examination-in-
 15  chief done.
 17  right.  Mr. Gover...?
 18                 THE COURT CLERK:  Do you wish to be sworn
 19  or?  Do you wish to be sworn?
 20                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Has the
 21  witness been sworn?
 22                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   Not yet, sir.
 23                 THE COURT CLERK:   Do you wish to be sworn
 24  on the Bible or make an affirmation?
 25                 MR. PETER MCCALLION:  No, on the Bible.


  1                 THE COURT CLERK:   The Bible.  State your
  2  name in full.
  3                 MR. PETER MCCALLION:   Peter McCallion.
  4                 THE COURT CLERK:   Spell your last name
  5  for the record.
  6                 MR. PETER MCCALLION:   M-C-C-A-L-L-I-O-N.
  8                  PETER MCCALLION, Sworn
 11                 Q:   Good morning, Mr. McCallion.
 12                 A:   Good morning, Mr. Gover.
 13                 Q:   Now I understand, sir, that you're
 14  fifty-seven (57) years old; is that correct?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   You are divorced?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   You have one (1) daughter who's
 19  twenty-one (21) years old; is that right?
 20                 A:   Twenty-one (21), yeah.
 21                 Q:   Now by way of education, I
 22  understand, sir, that you completed grade twelve (12); is
 23  that right, sir?
 24                 A:   That is correct.
 25                 Q:   Currently, you are employed selling


  1  new homes for De Zen Construction in Mississauga; is that
  2  correct?
  3                 A:   Mississauga, and we've sold some in
  4  Brampton.
  5                 Q:   And can you help me with this, Mr.
  6  McCallion?  Do you require a real estate licence in order
  7  to sell new homes?
  8                 A:   No, you do not.
  9                 Q:   I understand, however, that you are
 10  currently registered as a real estate agent; is that
 11  correct?
 12                 A:   Correct, yes.
 13                 Q:   And you have held a -- a real estate
 14  licence since the mid-1980s; is that correct, sir?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   I understand that there have been a
 17  couple of occasions when your real estate licence has
 18  been suspended for one (1) reason or another, is that
 19  correct?
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   And I understand that one (1) of
 22  those occasions was in January 2007?
 23                 A:   Yeah, based on continuing education.
 24                 Q:   And -- and based on continuing
 25  education; what do you mean by that Mr. McCallion?


  1                 A:   Well, every two (2) years you have to
  2  complete twenty-four (24) credits.
  3                 Q:   And I take it you'd failed to meet
  4  all of those obligations, is that right, sir?
  5                 A:   Yes.  Yes.
  6                 Q:   And more recently your licence was
  7  suspended for a period of time for non-payment of some
  8  sort of fees or insurance, is that right, sir?
  9                 A:   Insurance, yes.
 10                 Q:   And you've said insurance?
 11                 A:   Insurance, yes.
 12                 Q:   Now, in your experience then for
 13  approximately twenty-five (25) years in real estate, what
 14  type of real estate have you sold?
 15                 A:   Well, in the beginning I sold homes,
 16  then I moved into commercial in terms of land, buildings,
 17  et cetera.
 18                 Q:   I take it you've acted for purchasers
 19  as well?
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   Has your work in the real estate
 22  field been focussed in a particular geographical area?
 23                 A:   Not specifically, no.  In the GTA.
 24                 Q:   In the Greater Toronto Area, then?
 25                 A:   Correct.


  1                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, you live here in
  2  Mississauga, is that right?
  3                 A:   Yes.  I grew up here.
  4                 Q:   You've lived here all your life?
  5                 A:   All my life.  Streetsville.
  6                 Q:   And I understand, Mr. McCallion, that
  7  your parents had a printing and newspaper business in
  8  Streetsville; is that correct?
  9                 A:   Yes.  I worked there quite a bit.
 10                 Q:   Your father died in 1997?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   I understand that he'd been ill for
 13  some five (5) years, is that right, sir?
 14                 A:   Yeah, with Alzheimer's.
 15                 Q:   Now, we -- we've heard a rumour that
 16  your mother is the mayor of Mississauga, Mr. McCallion.
 17                 A:   I've heard the same rumour.
 18                 Q:   I understand that your mother has
 19  been involved in municipal politics since you were a
 20  teenager.
 21                 A:   Yeah, since high school, that I
 22  recall.
 23                 Q:   And that her involvement in municipal
 24  politics predates the creation of Mississauga itself; is
 25  that right, sir?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   Now, you've told us that you've been
  3  involved in real estate for some twenty-five (25) years
  4  or so; do you have a perception as to whether your
  5  mother's role as mayor for some thirty (30) years or
  6  more, thirty-two (23) I suppose, by my arithmetic, has
  7  been a benefit or a detriment to you in your work?
  8                 A:   More so a detriment than a benefit.
  9                 Q:   What do you mean by that, Mr.
 10  McCallion?
 11                 A:   Some people don't want to deal with
 12  me because of the perception of conflict.
 13                 Q:   Do you perceive -- now, you say,
 14  "more so a detriment than a benefit."
 15                 A:   Definitely.
 16                 Q:   What benefit do you see?
 17                 A:   I get to meet a lot of people.
 18                 Q:   I'd like to turn now to land in the
 19  city centre of Mississauga, and in particular land in the
 20  vicinity of the Square One Shopping Mall and the Living
 21  Arts Centre.
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   And I understand that you became
 24  aware of parcels of land that you understood were owned
 25  by OMERS, or -- or through a subsidiary perhaps.


  1                 Is that right, sir?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   And in connection with that land, you
  4  understood it was owned by OMERS; do you now, or did you
  5  -- you learned along the way that there was a co-owner
  6  involved?
  7                 A:   Correct.  Afterwards, yes.
  8                 Q:   What was that co-owner, according to
  9  your understanding?
 10                 A:   It was a numbered company at the
 11  time.
 12                 Q:   Now, returning to Square One Shopping
 13  Mall and the Living Arts Centre in what we call downtown
 14  Mississauga, were you aware of any initiative, any drive
 15  toward a particular type of construction project in that
 16  area?
 17                 A:   Well, it was well known -- publically
 18  known that the City would like to have a hotel next to
 19  the Living Arts Centre.
 20                 Q:   And do you have any understanding as
 21  to whether official plans or other plans published by the
 22  City of Mississauga envisioned a convention centre and a
 23  hotel in that area?
 24                 A:   I believe it was in the official
 25  plan.


  1                 Q:   Now, when we talk about the City
  2  Centre and the concept of a hotel being built there,
  3  first of all, we're talking about two (2) parcels that
  4  you understood at the time were owned by OMERS.
  5                 Had you previously had any interest in
  6  developing land in that vicinity for the purposes of
  7  building a hotel?
  8                 A:   Not prior to 2002, no.
  9                 Q:   Under --
 10                 A:   I was aware of the land from previous
 11  years before, I believe, when the ownership was under
 12  Hammerson.  And I believe that there were some prepaid
 13  levies on the land.
 14                 Q:   Right.  Now, had you had listings for
 15  other land in the vicinity in previous years?
 16                 A:   Yes, I had a listing for Johnny
 17  Lombardy's 29 acres on the -- in -- inside the City core.
 18                 Q:   And what distance would that have
 19  been from the two (2) parcels that we're concerned with
 20  now --
 21                 A:   A couple thousand feet.
 22                 Q:   -- near the Living Arts Centre?
 23                 A:   A couple thousand feet.
 25  does that mean, 2,000 feet away?


  1                 THE WITNESS:   Roughly, yes.  That's a
  2  guesstimate.
  5                 Q:   All right.  And how much land did Mr.
  6  Lombardy own?
  7                 A:   I think it was 29.5 acres, actually.
  8                 Q:   And --
  9                 A:   Fronting on Burnhamthorpe up to
 10  Rathburn.
 11                 Q:   Can you tell us what your involvement
 12  was there?
 13                 A:   Well, I had it actively for sale for
 14  quite some time.  I also represented Mr. Lombardy on the
 15  City Centre Marketing Alliance, which was put together by
 16  the City of Mississauga to promote the City core.
 17                 Q:   What period are we speaking of now,
 18  when you had this listing of land in that vicinity for
 19  Mr. Lombardy and you represented him on the Alliance?
 20                 A:   It'd be the early '90s, late '80s,
 21  early '90s.
 22                 Q:   What did you understand to be the
 23  benefits, if any, of having a hotel and convention centre
 24  in the -- the City core?
 25                 A:   Well, it's instrumental to helping


  1  with the Living Arts Centre and vice versa.  It works
  2  both ways, for the hotel, as well as the Living Arts
  3  Centre.
  4                 Q:   Now, Mr. McCallion, the Inquiry has
  5  already heard of a corporation referred to as World Class
  6  Developments.
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   And we understand you had a role in
  9  incorporating that company.
 10                 A:   Yes, I did.
 11                 Q:   Now, before we go there, let's deal
 12  with some background.  You've told us that you were aware
 13  of this land that you understood was owned by OMERS.
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   And that you were aware of the -- the
 16  City's plan, if I can call it that, for construction of a
 17  hotel and convention centre in the area; is that right,
 18  sir?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   Now, apart from what you've told us
 21  about a previous listing that you had for Mr. Lombardy,
 22  how did you become involved in the concept of building a
 23  hotel and convention centre in the City Centre -- in --
 24  on the OMERS land?
 25                 A:   On that land --


  1                 Q:   We'll start at the beginning, if we
  2  can.
  3                 A:   Yes.  Well, a Chinese businessman,
  4  Mr. Lee Shim, came to me and said he was interested in
  5  building a hotel with condos --
  6                 Q:   Let's stop --
  7                 A:   -- in the City core.
  8                 Q:   Thank you.  Let's stop there.  When
  9  was that, sir?
 10                 A:   That would be 2002.
 11                 Q:   Now, Mr. Shim, you've told us, was
 12  interested in building a hotel and convention centre in
 13  the City Centre; is that right?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   Did you understand that Mr. Shim
 16  intended to do this alone or with others?
 17                 A:   No, he had business partners in
 18  China.
 19                 Q:   Did you take any steps in light of
 20  this expression of interest by Mr. Shim?
 21                 A:   I put a little bit of a presentation
 22  together and flew over with him to China to meet his
 23  partners.
 24                 Q:   And did that meeting take place?
 25                 A:   Yes.  It lasted about five (5)


  1  minutes.
  2                 Q:   Do you remember how many of the
  3  people you met with there?
  4                 A:   I don't remember all their names, but
  5  there was probably four (4) or five (5).  There was one
  6  (1) specific man that I did meet several times, called
  7  the Marble King.
  8                 Q:    Well, I take it that was a nickname?
  9                 A:    Yeah.
 10                 Q:    And maybe you could tell us how he
 11  acquired that nickname.
 12                 A:    Well, I believe that he owned at the
 13  time about 80 percent of the marble market in China.
 14  He's passed away since.
 15                 Q:    So, Mr. McCallion, you made this
 16  presentation in China to these would be investors; did
 17  anything come of that, sir?
 18                 A:    No, nothing came of it.
 19                 Q:    By the way, you said you were
 20  approached by Mr. Shim in 2002; when did the presentation
 21  take place?
 22                 A:    It was in December of 2002.
 23                 Q:    Now, after December 2002, what was
 24  the next step in your involvement in this concept of
 25  building a hotel and convention centre on the OMERS'


  1  land?
  2                 A:    Well, nothing happened for at least
  3  two (2) years, to four (4) yea -- two (2) to -- two (2)
  4  to three (3) years nothing happened.
  5                 Q:    Right.  And at the end of that two
  6  (2) to three (3) years, what happened then, Mr.
  7  McCallion?
  8                 A:   Well, I was approached by someone
  9  else who knew some Korean investors looking to invest in
 10  Canada: a Mr. Gary Acheson.
 11                 Q:   So then Mr. Acheson approached you?
 12                 A:   Yes, I knew him from a friend.
 13                 Q:   And was it explained to you who these
 14  investors were?
 15                 A:   They were from Korea, fairly wealthy.
 16  He did give me the name; I've since forgotten it.  And
 17  they wanted to invest in Canada.
 18                 Q:   Now you told us you made a
 19  presentation to Mr. Shim two (2) or three (3) years
 20  earlier; did you make a presentation to this group?
 21                 A:   Not specifically.  I took it to a
 22  couple of developers, hoping that they would be able to
 23  put something together.  Only one (1) of them did: Mr.
 24  Moldenhauer.
 25                 Q:   And that's M-O-L-D-E-N-H-A-U-E-R, is


  1  that correct?
  2                 A:   No.  I've forgotten how to spell it
  3  right now.
  4                 Q:   Fair enough.
  5                 A:   And he put a package together, but,
  6  you know, two (2) pages, and we sent it off.  They were
  7  not impressed and they came back to me and said, You put
  8  a development team together and we'll finance it.
  9                 Q:   Now, first of all, you mentioned you
 10  -- you approached two (2) developers, one (1) of whom was
 11  Mr. Moldenhauer?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   What's his first name, sir?
 14                 A:   Michael.
 15                 Q:   And had Mr. Moldenhauer had any
 16  experience in development in Mississauga?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   How much experience?
 19                 A:   He has a few projects.
 20                 Q:   So the word came back that they
 21  proposal wasn't acceptable to this group; is that
 22  correct?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And then that you should put together
 25  your own group, is that right?


  1                 A:   Correct.  Or a development team.
  2                 Q:   Was there any indication as to how
  3  this would be financed?
  4                 A:   With their money.
  5                 Q:   And we know from the time of
  6  incorporation of World Class Development, which was
  7  February 22nd, 2005, according to Exhibit 187, that it's
  8  right in that period when World Class Developments was
  9  incorporated?
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   Now, what role did you have in the
 12  incorporation of the company?
 13                 A:   I just called the lawyers and had
 14  them incorporate it.
 15                 Q:   Now, by this time, did you have an
 16  understanding that any other company, or anyone else had
 17  an interest in the OMERS land?
 18                 A:    I don't believe anybody had an
 19  interest.
 20                 Q:    So then there was a -- a name change
 21  in World Class Developments.  I understand it began as
 22  World Class Developments Inc., and there was a name
 23  change to World Class Developments Limited in August
 24  2006.
 25                 A:    Yeah, that was based on a printing


  1  error.
  2                 Q:    What kind of printing error?
  3                 A:    Well, letterhead and business cards
  4  had World Class Developments Limited on it instead of
  5  Inc., so we had to change it.
  6                 Q:    Right.  So it was cheaper to change
  7  --
  8                 A:    It's cheaper to -- 
  9                 Q:    -- the name of the company than
 10  change the --
 11                 A:   Printing.
 12                 Q:   -- stationery.  Fair enough.
 13                 Now, then in putting together a team, what
 14  type of people, what types of expertise, were you looking
 15  for?
 16                 A:   Well, first, I was looking for
 17  someone that had done some development, hotel, potential
 18  development as well, and financial.  And Leo Couprie was
 19  financial, and I chose Murray Cook because of his
 20  experience in hotel and development, high-rise as well.
 21                 Q:   And we're going to come back to those
 22  individuals in a few moments.  And what experience did
 23  you bring to World Class Developments, Mr. McCallion?
 24                 A:   I was strictly a real estate agent.
 25                 Q:   What did you expect to gain in


  1  putting World Class Developments together and finalizing
  2  a deal in relation to this land?
  3                 A:   Potentially in the long-term, the
  4  sale of the condos, because there -- there was twenty-
  5  five hundred (2500) condos.  Initially, it was hoping to
  6  get a commission on the sale of the land, but in the end
  7  it was apparent OMERS was not willing to pay.
  8                 Q:   And as we'll see in the course of
  9  your evidence today, you appear to have put some of your
 10  own funds into World Class Developments; is that right,
 11  sir?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   And why did you -- we'll come to this
 14  in greater detail, but why --
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   -- did you do that if you were --
 17                 A:   Well --
 18                 Q:   -- a real estate agent hoping to
 19  realize income on commissions?
 20                 A:   -- at the point where I did put it
 21  in, it was -- the company was running out of money and
 22  had obligations that it had to meet.  And in order to
 23  keep the deal alive, I saw fit that I had to put some
 24  money in to keep it alive until we found a financier.
 25                 Q:   Have you ever done that before in a


  1  real estate deal?
  2                 A:   I have loaned some money for deposit
  3  money before, yes.
  4                 Q:   Now, let's return now, then, to those
  5  who you involved in WCD, or World Class Developments.
  6  And first of all I'll ask you about Leo Couprie.
  7                 How do you know Mr. Couprie?
  8                 A:   I actually met him on that trip to
  9  China.  He was a friend of Mr. Shim.
 10                 Q:   So you're talking about the trip to
 11  China in 2002?
 12                 A:   In 2002, and we became friends.
 13                 Q:   What business was Mr. Couprie in,
 14  let's say, in 2005 and 2006?
 15                 A:   He's in the import/export of seafood
 16  as well as, you know, meat; import/export of food for
 17  restaurants and whatnot.
 18                 Q:   Do you have some understanding as to
 19  what resources he has at his disposal?
 20                 A:   He's comfortably well off and has
 21  some spare cash, to my understanding.
 22                 Q:   So you approached him to invest in
 23  the project; is --
 24                 A:   Yes --
 25                 Q:   -- that right?


  1                 A:   -- I did.
  2                 Q:   And did he agree to do that?
  3                 A:   Yes, he did.
  4                 Q:   And specifically, what was he
  5  providing?  What was the purpose --
  6                 A:   He was --
  7                 Q:   -- of his investment?
  8                 A:   -- primarily providing deposit money.
  9                 Q:   Can you explain that?  Deposit money
 10  for what?
 11                 A:   Oh, for the purchase of the land,
 12  seven hundred and fifty thousand (750,000).
 13                 Q:   Perhaps we could go to Exhibit 189
 14  now, please.  And I'm showing you this document, it's
 15  Exhibit 189 in these proceedings.
 16                 And it's a WCD -- World Class Developments
 17  Limited Loan Agreement between Leo Couprie and World
 18  Class Developments Limited.  It's dated January 29, 2007.
 19  Do you see that, sir?
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   And it appears to bear your signature
 22  as guarantor; is that right?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And on -- for the borrower, whose
 25  signature is that?  Do you recognize that, sir?


  1                 A:   I don't recognize it, but it could be
  2  either Murray Cook or -- or Leo.
  3                 Q:   And who signed as the witness, sir?
  4                 A:   My mother.
  5                 Q:   Now, by its terms, this loan
  6  agreement indicates that in exchange for lending WCD a
  7  total of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars
  8  ($750,000) for the down payment, Mr. Couprie would
  9  receive a return of his principal investment, plus an
 10  additional seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars
 11  ($750,000) once the development deal was completed; is
 12  that correct, sir?
 13                 A:   Correct, yes.
 14                 Q:   Now, at that time, how were the
 15  shares in WCD held?
 16                 A:   Leo owned 100 percent.
 17                 Q:   And why was Mr. Couprie given all of
 18  the shares at that stage?
 19                 A:   He had all the money.
 20                 Q:   And at that stage, had anyone else
 21  invested in the company?
 22                 A:   No.  
 23                 Q:   Have you, yourself, ever been an
 24  officer or director of WCD?
 25                 A:   Never.


  1                 Q:   If I could turn you now, sir, to
  2  another document, Exhibit 190.  And this is a declaration
  3  of trust.  It doesn't appear to bear a date.
  4                 Do you recognize this document, Mr.
  5  McCallion?
  6                 A:   Yes, I do.
  7                 Q:   Can you describe the circumstances
  8  surrounding the --
  9                 A:   Well --
 10                 Q:   -- signing of this document?
 11                 A:   Mr. Couprie and I were travelling
 12  shortly after, away, and we decided to do a trust
 13  agreement just in case something happened to us on the
 14  plane and -- so that my family might get some benefit out
 15  of this.
 16                 Q:   And if we could scroll down to the
 17  bottom, please, of the document.  We see here your
 18  signature, is that right, sir?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   As the beneficiary.
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   And we see another signature above
 23  the line, an indication, "Leo Couprie, the trustee," is
 24  that right, sir?
 25                 A:   Correct.


  1                 Q:   And we see a signature to the left.
  2                 A:   That's my mother.
  3                 Q:   Now, you've told me that this was
  4  signed to offer some protection, is that right, sir?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   Why did you and Mr. Couprie decide on
  7  that particular occasion to enter into this trust
  8  agreement?
  9                 A:   Just because we were travelling.  We
 10  left -- I believe we travelled on January the 30th.
 11                 Q:   Right.  And you were travelling for
 12  ten (10) days, is that right?
 13                 A:   Approximately, yes.
 14                 Q:   I think I know the answer to this
 15  question, Mr. McCallion, but did either you or Mr.
 16  Couprie have any assistance from a lawyer before signing
 17  this document?
 18                 A:   No, none.
 19                 Q:   In fact, do you have any
 20  understanding as to how the document was drafted?
 21                 A:   I believe Leo Googled it on the
 22  computer, and it came up with trust agreement.
 23                 Q:   He Googled "trust agreement" or
 24  "trust declaration" and --
 25                 A:   That's what came up.


  1                 Q:   Now, you told us your mother
  2  witnessed it, is that right?
  3                 A:   Yes, that is.
  4                 Q:   And, first of all, sir, where was
  5  this signed?
  6                 A:   Well, I believe we were at dinner at
  7  Pier 4 with Leo and his wife and me and my mother.
  8                 Q:   And Pier 4 is --
  9                 A:   And I don't remember who else.
 10                 Q:   -- is what, sir?
 11                 A:   It's a restaurant in Toronto.
 12                 Q:   So you were there at dinner, and --
 13                 A:   I believe we were travelling the next
 14  day or a couple of days from that.
 15                 Q:   Right, and hence your concern about
 16  protecting your interest, is that right?
 17                 A:   Correct.
 18                 Q:   Did you review the document with your
 19  mother?
 20                 A:   No, I did not.
 21                 Q:   Did she sign it in your presence?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   From the best of your recollection
 24  and observation, did she appear to read it before signing
 25  it?


  1                 A:   No, she was strictly acting as a
  2  witness.
  3                 Q:   Did you discuss this document in her
  4  presence?
  5                 A:   No.  Leo and I had discussed it prior
  6  to.
  7                 Q:   Now, let's scroll up a bit so we can
  8  see more of this document, Mr. McCallion.  It indicates
  9  that:
 10                   "The trustee solemnly declares that he
 11                   holds 80 percent of the shares of World
 12                   Class Developments, Limited [and then
 13                   in parentheses] (the property) in trust
 14                   solely for the benefit of the
 15                   beneficiary.  The trustee further
 16                   promises the beneficiary..."
 17                 And then we've got (a) and:
 18                   "(a) Not to deal with the property in
 19                   any way except to transfer it to the
 20                   beneficiary without the instructions
 21                   and consent of the beneficiary; (b) to
 22                   account to the beneficiary for any
 23                   money received by the trustee in
 24                   connection with holding the property;
 25                   (c) beneficiary to pay the trustee


  1                   double the amount of money advanced by
  2                   World Class Developments Limited to
  3                   McCarthy Tetrault for deposits
  4                   regarding purchase of property from
  5                   OMERS Realty Management Corporation and
  6                   1331430 Ontario, Inc., as per attached
  7                   agreement of purchase and sale."
  8                 Have I read that correctly, sir?
  9                 A:   Yes, you have.
 10                 Q:   Now, did you understand at the time
 11  that the term "beneficial ownership" meant that you
 12  yourself owned the shares of WCD, and not Mr. Couprie?
 13                 A:   No, I did not.  They were still in
 14  his possession.
 15                 Q:   Now, I phrased that question in terms
 16  of your understanding at the time --
 17                 A:   Yeah, at the time.
 18                 Q:   -- which you told us was January
 19  2007.  What do you understand it to mean today, as we
 20  stand here, July 27th, 2010?
 21                 A:   Today, it would mean I own the
 22  company.
 23                 Q:   Now, after this agreement, or this
 24  trust declaration was executed, and you've told us this
 25  was January 2007, did you believe that you were a


  1  beneficial owner of World Class Developments?
  2                 A:   No, I did not.
  3                 Q:   Did you change the way you operated
  4  in relation to World Class Developments in any way?
  5                 A:   No, I did not.
  6                 Q:   Did you believe, and we've just read
  7  the terms together, did you believe that Mr. Couprie had
  8  to deal with the shares of WCD in a manner that was
  9  beneficial to you?
 10                 A:   No, I did not.
 11                 Q:   Do you recall how many copies of this
 12  trust declaration were signed?
 13                 A:   I thought there was just two (2).
 14                 Q:   And what became of those copies after
 15  they were signed in January 2007?
 16                 A:   Well, I took mine home.  I don't know
 17  what Leo did with his.  After we returned from the trip,
 18  I didn't feel we needed it any more so I discarded mine.
 19                 Q:   Right.  Now, we've covered whether
 20  you changed the manner in which you operated in relation
 21  to the company, whether you believed you were a
 22  beneficial owner, and also whether you understood that
 23  Mr. Couprie had to deal with the shares in a manner that
 24  was beneficial to you.
 25                 Let me take you now to Exhibit 197.  And I


  1  appreciate that we don't see the whole document at once,
  2  Mr. McCallion, but you'll see that, from the top of the
  3  first page of this document, this is a Declaration of
  4  Trust and Shareholders' Agreement dated August 1st, 2007,
  5  between Landplex Inc., an Ontario corporation, and Leo
  6  Couprie.
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   From -- from what you can see of that
  9  document, sir, can you tell me whether you had seen this
 10  Declaration of Trust and Shareholders' Agreement before?
 11                 A:   I have seen it, but I have not read
 12  it.
 13                 Q:   All right.  Did you understand that
 14  subsequently Mr. -- this is subsequent to entering into
 15  the Declaration of Trust in January 2007, that Mr.
 16  Couprie gave 80 percent of his interest to Landplex, a
 17  company apparently owned by Tony DeCicco?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   Were you aware of this at the time,
 20  that's as of August 1st, 2007?
 21                 A:   I was aware of it.  I didn't know the
 22  details though.
 23                 Q:   Did you have any say in Mr. Couprie's
 24  decision to do that?
 25                 A:   No, but I thought it was best for the


  1  company.
  2                 Q:   And did you think that this line
  3  here, which we can see on the screen, "whereas Leo is the
  4  beneficial owner of eighty (80) common shares, the shares
  5  in the capital stock of World Class Developments
  6  Limited," did you think that that accurately reflected
  7  Mr. Couprie's interest in World Class Developments?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   By the way, at that time, who held
 10  the -- the other 20 percent of the shares in World Class
 11  Developments?
 12                 A:   That was Murray Cook.
 13                 Q:   Now you told me that you believe
 14  there were two (2) copies of that declaration of trust
 15  that we've seen previously, which was Exhibit 190.  When
 16  you returned from your trip with Mr. Couprie in February
 17  2007, what did you do with your copy?
 18                 A:   I discarded it, because the trip was
 19  over.  It was for the purpose of the trip only.
 20                 Q:   And we've canvassed another issue,
 21  and that had to do with Mr. Couprie's investment in the
 22  company for the deposit or down payment of seven hundred
 23  and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000).
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   After he invested that money, what


  1  was Mr. Couprie's role in the day-to-day operation of
  2  World Class Developments?
  3                 A:   Basically, I represented his
  4  interest, because he was not interested in going to
  5  meetings and -- development meetings and whatnot.  So I
  6  represented him.  That was my role.
  7                 Q:   Now, in representing him, was it your
  8  job then to pass information onto him, pertaining to the
  9  company?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   Now, Murray Cook's name has come up
 12  as well.  And in the early stages of World Class
 13  Development, you recruited him; is that right, sir?
 14                 A:   Correct, yes.
 15                 Q:   And you touched on this briefly.  You
 16  -- you said he'd been a developer, but how did you know
 17  Mr. Cook?
 18                 A:   He grew up in Streetsville , as well
 19  as I did.  He was a little bit older than me, but we went
 20  to the same high school, but not together.
 21                 Q:   And why in particular did you recruit
 22  Mr. Cook, as opposed to someone else with development
 23  experience?
 24                 A:   Well, he has a lot of experience, and
 25  I know him.  He's a family friend.  He's been president


  1  of Deerhurst.  He was president of BC Place, I believe,
  2  for ten (10) years.  And he also was president of Emar
  3  Developments in Dubai.
  4                 Q:   Did you say, BC Place?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   Or BCE Place?
  7                 A:   No, BC Place.
  8                 Q:   BC Place.
  9                 A:   Vancouver.
 10                 Q:   And in terms of negotiation with
 11  vendors, who did you think would be dealing with the --
 12  the sellers of the property among your group?
 13                 A:   Well, Murray would be the best for
 14  that.
 15                 Q:   And when we look at Exhibit 192,
 16  which is the Agreement of Purchase and Sale -- I'll just
 17  stop there.  You'll see that this was sent to Mr. Cook by
 18  way of covering letter dated February 2nd, 2007.
 19                 And first of all, sir, where were you on
 20  February 2nd, 2007?
 21                 A:   I believe I was in Vietnam.
 22                 Q:   Where was Mr. Couprie on February
 23  2nd, 2007, to the best of your recollection?
 24                 A:   In Vietnam too.
 25                 Q:   And in relation to this Agreement of


  1  Purchase and Sale negotiated with the vendors, we see
  2  that it was sent to Mr. Cook.
  3                 And you've told us that you expected he
  4  would take the lead in negotiation in any event; is that
  5  right?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   Now, you've told us that Mr. Cook
  8  came to have 20 percent of the shares in World Class
  9  Developments; is that right?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   Did he invest money?
 12                 A:   Not that I was aware of, no.
 13                 Q:   How was it, then, that -- that Mr.
 14  Couprie, who had held all of the shares in WCD, came to
 15  part with some of them?
 16                 A:   Well, Mr. Cook needed some benefit
 17  for negotiating the deal and -- and lending his
 18  credibility to the project.
 19                 Q:   If we could turn to Exhibit 193,
 20  please.
 21                 And what we have here is a Shareholders'
 22  Agreement, dated February 28th, 2007, between World Class
 23  Developments Limited, Murray Cook, and Leo Couprie; is
 24  that right, Mr. McCallion?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, first of all, were you
  2  aware of Mr. Couprie's decision -- before I get there, do
  3  you understand that this agreement reflects, in the
  4  second paragraph, that Mr. Cook is the holder of 20
  5  percent of the common shares of the Corporation?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   And Mr. Couprie, the holder of 80
  8  percent of the common shares of the Corporation; is that
  9  right, sir?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   And were you aware of Mr. Couprie's
 12  decision to transfer shares to Mr. Cook?
 13                 A:   I was aware of it.
 14                 Q:   Now, were you made aware of this
 15  agreement at the time?
 16                 A:   I believe I saw it afterwards.
 17                 Q:   Did you have any role in the
 18  negotiation of that agreement as between Mr. Cook and Mr.
 19  Couprie?
 20                 A:   No, I did not.
 21                 Q:   Now, you've told me that Mr. Cook
 22  provided, if I can boil it down, expertise and
 23  credibility to the project; is that right?
 24                 A:   Very -- yes.
 25                 Q:   Can you tell us about what Mr. Cook


  1  did then on behalf of World Class Developments, apart
  2  from negotiating the Agreement of Purchase and Sale that
  3  we've already seen?
  4                 A:   Well, he knows a lot of the
  5  consultants in Toronto, in terms of architects, hotel
  6  consultants, planners that you all need. 
  7                 Q:   And if we speak of particular
  8  consultants, Mr. McCallion --
  9                 A:   Yeah.
 10                 Q:   -- the documents that the Commission
 11  has obtained refer to Page + Steele --
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   -- for example.
 14                 A:   Architects.
 15                 Q:   And who involved Page + Steele, then
 16  --
 17                 A:   Murray may --
 18                 Q:   -- on behalf of World Class
 19  Developments?
 20                 A:   Murray did.  He knew them.
 21                 Q:   The documents also refer to Barry
 22  Lyon.
 23                 A:   Yes, he was -- he had worked with
 24  Barry Lyon in the past.
 25                 Q:   And Mr. Lyon and his firm are


  1  consultants in what field, Mr. McCallion?
  2                 A:   Planning.
  3                 Q:   The documents also refer to Horwath
  4  Horizon Consultants.
  5                 A:   Yes, they're hotel consultants.
  6                 Q:   And did you have any understanding
  7  about why hotel consultants were necessary?
  8                 A:   Because the project called for a
  9  hotel.
 10                 Q:   If we could turn, please, to Exhibit
 11  136, I'm going to show you a letter on the letterhead of
 12  Marriott Hotels of Canada, dated February 23rd, 2006,
 13  addressed to Mr. Murray Cook, World Class Developments,
 14  400 Brunel Road, Mississauga, Ontario.  And I'll give you
 15  a moment to review that, sir.
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   Were you aware of this letter at the
 18  time?
 19                 A:   I knew that Murray had acquired a
 20  letter, yes.  I had not seen it though.  
 21                 Q:   You had not seen it at the time?
 22                 A:   At the time, no.
 23                 Q:   And in the second paragraph, I note
 24  that it says:
 25                   "We are very aware of Mayor McCallion's


  1                   desire to entertain a four-star
  2                   property close to the Living Arts
  3                   Centre and believe that the City needs
  4                   this hub to consolidate its profile and
  5                   positioning in the Province."
  6                 Let me stop there.  I've asked you
  7  previously about the City's interest in developing a
  8  hotel in the City Centre.
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   Does this fairly represent what you
 11  understood to be your mother's interest in developing a
 12  hotel in the City Centre?
 13                 A:   I believe there was a lot of people
 14  that wanted a hotel next to the Living Arts Centre,
 15  including her.
 16                 Q:   Okay.  So what we have here is a
 17  letter expressing interest in participating in the
 18  project, and this from the Marriott Hotel chain, is that
 19  right, sir?
 20                 A:   Correct, yes.
 21                 Q:   Now, I've taken you previously to the
 22  Agreement of Purchase and Sale, which was Exhibit 192,
 23  and it's dated January 31st, 2007.  And you've told me
 24  that you expected Mr. Cook to play the leading role in
 25  negotiating that on behalf of World Class Developments.


  1                 What was your involvement, if any, in the
  2  negotiations and eventual signing of the Agreement of
  3  Purchase and Sale?
  4                 A:   I was not involved in negotiations at
  5  all.  I did converse with Murray on a regular basis, but
  6  I was not involved in negotiations whatsoever.
  7                 Q:   Once the agreement of purchase and
  8  sale was signed, did you obtain a copy?
  9                 A:   Yes, when I came back from our trip.
 10                 Q:   Who gave --
 11                 A:   I don't know immediately, but --
 12                 Q:   Okay.
 13                 A:   -- shortly thereafter.
 14                 Q:   Sorry for cutting you off, which I
 15  did twice in the course of that answer.
 16                 Who gave you a copy of the executed
 17  Agreement of Purchase and Sale?
 18                 A:   It would have been Murray Cook.
 19                 Q:   And, Mr. McCallion, did you think
 20  that building a hotel and convention centre in the City
 21  Centre was economically viable?
 22                 A:   I believed it would have been
 23  difficult, but not impossible, in terms of economics.
 24                 Q:   Based on your experience in
 25  development and real estate, how did you think -- or did


  1  you have any understanding as to how the -- the
  2  construction of the hotel would be financed?
  3                 A:   Well, the purpose of having condos on
  4  the surrounding land would help finance the hotel,
  5  meaning that a hotel by itself would probably not --
  6  completely by itself would probably not be economically
  7  feasible.
  8                 Q:   And with funding from the condo
  9  development, did anyone tell you that a four-star hotel
 10  was not economically viable, in any event?
 11                 A:   The consultants, I believe, did say
 12  it was difficult, but it could eventually happen over a
 13  period of time.  You build a hotel to four-star
 14  standards, but you only get three-star service, because
 15  the difference between the stars is usually service.
 16                 Q:   And, Mr. McCallion, we've heard the
 17  evidence from Mr. Costin about the negotiation of the
 18  Agreement of Purchase and Sale.  And you've told us that
 19  -- that you were informed about the negotiation of it
 20  from time to time.
 21                 During that process, did you ever talk to
 22  your mother about the transaction?
 23                 A:   Not that I recall, no.
 24                 Q:   Is there a reason why you didn't do
 25  that, sir?


  1                 A:   We had nothing to talk about.
  2                 Q:   Why not?
  3                 A:   It was taking a long time.  I do
  4  recall that.  I believe we were negotiating for almost
  5  two (2) years.  But I don't recall if I -- if I did
  6  mention anything, it would have been, it's taking a long
  7  time.
  8                 Q:   And, by the way, where do you live in
  9  relation to where your mother lives?  How far apart are
 10  you?
 11                 A:   Oh, two (2) minutes away, five (5)
 12  minutes by walking.
 13                 Q:   All right.  And I understand that
 14  it's a close family, is that right, sir?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   How many times would you see your
 17  mother in the average week?
 18                 A:   Oh, five (5), six (6) times.
 19                 Q:   And are there days when you might see
 20  her more than once?
 21                 A:   Yes, usually on weekends, more so
 22  than during the week.  But I used to drive her a lot to
 23  functions and whatnot.
 24                 Q:   Are there chores that you --
 25                 A:   Well --


  1                 Q:   -- take on for her?
  2                 A:   -- yeah, we have a pool -- or sorry,
  3  a pond.  We have a pool, too, but the pond is kind of a
  4  maintenance nightmare.
  5                 Q:   I'll keep that in mind.
  6                 A:   Yeah.
  7                 Q:   Now, in terms of Murray Cook, you
  8  told me how you know Murray Cook.  Are you aware of
  9  whether your mother knows Murray Cook?
 10                 A:   Oh, yes.  Murray -- yes, my mother
 11  knows Murray well.
 12                 Q:   Did you understand at the time
 13  whether Mr. Cook was speaking to your mother about the
 14  project?
 15                 A:   I probably would say -- suspect that
 16  he would, yes.
 17                 Q:   When I speak of "the time," I refer
 18  to the time when the Agreement of Purchase and Sale was
 19  being negotiated.
 20                 A:   Yes, yes.
 21                 Q:   Now more generally, do you talk to
 22  your mother about your business affairs?
 23                 A:   I let her know what I'm working on,
 24  basically, just as a past tense.  She usually says, you
 25  know, Are you working; get to work.


  1                 Q:   A mother's concern.
  2                 A:   Yes, exactly.
  3                 Q:   And -- and how often during this
  4  period, sir, would you have discussed your business
  5  affairs with your mother, say in the year leading up to
  6  the Agreement of Purchase and Sale being executed?
  7                 A:   How many times would I have discussed
  8  this specific project?  I don't know, five (5), six (6)
  9  times.
 10                 Q:   Yeah, but how many times would you --
 11  how often would you discuss your business affairs with
 12  your mother, in a more general way.
 13                 A:   Oh, in a more general -- almost every
 14  time I'd see her.  She'd go, Oh, what are you working on,
 15  what are you doing.  Not specifically telling her exactly
 16  what I'm doing, but...
 17                 Q:   All right.  Let's turn to another
 18  individual whom you involved in World Class Developments,
 19  and that's Tony DeCicco.
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   We understand from other evidence
 22  that you brought Tony DeCicco into World Class
 23  Developments in the summer of 2007.
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   How did you know Mr. DeCicco?


  1                 A:   I had met him on a property that I
  2  had listed, and he was the purchaser.
  3                 Q:   How long ago was that, or how many
  4  year -- how long prior to 2007 was that, to be more
  5  precise?
  6                 A:   I'm guessing ten (10) or more years.
  7                 Q:   And from that time to 2007, had you
  8  had any other contact with Mr. DeCicco?
  9                 A:   Oh, yes.  We actually became friends.
 10                 Q:   And in your work as a real estate
 11  agent after that initial time --
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   -- did you -- did you work with Mr.
 14  DeCicco?
 15                 A:   Yes, I had some listings that he had
 16  for lease and whatnot.
 17                 Q:   Now, why did you ask Mr. DeCicco to
 18  become involved?
 19                 A:   I believed he had the experience to
 20  bring the project to fruition.  He's -- he's built homes.
 21  He's got commercial developments.  And I believed he had
 22  the financial resources.
 23                 Q:   Now, that's why to involve Mr.
 24  DeCicco, but why involve him at that point?  Why involve
 25  him in the summer of 2007?


  1                 A:   At that point the bills, were not
  2  being paid, so we needed some financing right away.
  3                 Q:   So when you refer to the bills not
  4  being paid --
  5                 A:   Consultants, Page + Steele, Horvat,
  6  et cetera.
  7                 Q:   Was there another reason for
  8  involving Mr. Co -- Mr. DeCicco in the project, apart
  9  from the fact that you were concerned about failure to
 10  meet financial obligations?
 11                 A:   Yes.  Well, at that time, it was
 12  becoming apparent that Mr. Cook was looking to squeeze
 13  Leo out of the company because of the lack of bills being
 14  paid.
 15                 Q:   Why was this a concern to you about
 16  Mr. Couprie being squeezed out of the company by Mr.
 17  Cook?
 18                 A:   Well, I believed that I would not be
 19  involved at that point if he got squeezed out, and I
 20  would not be the agent for selling the condominiums in
 21  the end, because Mr. Cou -- Mr. Cooper's -- sorry, Mr.
 22  Cook's partners, or I believed to be potential partners,
 23  had their own in-house sales staff.
 24                 Q:   Now, to be precise about it, what did
 25  you ask Mr. DeCicco to do by way of involvement in WCD?


  1                 A:   Well, basically, take over the lead
  2  and -- and manage and put it together; deal with the
  3  vendors, deal with the consultants, and deal with the
  4  City.
  5                 Q:   Now, you've touched on how you -- how
  6  you knew him, and you've touched on his experience.  Were
  7  you aware of any particular developments that he was
  8  involved in?
  9                 A:   Well, he was building houses up in
 10  Kleinburg, I know that.  He had a plaza in Windsor.  He
 11  has some older developments in Mississauga.  So he's --
 12  he's all over the place.
 13                 Q:   This might be a time to return to
 14  Exhibit 197, which is the August 1st, 2000, Declaration
 15  of Trust and Shareholders' Agreement between Landplex and
 16  Leo Couprie.  We've already touched on this previously,
 17  Mr. McCallion; you -- I won't ask you to repeat your
 18  evidence in relation to this.
 19                 Did you have any concerns about this
 20  agreement?
 21                 A:   Well, I did not read it, so I didn't
 22  have any concerns.
 23                 Q:   Was it explained to you by anyone?
 24                 A:   Well, Leo understood he was keeping
 25  20 percent of 80 percent.


  1                 Q:   What did you understand it to mean,
  2  in terms of your interest in WCD?
  3                 A:   In my interest?
  4                 Q:   Right.
  5                 A:   Well, Leo was still part of the
  6  company, and I believe he would ensure that somewhere
  7  down the road, I would get the ability to sell the
  8  condos.  I trusted Mr. Couprie.
  9                 Q:   To be clear about this, did you think
 10  you had any other interest in WCD?
 11                 A:   At that time, no.
 12                 Q:   Now, you've told us that Mr. DeCicco
 13  took over the day-to-day work in relation to WCD; is that
 14  right?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   And we've heard of -- of discussions
 17  with the Easton's Group and a Mr. Steve Gupta.
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   Who involved Mr. Gupta?
 20                 A:   That would be Tony DeCicco.
 21                 Q:   And in fact, did you take part of a
 22  tour of a -- of a hotel that is operated by Mr. Gupta?
 23                 A:   Yes, I did.
 24                 Q:   Can you tell us about that, please?
 25                 A:   Well, that was a tour to see his


  1  Marriott Residence Inn on -- I don't remember what
  2  street, but -- and --
  3                 Q:   In what city?  And whereabouts?
  4                 A:   Well, it's in Toronto.  And so we
  5  went on the tour.
  6                 Q:   And when we say "we," sir, who are we
  7  including in --
  8                 A:   I believe it --
  9                 Q:   -- this?
 10                 A:   -- would be Tony, Steve Gupta, Ed
 11  Sajecki, myself, my mother, and there might have been
 12  another person, but I can't remember who they would have
 13  been.
 14                 Q:   Do you recall when this was?
 15                 A:   I don't recall the date specifically.
 16                 Q:   A month and a year, sir?
 17                 A:   I don't remember the date.
 18                 Q:   All right.  So this group went on the
 19  tour.  And what was the outcome of the tour?
 20                 A:   Well, I was not very impressed with
 21  the style of hotel that he was proposing.  Across the
 22  street is the SoHo Hotel, so I do know that Mr. Sajecki
 23  and I went over there.  And I said, This is what I was
 24  kind of envisioning for the City Centre, as opposed to
 25  the Marriott.


  1                 Q:   And do you recall what your mother's
  2  reaction was?
  3                 A:   I don't recall.  She stayed back.
  4                 Q:   Now, we've mentioned Ed Sajecki.
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   And how long have you known Ed
  7  Sajecki?
  8                 A:   I've known Ed since he came to the
  9  City.  I'd meet him a lot of functions and kind of became
 10  friends; but you know, not a friend that I go to his
 11  house, but I see him at a lot of functions.  We talk a
 12  lot, talk about his farm up in Collingwood.
 13                 Q:   The Commission's exhibits include a
 14  number of appointment slips or Outlook calendar
 15  appointment records relating to lunch --
 16                 A:   Oh, yeah.
 17                 Q:   -- that you had with Ed Sajecki.
 18                 A:   Oh, we would have lunch the odd time,
 19  a couple, maybe three times a year.  We'd just talk about
 20  everything.  Sometimes he would pay.  Sometimes I would
 21  pay.  He always offered though.
 22                 Q:   And when you say, We'd talk about
 23  everything, can -- can you --
 24                 A:   Well --
 25                 Q:   -- can you narrow that down a bit for


  1  us?
  2                 A:   I may have mentioned about World
  3  Class, but we would have talked about other items as
  4  well, not specifically World Class.
  5                 Q:   And what was your purpose in having
  6  lunch with Ed Sajecki on those occasions?
  7                 A:   A friend.  
  8                 Q:   Also included in the documents that
  9  the Commission has obtained are a number of voice mail
 10  messages to your mother from Tony DeCicco.
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   Were you aware that Tony DeCicco
 13  contacted your mother from time to time once he became
 14  involved in World Class Development?
 15                 A:   Well, I was aware he did contact her
 16  sometimes.  How many?  I probably was not aware.  
 17                 Q:   And were you aware of this at the
 18  time he was doing it?
 19                 A:   Not specifically.  
 20                 Q:   Did you and your mother ever discuss
 21  Mr. DeCicco contacting her?
 22                 A:   No.
 23                 Q:   Now, it appears that one of the
 24  issues Mr. DeCicco contacted your mother about was
 25  litigation between Murray Cook and Leo Couprie.


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   Were you aware of Mr. DeCicco doing
  3  that?
  4                 A:   Yes, I am.  He called her because my
  5  mother knows Mr. Cook very well, family friend, and was
  6  hoping that my mother could resolve their differences.
  7                 Q:   And, in fact, did you ever attend a
  8  meeting --
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   -- that your mother also attended --
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   -- in relation to that dispute?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   Who else was there?
 15                 A:   Nobody, that I'm aware of, other than
 16  Tony, Murray, my mother, and myself; and it was not
 17  resolved.
 18                 Q:   Where did that meeting take place?
 19                 A:   I believe at her house.
 20                 Q:   Do recall your mother's role in the
 21  meeting?
 22                 A:   Keep the peace.
 23                 Q:   Now, more generally, in your
 24  experience, is it usual or unusual for developers and
 25  business people to contact your mother?


  1                 A:   Oh, no, it happens every day.
  2                 Q:   And --
  3                 A:   I'm not aware of it, of course, but I
  4  -- I know they all call her.
  5                 Q:   Do you have an understanding as to
  6  what they typically ask for?
  7                 A:   They have a problem with something,
  8  either with the City, with another developer, et cetera,
  9  et cetera.
 10                 Q:   Now, Mr. McCallion, we're going to
 11  turn to something we briefly touched on earlier, and
 12  that's your loans to World Class Developments, which take
 13  place in 2007, as we look at this chronology.
 14                 Now, you mentioned that a reason for
 15  involving Mr. DeCicco was that World Class Developments,
 16  as being run by Mr. Cook, wasn't meeting its financial
 17  obligations, is that right, sir?
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   Now, at some point, did you become
 20  concerned to the extent that you advanced money yourself?
 21                 A:   Yes, well, I advanced money in order
 22  to keep the deal alive until we could find a -- a
 23  suitable financier and developer.  And in order to keep
 24  it alive -- if the deal fell apart at that point, all my
 25  efforts for the last four (4) years or five (5) years


  1  have gone down the drain, which is not uncommon for a
  2  real estate agent.
  3                 Q:   Could we see Exhibit 195 please?
  5                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  7                 Q:   Have you ever seen this document
  8  before?
  9                 A:   Yes, after the inquiry started.
 10                 Q:   All right.  All right.  You
 11  understand this to be a financial record of WCD?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   And in particular, I'm going to refer
 14  you to March 7.  And this is apparently 2007, because
 15  it's immediately after an entry for March 1, '07.  We
 16  have a credit of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000),
 17  details, "PJMC deposit."
 18                 Do you see that sir?
 19                 A:   Yes, I do.
 20                 Q:   And although you've only seen this
 21  after the Inquiry was created by Municipal resolution,
 22  can you tell us what that -- first of all, who is PJMC?
 23                 A:   Well, that's myself.
 24                 Q:   Peter J. McCallion?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   And the thirty thousand dollars
  2  ($30,000), sir, can you tell us what that was about?
  3                 A:   Well, we had some bills coming due.
  4  Horvath is one specifically that I'm aware of that needed
  5  -- needed to be paid.  And the other one underneath, &
  6  Co., a consulting company.
  7                 Q:   So you're referring to a -- an entry
  8  for March 19th and another entry for March 23rd --
  9                 A:   March 23rd --
 10                 Q:   Is that correct?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   And then as we look down to May 24th,
 13  we see another credit of seventy-three thousand five
 14  hundred dollars ($73,500), and again, "PJMC deposit."  Is
 15  that correct, sir?
 16                 A:   Correct.  
 17                 Q:   And that's another instance in which
 18  you loan money to the company, is that right, sir?
 19                 A:   Correct, yes.
 20                 Q:   Did you ask Mr. Couprie or Mr. Cook
 21  to pay the money to meet these obligations before loaning
 22  the money yourself?
 23                 A:   I probably did.  I -- I do know Mr.
 24  Couprie wasn't putting any more money in.  And Mr. Cook,
 25  I believe at the time, didn't have any money to put in.


  1                 Q:   When we look at these amounts --
  2  thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) and seventy-three
  3  thousand five hundred dollars ($73,500) -- where did you
  4  get that money, Mr. McCallion?
  5                 A:   That was commissions owed to me from
  6  De Zen Homes.  
  7                 Q:   Now, if we go to the next page, and
  8  in particular to an entry for July 30th, we see a --
  9  another credit in the amount of fifty thousand dollars
 10  ($50,000).
 11                 Is that correct, sir?
 12                 A:   Yes.  
 13                 Q:   And again, in terms of details, in
 14  that column we see "PJMC deposit."  Is that right?
 15                 A:   Correct, yes.
 16                 Q:   Now, where did you get that money,
 17  sir?
 18                 A:   I didn't have any more resources of
 19  my own, so I had to borrow that.  I borrowed it from TACC
 20  Construction.
 21                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Sorry,
 22  from who?
 23                 THE WITNESS:   TACC.  T-A-C-C.


  1                 Q:   Sorry, did you say you borrowed that
  2  money from TACC?
  3                 A:   I borrowed that money from TACC, yes.
  4                 Q:   Why did you need to borrow money from
  5  TACC?  I -- we realize you didn't have money yourself,
  6  but why did you need to put money into WCD, these
  7  borrowed funds of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), in
  8  July 2007?
  9                 A:   We had an obligation for a site plan
 10  application fee was due, I see, August the 2nd.  I
 11  thought it was July 31st.  
 12                 Q:   There are some entries on this
 13  document, Mr. McCallion.  For example, we see on the
 14  first page, April 5th, we see money going out, two
 15  thousand three hundred and ten dollars and thirty cents
 16  ($2,310.30).  Details column says, "L. Couprie, PJMC
 17  expense."
 18                 A:   Yes.  
 19                 Q:   June 28, we see six thousand dollars
 20  ($6,000), "PJMC Consulting."  By the way, we see "PJMC
 21  Consulting" on March 16th, as well, for a thousand
 22  dollars ($1,000).  And on August 3rd, on the second page,
 23  we see seven hundred and seventy dollars ($770), and it
 24  says, "L. Couprie, PJMC expense."
 25                 A:   Yes.  


  1                 Q:   Now, do you recall receiving money
  2  from World Class Developments during this period?
  3                 A:   Yes.  I needed to live.  I needed
  4  some money to pay my own expenses.  
  5                 Q:   Now you mentioned the loan from TACC.
  6  If we could look at Exhibit 196, please.
  8                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 10                 Q:   Actually, we don't need to go back to
 11  the document, but there appear to be other entries where
 12  you were receiving money -- expense money --
 13                 A:   Yes.  
 14                 Q:   -- from World Class Developments that
 15  I didn't take you to.
 16                 A:   Oh, okay.  
 17                 Q:   Is it fair that there may have been
 18  other payments made to you in order to pay your expenses,
 19  sir?
 20                 A:   Other than what was on that sheet, I
 21  believe not.  
 22                 Q:   Well, let's go back to it then, just
 23  to be clear.  Exhibit 195.
 24                 So just so that we're clear about this, in
 25  terms of payments out to you, we have March 16th, one


  1  thousand dollars ($1,000).
  2                 A:   Yeah.  
  3                 Q:   We have March 30th, one thousand
  4  dollars  ($1,000).
  5                 A:   Yes.  
  6                 Q:   We have June 28th, six thousand
  7  dollars ($6,000).
  8                 A:   Yes.  
  9                 Q:   We have August 3, seven hundred and
 10  seventy dollars ($770).
 11                 A:   Yes.  
 12                 Q:   Oh, April 5, back on the first page,
 13  two thousand three hundred and ten dollars and thirty
 14  cents ($2,310.30), and that's "L. Couprie, PJMC expense."
 16                 A:   Yes.  
 17                 Q:   You see that as well?
 18                 A:   Yeah.  
 19                 Q:   And we've -- we've discussed, have
 20  we, the reasons that you were obtaining money?  Were
 21  there any other reasons you were obtaining money from
 22  World Class Developments at that time?
 23                 A:   Well, the twenty-three ten (2310) for
 24  April the 5th was for a trip -- for one of our trips.  So
 25  it went to Leo, because he put it on his credit card.  


  1                 Q:   What was the purpose of the trip?
  2                 A:   For his for business, and I do
  3  photography when I'm there.  
  4                 Q:   Okay, let's go back to Exhibit 196
  5  then.
  7                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  9                 Q:   So this is a promissory note in the
 10  amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), due November
 11  1st, 2007.
 12                 If we could scroll down to the signature
 13  on this, we see, sir, there are two (2) signatures.  We
 14  see that, first of all, on behalf of World Class
 15  Developments Limited, we have a signature.
 16                 Whose signature is that?
 17                 A:   That's mine.  
 18                 Q:   Per Peter McCallion, ASO.  Is that
 19  correct, sir?
 20                 A:   Correct.  
 21                 Q:   Now, you apparently signed this on
 22  July 27th, 2007?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   At the time, did you understand what
 25  ASO meant?


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   What did you understand it to mean?
  3                 A:   As signing officer.
  4                 Q:   To the right of that we see co-
  5  signer.  We see your signature, or what appears to be
  6  your signature again; is that correct, sir?
  7                 A:   Correct, yes.
  8                 Q:   You signed that as well?
  9                 A:   Yes, I did.
 10                 Q:   Now, why did you sign on behalf of
 11  World Class Developments as -- as a signing officer?
 12                 A:   We needed the money fairly quickly
 13  for the July 31st deadline.
 14                 Q:   In fact, did you have authority to
 15  sign on behalf of World Class Developments?
 16                 A:   No, I did not.
 17                 Q:   Now, at that point, July 27th, 2007,
 18  was Mr. DeCicco involved in the -- the project?
 19                 A:   I believe he was in discussions with
 20  Mr. Couprie at the time.
 21                 Q:   So the answer is -- is --
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   -- yes or no?
 24                 A:   I would say yes, in terms of
 25  directions.


  1                 Q:   Now, had your loans to World Class
  2  Developments, or the TACC loan, which you obtained
  3  apparently on behalf of World Class Developments, and
  4  which you co-signed for here, have they been repaid by
  5  World Class Developments?
  6                 A:   No, they have not.
  7                 Q:   Do you expect those loans to be
  8  repaid?
  9                 A:   I'm hoping they are, yes.
 10                 Q:   By the way, who are the -- who is, or
 11  who are the principal or principals behind TACC?
 12                 A:   Well, Silvio de Gasperis and his
 13  family.
 14                 Q:   Silvio de Gasperis --
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   -- and his family, is that correct?
 17                 A:   Yes. 
 18                 Q:   I'm going to turn to another area
 19  now, and that's amendments to the Agreement of Purchase
 20  and Sale, which we understand take place in the spring
 21  and summer of 2008.
 22                 MR. BRIAN GROVER:   And Mr. McDowell has
 23  made a sensible suggestion, and that's that this might be
 24  an appropriate time to take the morning recess.


  1  right.  We'll take fifteen (15) minutes.
  2                 MR. BRIAN GROVER:   Thank you.
  3                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise
  4  please.  Court stands recessed fifteen (15) minutes.
  6  --- Upon recessing at 11:25 a.m.
  7  --- Upon resuming at 11:40 a.m.
  9                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 10  please. The court's reconvened.  Please be seated.
 11                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:    Thank you, Mr.
 12  Commissioner.
 15                 Q:   If I could ask you to turn your mind
 16  to the spring and summer of 2008.  And as I mentioned
 17  just before the recess, we're aware that there were
 18  amendments made to the agreement of purchase and sale.
 19                 A:   Yes.  
 20                 Q:   Now, at some point in 2008, did you
 21  become concerned about the development project?
 22                 A:   Yes, for a couple of reasons.  1) The
 23  timing of the hotel and the timeframe that it had to be
 24  started and majorly completed; as well as the economy in
 25  the US that had started to tank.  So it was -- and the


  1  first thing to go are hotels and airlines in a bad
  2  economy.  So I was concerned that the hotel was gonna be
  3  a problem in terms of financial as well as timing.
  4                 Q:   Right.  Now, despite the recession
  5  which was then taking root, were you confident, Mr.
  6  McCallion, that the project would eventually get done?
  7                 A:   Yes, very confident.
  8                 Q:   Why so?
  9                 A:   The City is a growing city.  It's
 10  probably one -- the number 1 city in Canada in terms of
 11  development, and it was the best location for it.
 12                 Q:   But you had those concerns about the
 13  -- the economy and the timing for construction, is that
 14  right, sir?
 15                 A:   Correct, yes.
 16                 Q:   Did others at World Class
 17  Developments share those concerns?
 18                 A:   Tony did.
 19                 Q:   Was Mr. DeCicco doing anything about
 20  that concern on this part?
 21                 A:   Well, he was trying to extend the
 22  time of the construction of the hotel and whatnot, in
 23  terms of finishing.  
 24                 Q:   Who was he dealing with in that
 25  regard, do you know?


  1                 A:   I believe he was dealing with OMERS.  
  2                 Q:   Now, in and around that time, did you
  3  have a discussion with anyone from OMERS?
  4                 A:   I believe I did have a short
  5  discussion with Michael Kitt, saying that we needed more
  6  time.  
  7                 Q:   Do you remember any of the -- the
  8  details surrounding that conversation?
  9                 A:   No.  That's -- I don't remember that
 10  one specifically.  No. 
 11                 Q:   Was that a -- an in-person meeting,
 12  or was it over the telephone?
 13                 A:   I believe it was in person, no. 
 14                 Q:   Now, ultimately we know that World
 15  Class Development and OMERS did enter into an amending
 16  agreement. And in that respect, we have Exhibit 105,
 17  which I'll ask to be displayed now.
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21                 Q:   Now, first of all, sir, have you seen
 22  this amending agreement before?
 23                 A:   Well, during the Inquiry, yes.  I
 24  don't believe it saw it when it was accomplished.
 25                 Q:   It's dated July 31st, 2008?


  1                 A:   Yes. 
  2                 Q:   Did you play any role in negotiating
  3  the terms of this amending agreement?
  4                 A:   No, I did not. 
  5                 Q:   How would you describe your
  6  involvement in World Class Developments between July and
  7  the fall of 2008?
  8                 A:   Nothing had changed in my involvement
  9  that I was aware of.  
 10                 Q:   During that period, did you tell Mr.
 11  DeCicco that you wanted out of the deal?
 12                 A:   I don't recall that. 
 13                 Q:   Did you ever tell him that?
 14                 A:   I don't recall that. 
 15                 Q:   Did you ever tell anyone else that
 16  you wanted out of the deal?
 17                 A:   No. 
 18                 Q:   Now, in the fall of 2008, I
 19  understand that you met with two (2) representatives of
 20  OMERS, is that right, sir?
 21                 A:   Correct, yes.
 22                 Q:   Who were they?
 23                 A:   Michael Kitt and John Filipetti.  
 24                 Q:   Why did you meet with them in the
 25  fall of 2008?


  1                 A:   Because of the economy at the time
  2  and the timing of the hotel, it was apparent that we
  3  needed a lot more time to accomplish the hotel part of
  4  the project, strictly rated -- related to the economy.  
  5                 Q:   Did you ask them for anything in
  6  particular?
  7                 A:   Well, I asked them for more time on
  8  the hotel.  I wasn't asking them for -- delete the hotel,
  9  just more time to complete the project.
 10                 Q:   When you say you weren't asking them
 11  to "delete" the hotel, what do you mean by that?
 12                 A:   Well, I guess if you deleted the
 13  hotel, it'd be all condos.
 14                 Q:   Deleting the condition in the
 15  Agreement of Purchase and Sale that required construction
 16  of a hotel?
 17                 A:   Correct, yes. 
 18                 Q:   And so that I'm clear about that, was
 19  World Class Developments backing away from building the
 20  hotel at all --
 21                 A:   No. 
 22                 Q:   -- to your understanding?
 23                 A:   Not to my understanding, no.  We --
 24  they weren't backing away at all.  Just the timing of the
 25  hotel.


  1                 Q:   Do you recall any response to your
  2  request by Mr. Kit of Mr. Filipetti?
  3                 A:   Yes.  Specifically, Mr. Kitt
  4  suggested that if we increase the purchase price by 2 1/2
  5  million, he doesn't care if we ever build a hotel.  
  6                 Q:   During this same time, were you aware
  7  of mother's involvements in any discussions with OMERS
  8  about the project and the deal?
  9                 A:   No, I was not.  
 10                 Q:   During this same time, did you ever
 11  tell anyone that you were off the project or off the
 12  file?
 13                 A:   Not that I recall, no. 
 14                 Q:   During the fall of 2008, did you have
 15  conversations with your mother about World Class
 16  Developments --
 17                 A:   When?
 18                 Q:   -- that you recall now?
 19                 A:   That I recall now?  Other than -- I
 20  don't recall really having a specific conversation, other
 21  than the timing of the hotel.  But I don't recall having
 22  a conversation with her on that. 
 23                 Q:   Now, Mr. McCallion, I'm going to turn
 24  to another area, and that is the litigation between OMERS
 25  and World Class Developments.  And of course, there's a


  1  matter of some affidavits that we need to discuss.
  2                 Before I do that, let's turn to Exhibit
  3  117.
  5                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  7                 Q:   You'll see that Exhibit 117 is a
  8  letter dated January 9th, 2009?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   And it's addressed to Mr. Rosenblatt
 11  and Ms. Bianchini at Minden Gross; is that correct, sir?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   And they were the lawyers for World
 14  Class Developments at the time; is that right, sir?
 15                 A:   Yes, as well as Emilio Bisceglia.
 16                 Q:   You understand that this exhibit
 17  constitutes the written notice from the vendors that they
 18  were terminating the Agreement of Purchase and Sale?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   Now, sir, did you see a copy of that
 21  letter at the time?
 22                 A:   No, I did not. 
 23                 Q:   But I take it you became aware that
 24  the document had been delivered; is that right, sir?
 25                 A:   Yes.  Tony informed me at some point.


  1                 Q:   You understand, Mr. McCallion, that
  2  ultimately there was litigation commenced by OMERS
  3  against World Class Developments?
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   And you understand that OMERS
  6  commenced an application for a determination that the
  7  Agreement of Purchase and Sale was terminated and that
  8  World Class Developments had no right or claim to the
  9  OMERS's land?
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   Now, sir, were you a named party in
 12  that litigation, to the best of your --
 13                 A:   Not that I was --
 14                 Q:   -- recollection?
 15                 A:   -- aware of, no.
 16                 Q:   I understand, though, that you became
 17  involved in the litigation; is that right, sir?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   How did you become involved in the
 20  litigation?
 21                 A:   Tony and Emilio wanted me to sign an
 22  affidavit in regards to the litigation. 
 23                 Q:   Now, I understand that you attended a
 24  meeting in early August 2009; is that correct, sir?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   Do you recall where that meeting was?
  2                 A:   That was Emilio's office.
  3                 Q:   Do you recall how long the meeting
  4  lasted?
  5                 A:   An hour or so.
  6                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Would
  7  that be Minden Gross?
  8                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   No, it's --
  9                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Who's
 10  Emilio?
 11                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Emilio Bisceglia.  B-I-
 12  S-C-E-G-L-I-A.  And his office is --
 13                 THE WITNESS:   7940 Jane --
 14                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   It's in --
 15                 THE WITNESS:   -- Street?
 16                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   -- Vaughan, I
 17  understand.  Is that fair?
 18                 THE WITNESS:   Yeah, seventy (70) --
 19                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Thank you.
 20                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 21  you.
 22                 THE WITNESS:   It's 7941, something like
 23  that.


  1                 Q:   In fact, Mr. Bisceglia's firm is
  2  Bisceglia and Associates Professional Corporation, Suite
  3  200, 7941 Jane Street, Concord, Ontario.  Just to take
  4  some of the guesswork out of it, Mr. McCallion.
  5                 So you had this meeting, and I understand
  6  that you were asked to swear an affidavit in relation to
  7  the litigation; is that right?
  8                 A:   Correct, yes.
  9                 Q:   Who asked you to do that?
 10                 A:   I believe it was Tony and Emilio.
 11                 Q:   And so that we're clear about what
 12  you understood Mr. Bisceglia's role to be, what was that?
 13                 A:   I believed he to be the lawyer for
 14  World Class Developments.
 15                 Q:   Now, we know, Mr. McCallion, that you
 16  agreed to swear an affidavit in relation to the
 17  litigation, is that correct, sir?
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   Could we see Exhibit 212, please?
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 23                 Q:   Sir, do you see that on the screen
 24  now?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   So here we see the first page of this
  2  exhibit.  And it appears to be an affidavit of Peter
  3  McCallion, sworn August 24, 2009, is that correct?
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   This then is your affidavit?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   And if we go to the final page of the
  8  main part of the affidavit at page 18, below paragraph
  9  76, we see a signature on the signature line, below which
 10  is the name Peter McCallion, is that correct, sir?
 11                 A:   Correct.
 12                 Q:   Whose signature is that?
 13                 A:   On the -- 
 14                 Q:   The --
 15                 A:   That's my signature.
 16                 Q:   Right, on the right-hand side.  And
 17  who commissioned this affidavit, do you recall?
 18                 A:   That would have Emilio.
 19                 Q:   And it was apparently, as it recites
 20  on the front page, sworn on August 24th, 2009, is that
 21  right, sir?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   Now, in terms of preparation of this
 24  affidavit, Mr. McCallion, who prepared the affidavit?
 25                 A:   I believe Emilio prepared the


  1  affidavit.
  2                 Q:   When did that take place, to the best
  3  of your knowledge?
  4                 A:   Between August the 6th and the 24th.  
  5                 Q:   You've told us about going to a
  6  meeting in early August.  Is that the meeting of August
  7  6th?
  8                 A:   Yes, with Paliare Royale. 
  9                 Q:   Paliare Roland.
 10                 A:   Oh, sorry.  
 11                 Q:   And that's a law firm in Toronto, is
 12  that correct, sir?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   Now, you -- you obviously swore this
 15  in Mississauga on August 24th.  Were there any meetings
 16  between August 6th and August 24th?
 17                 A:   None.
 18                 Q:   Were you given a draft of the
 19  affidavit to review?
 20                 A:   Yes, I was.
 21                 Q:   How many drafts of the affidavit did
 22  you see?
 23                 A:   At least two (2) that I'm aware of.
 24                 Q:   Who provided the drafts to you?
 25                 A:   Emilio provided them by email, I


  1  believe.
  2                 Q:   And did you in fact review the
  3  drafts?
  4                 A:   Yes, I did.
  5                 Q:   Do you recall making any revisions?
  6                 A:   I made quite a few revisions.  I
  7  don't recall what they were at this point.
  8                 Q:   Did you retain copies of any of the
  9  drafts --
 10                 A:   No, I --
 11                 Q:   -- either of the drafts?
 12                 A:   No, I did not.
 13                 Q:   Prior to signing the affidavit on
 14  August 24th, 2009, did you ever sit down and discuss this
 15  affidavit with anyone?
 16                 A:   I didn't sit down and discuss it with
 17  anybody.
 18                 Q:   Now, if we go back to the first page
 19  of this affidavit, Mr. McCallion, and in particular,
 20  we'll focus on paragraph 1, we see that it says this:
 21                   "I am a registered real estate agent by
 22                   profession and have worked in that
 23                   capacity in the City of Mississauga,
 24                   the City, for over twenty-five (25)
 25                   years.


  1                   I am one of the principals of World
  2                   Class Developments Limited, WCD."
  3                 Have I read that correctly, Mr. McCallion?
  4                 A:   Correct.
  5                 Q:   Now, this term, "principal," is that
  6  a term that you use, sir, in your ordinary language?
  7                 A:   No, it's not.
  8                 Q:   Now, you've told me that you didn't
  9  sit down and discuss the affidavit with anyone prior to
 10  signing it.  After signing it, did you discuss this
 11  affidavit with anyone?
 12                 A:   After signing it?
 13                 Q:   Yes.
 14                 A:   No.
 15                 Q:   All right.  I'm not talking about
 16  August 24th.  Subsequently, did someone come -- did --
 17  did -- did concerns come to your attention about this
 18  affidavit?
 19                 A:   Yes.  My mother phoned me one day and
 20  said -- says, You're a principal.  I says, Where?  She
 21  said, On the front page.
 22                 Q:   Right.  So we'll come back to that in
 23  a moment.  Had you previously let your mother know that
 24  you were being asked to provide an affidavit?
 25                 A:   I mentioned it on the phone to her


  1  once that I -- they asked me to provide an affidavit, and
  2  I did mention that there were a lot of changes to it that
  3  I had to make.  I didn't mention what they were.
  4                 Q:   And to be specific about it, prior to
  5  signing the affidavit on August 24th, when you were still
  6  dealing with revisions, did you discuss the contents of
  7  the affidavit with your mother?
  8                 A:   No, I did not.
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 12                 Q:   When you swore this affidavit on
 13  August 24th, who was present when you did that?
 14                 A:   Emilio and myself, and I think Tony
 15  was there.
 16                 Q:   And, Mr. McCallion, as of August
 17  24th, 2009, did you understand you were a principal of
 18  World Class Developments?
 19                 A:   No, I did not.
 20                 Q:   How do you account for the fact that
 21  paragraph 1 of this affidavit contains the statement:
 22                   "I am one (1) of the principals of
 23                   World Class Developments Limited."
 24                 I simply missed it.  I corrected the first
 25  half of the sentence, because I believe Emilio had me in


  1  there for thirty-five (35) years as a real estate agent.
  2  So I corrected that, and then I stopped reading, and I
  3  went to page 2.
  4                 Q:   Prior to signing the affidavit on
  5  August 24th, did you discuss the meaning of the word
  6  "principal" with Mr. Bisceglia or anyone else?
  7                 A:   I didn't discuss it with anybody.
  8                 Q:   Now, you've told me that your mother
  9  contacted you afterwards, after August 24th, apparently,
 10  and said, Well, it -- you're a principal, or something to
 11  that effect; is that right?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   Do you know how your mother became
 14  aware of what this affidavit said?
 15                 A:   I'm not exactly sure.  It could have
 16  been somebody at the City.  I'm -- I can speculate.
 17                 Q:   I won't ask you to speculate, Mr.
 18  McCallion.  Thank you.
 19                 Now, when your mother raised the word
 20  "principal" with you, did you have any understanding --
 21  you've told me it's not a word you use in everyday
 22  conversation.
 23                 A:   No.
 24                 Q:   But, did you have an understanding as
 25  to what "principal" meant?


  1                 A:   To me it meant an ownership.
  2                 Q:   At the time, did you think you were
  3  an owner?
  4                 A:   No, I did not.
  5                 Q:   What did you do after this
  6  conversation with your mother?
  7                 A:   I phoned Emilio and said, We need to
  8  correct the affidavit, because it says I am a principal,
  9  where I am not.
 10                 Q:   Did Mr. Bisceglia do anything in
 11  response to that request?
 12                 A:   He was downtown at the time, so he
 13  instructed his office to type it up, which he did.
 14                 Q:   Can we go to Exhibit 206, please.
 15  What I show you now, Mr. McCallion, is Exhibit 206, which
 16  appears to be an affidavit sworn by you.
 17                 And if we look at the second page, we see
 18  that it was apparently on September 11th, 2009, is that
 19  correct, sir?
 20                 A:   That is correct.
 21                 Q:   Now, you told me that Mr. Bisceglia
 22  had prepared this but that he was downtown, is that
 23  correct?
 24                 A:   In discoveries over something else,
 25  so he was unable to commission it. 


  1                 Q:   Pardon me.  He asked -- Mr. Bisceglia
  2  asked his staff to prepare it, might be the --
  3                 A:   Correct. 
  4                 Q:   -- correct --
  5                 A:   Correct, yes. 
  6                 Q:   -- way to put that.  So we don't know
  7  who at Mr. Bisceglia's office prepared this --
  8                 A:   Oh, we -- I don't know that. 
  9                 Q:   -- affidavit, is that correct?
 10                 A:   No. 
 11                 Q:   Thank you.  I may have -- I may have
 12  misled you in trying to summarize your testimony.
 13                 So we see that this affidavit then was
 14  commissioned by someone at another law firm, Danson
 15  Schwarz Recht, is that correct, sir?
 16                 A:   Correct, yes. 
 17                 Q:   And why did you have your affidavit
 18  commissioned there?
 19                 A:   I know them very well.  
 20                 Q:   Now, before you swore this affidavit
 21  on September 11th, did Mr. Bisceglia ever suggest to you
 22  that he had documents or that he believed you were indeed
 23  a -- a principal or owner of WCD?
 24                 A:   No. 
 25                 Q:   Did Mr. Bisceglia ever express any


  1  concern about you wanting to swear a revised affidavit?
  2                 A:   Not that he told me. 
  3                 Q:   I understand that you signed a
  4  further affidavit on September 15th, 2009, is that
  5  correct, Mr. McCallion?
  6                 A:   Correct, yes. 
  7                 Q:   And in that respect, I show you
  8  Exhibit 207.  And if we go to the second page, we'll see
  9  that this was apparently signed by you on September 15th,
 10  2009, is that correct, sir?
 11                 A:   Correct. 
 12                 Q:   Where did you have this affidavit
 13  commissioned?
 14                 A:   At the same place in Brampton. 
 15                 Q:   And we can now actually read the
 16  stamp.  It says:
 17                   "Heather Welner --"
 18                 A:   Welner. 
 19                 Q:
 20                   "-- a commissioner, Province of
 21                   Ontario, for Danson Schwarz Recht,
 22                   LLP."
 23                 Is that correct, sir?
 24                 A:   Correct. 
 25                 Q:   Now, Mr. McCallion, why did you find


  1  it necessary to swear a -- a further affidavit?
  2                 A:   I believed it wasn't clear, the first
  3  one, that the September 11th affidavit was not clear and
  4  specific.  So I wanted to be a little more specific, as I
  5  am not a principal of WCD. 
  6                 Q:   So what you're referring to is the
  7  statement:
  8                   "I am preparing this affidavit to amend
  9                   paragraph 1 of my affidavit sworn on
 10                   August 24, 2009.  The second sentence
 11                   of paragraph 1 of this affidavit, which
 12                   reads, quote: 'I am one of the
 13                   principals of World Class Developments
 14                   Limited (WCD),' should be deleted, as
 15                   it is not true."
 16                 Pardon me, I should have said "end quote"
 17  after "World Class Developments, WCD":
 18                   "...is not true.  I am not a principal
 19                   of WCD."
 20                 A:   Correct. 
 21                 Q:   Did anyone speak to you about the
 22  need for that clarification that you apparently felt was
 23  necessary?
 24                 A:   I believe my mother told me that it
 25  needed to be more clarified.


  1                 Q:   Did she say why?
  2                 A:   No, just more clarified. 
  3                 Q:   And to be clear about this, at the
  4  time  -- and now we're speaking of times; we're speaking
  5  of August 24th, September 11th, and September 15th.
  6                 Did you believe you were a principal of
  7  WCD on any of those occasions?
  8                 A:   No, I did not. 
  9                 Q:   How would you have described yourself
 10  at the time, in terms of your relationship with World
 11  Class Developments?
 12                 A:   At the time, I was basically acting
 13  as real estate agent and the promoter of the development,
 14  visionary.
 15                 Q:   Let me ask you this directly, Mr.
 16  McCallion.  Did you swear the September affidavits in an
 17  attempt to minimize your role within World Class
 18  Developments at your mother's request?
 19                 A:   No.
 20                 Q:   In fact, did you swear the September
 21  affidavits because you wanted to minimize your interest
 22  in WCD at all?
 23                 A:   No, I did not.
 24                 Q:   Now in retrospect, today, as we're
 25  here on July 27th, 2010, knowing what you know now, what


  1  is your view of the accuracy of the first affidavit, the
  2  August 24th affidavit?
  3                 A:   Based on what I know today, I was a
  4  principal.
  5                 Q:   Why do you say that, sir?
  6                 A:   By way of the trust declaration.
  7                 Q:   I'm turning now to the final area
  8  that we'll cover today, Mr. McCallion, and that is the
  9  settlement of the OMERS and World Class Developments
 10  litigation.
 11                 Did you play any role in facilitating that
 12  settlement, sir?
 13                 A:   I arranged a meeting between Tony
 14  DeCicco and Dave O'Brien.
 15                 Q:   Can you tell me how that came about,
 16  please?
 17                 A:   Well, it was at a TACC golf dinner at
 18  TACC, and Dave O'Brien was there.  And he came to me and
 19  said, I hear you're having difficulties with OMERS; can I
 20  help.
 21                 Q:   Pardon me, did you tell me when this
 22  was?
 23                 A:   It'd be in July, but I don't have a
 24  date.
 25                 Q:   In July of 2009 though?


  1                 A:   2009, yes.
  2                 Q:   Right.
  3                 A:   Or June.  It could have been the end
  4  of June.  I don't remember when the date of the golf
  5  tournament was.
  6                 Q:   Fair enough.  Now, I'd interrupted
  7  you.  You were saying that Mr. O'Brien approached you at
  8  this charity golf tournament.
  9                 A:   Correct.  And he said if he could
 10  help to settle the differences.  I says, Okay, I will
 11  arrange a meeting with Tony and yourself and see if
 12  something can be settled.
 13                 Q:   Did you attend that meeting?
 14                 A:   Yes, I did.  It was a breakfast
 15  meeting.
 16                 Q:   Where did it take place?
 17                 A:   Sunset Grill in Mississauga.
 18                 Q:   Was there a further meeting?
 19                 A:   Yes, there was.
 20                 Q:   Where --
 21                 A:   There was no resolution in the first
 22  meeting.
 23                 Q:   Fair enough.  And then there was a
 24  further meeting, and where was it?
 25                 A:   That was at the Delta Hotel in


  1  September.  I don't have the exact date.
  2                 Q:   Now, you attended that meeting as
  3  well?
  4                 A:   Yes, I did.
  5                 Q:   So you've told me your role was
  6  facilitating settlement by arranging meetings, is that
  7  right?
  8                 A:   That's correct.
  9                 Q:   Did you play any other role at the
 10  meetings themselves?
 11                 A:   No, I did not.
 12                 Q:   From your observations, how close
 13  were the parties in their positions?
 14                 A:   They weren't close at the first --
 15                 Q:   Can you elaborate on that?
 16                 A:   -- at the first or the second
 17  meeting.  Tony was, I believe, eight (8) or 10 million,
 18  and I think David had maybe mentioned 2 million or
 19  something.  I don't really -- exact -- know the number.
 20                 Q:   Did Mr. DeCicco talk to you about the
 21  final settlement terms?
 22                 A:   No, he didn't.
 23                 Q:   Did Mr. Bisceglia?
 24                 A:   No, he did not.
 25                 Q:   Did Mr. O'Brien?


  1                 A:   No, he did not.
  2                 Q:   Did you expect to be consulted about
  3  the final settlement terms?
  4                 A:   No, I did not.
  5                 Q:   Did you sign any of the settlement
  6  documents?
  7                 A:   No, I did not.
  8                 Q:   Were you asked to sign anything?
  9                 A:   No, I wasn't.
 10                 Q:   Now, in September, we -- we know that
 11  this actually settled, I believe, September 11th, 2009.
 12                 When this matter settled, did you expect
 13  to receive a part of the proceeds of the settlement?
 14                 A:   No, I expected to receive the money
 15  that I had put in, though, and the loan to TACC to be
 16  paid.
 17                 Q:   When you refer to the money that
 18  you'd put in, I take it you're referring to the -- the --
 19  the three (3) loans, the -- the TACC loan and the two (2)
 20  other loans --
 21                 A:   Correct.
 22                 Q. -- is that right?
 23                 A:   Yes. 
 24                 Q:   That we've cover --
 25                 A:   Minus whatever I took out already.


  1                 Q:   And we've covered those in the course
  2  of --
  3                 A:   Yes. 
  4                 Q:   -- my questions of you this morning,
  5  is that fair?
  6                 A:   Correct, yes.
  7                 Q:   And that was your expectation in
  8  September of 2009 in relation to payments from World
  9  Class Developments.
 10                 Today, July 27th, 2010, do you expect to
 11  receive any payment from World Class Developments, Mr.
 12  McCallion?
 13                 A:   No, I do not.
 14                 Q:   Any payment apart from, perhaps,
 15  repayment of the loan?
 16                 A:   Oh, repayment of the loans for sure.
 17  Anything above that, I'm not expecting anything. 
 18                 Q:   Thank you very much, Mr. McCallion.
 19  Those are my questions.
 21                      (BRIEF PAUSE)
 24  McDowell?
 25                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   There's been some


  1  discussion among counsel as to the order.  I wonder if it
  2  might make sense to have some of the questioners who've
  3  indicated they're going to be fairly brief go now.
  4                 Messrs. Jack and Barrack, I gather, have a
  5  few questions.
  6                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Sure.
  7                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   And perhaps Ms.
  8  Rothstein, if we get there.
  9                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   Yes, Your Honour.
 10  I only have a few questions, but I'd actually like a
 11  brief opportunity just to speak to someone before I ask
 12  those questions.
 14  right.  Well, why don't we -- Mr. Jack or Mr. Barrack, if
 15  they're ready to proceed, why don't we do that.
 16                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Sure.
 17                 MR. DON JACK:   Thank you.
 18                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 19  you, Mr. Jack.
 20                 MR. DON JACK:   Thank you.
 23                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, my name is Don Jack,
 24  and I represent 156 Square One Limited.
 25                 A:   Oh, yes. 


  1                 Q:   Thank you.  Now, you have been active
  2  as a registered real estate agent in the Mississauga area
  3  for many years?
  4                 A:   Yes. 
  5                 Q:   And active, particularly in more
  6  recent years, as a commercial real estate agent?
  7                 A:   Correct.   
  8                 Q:   And well known in that capacity?
  9                 A:   As well known as you can be.  
 10                 Q:   Yes.  And there was no secret, of
 11  course, about your role as agent on the WCD transaction,
 12  correct?
 13                 A:   Yes. 
 14                 Q:   You were not, of course, being paid
 15  by my client or any of the vendors?
 16                 A:   Correct.   
 17                 Q:   And there was never any question of
 18  that, was there?
 19                 A:   In the beginning, I was hoping that,
 20  yes; but in the end, they didn't want to.
 21                 Q:   Yes.  Mr. Lusk made it clear that you
 22  would not be paid --
 23                 A:   Yes. 
 24                 Q:   -- by my clients, correct?
 25                 A:   Correct.   


  1                 Q:   Yes.  And as the agent on the
  2  transaction, you were to be paid only if the transaction
  3  closed, correct?
  4                 A:   If there was commission on the
  5  transaction, yes. 
  6                 Q:  Yes.  And for that to happen, the
  7  transaction actually had to proceed to a closing, would
  8  it not?
  9                 A:   Correct.   
 10                 Q:   Yes.  And you were to be paid, in
 11  that event, the usual agent's fee, correct?
 12                 A:   (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE)  
 13                 Q:   You have --
 14                 A:   Correct.   
 15                 Q:   -- to give me verbal answer.
 16                 A:   Yes, yes.  Correct.   
 17                 Q:   Thank you.  And that would be quite
 18  different, would it not, from sharing in the ultimate
 19  profits of the development, were it to be a success,
 20  correct?
 21                 A:   Correct.   
 22                 Q:   Those profits, if the venture were to
 23  be a success, would very likely exceed the normal agent's
 24  fee that you might get?
 25                 A:   I would believe that to be true.


  1                 Q:   Yes.  In addition to that, unless you
  2  were to disclose any proprietary interest you had, that
  3  interest would remain unknown, wouldn't it?  You would
  4  simply be known as the agent on the deal?
  5                 A:   Well, if there was no payment on
  6  commission, there is no agent then.
  7                 Q:   No.  But if we were to suppose for a
  8  moment, just for the purposes of these questions, that
  9  you had an interest beyond merely being the agent, as
 10  you've described --
 11                 A:   Correct.   
 12                 Q:   -- unless that were specifically
 13  disclosed, it would not be known, correct?
 14                 A:   I believe that to be true.
 15                 Q:   Yes.  And you disclosed no such
 16  interest, if you had one, to my clients particularly, did
 17  you?
 18                 A:   No, I did not. 
 19                 Q:   In fact, with the exception of
 20  attending meetings at Page & Steele -- those were the
 21  architects which we've heard about from Mr. Lusk, which
 22  was relatively early in the process -- you never actually
 23  met with any representatives of my clients, did you?
 24                 A:   Prior -- well, at what stage are we
 25  at now?


  1                 Q:   Well, Mr. Lusk, as you may know, is a
  2  real estate consultant.
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   The evidence has been that he was
  5  acting for my clients.  And the evidence has been that
  6  you were at a Page + Steele meeting, or meetings,
  7  relatively early in the process.
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   Yes.  Aside from that occasion, I'm
 10  suggesting to you that you never actually attended any
 11  meetings with anybody who could be said to be a
 12  representative --
 13                 A:   No, I --
 14                 Q:   -- of my clients.
 15                 A:   You're right.  
 16                 Q:   You --
 17                 A:   No, I did not.
 18                 Q:   You agree with that.
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   You never sent my clients anything,
 21  did you?
 22                 A:   No.
 23                 Q:   No.  And it seems -- correct me if
 24  I'm wrong about this, but it seemed, in answer to
 25  questions from Mr. Gover, that you didn't actually know


  1  about the existence of my clients for quite some time as
  2  this matter progressed.
  3                 A:   Correct.
  4                 Q:   And as far as you are aware, sir, my
  5  clients would have had no reason to think of you as
  6  anything other than a normal real estate agent in this
  7  transaction.  Would you agree --
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   -- with that?  Now, one thing I want
 10  to make clear, because it's going to be important as we
 11  proceed, is it your position that you never told OMERS,
 12  or Oxford, or any person representing them, that you were
 13  off the file?
 14                 A:   I don't recall that, no.
 15                 Q:   Is it your position that, as far as
 16  you know, you did not convey any such statement to the
 17  Mayor herself?
 18                 A:   I don't recall that, no.
 19                 Q:   And as far as you know, she did not
 20  convey any such information to OMERS/Oxford.
 21                 A:   I do not know that.
 22                 Q:   You know of no occasion when she did
 23  that.
 24                 A:   I know of no occasion of her
 25  conveying that to anybody.


  1                 Q:   Yes.  And do you have any
  2  observations at all as to why OMERS/Oxford would have
  3  conveyed to my clients that you were off the file on
  4  December 16, 2008?
  5                 A:   No, I do not.
  6                 Q:   Thank you.  No further questions.
  8                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 11                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, my name's Michael
 12  Barrack, and I act for OMERS.
 13                 A:   Oh, thank you.  
 14                 Q:   Now, the answers that you just gave
 15  with respect to AIM, I take it you never told anyone at
 16  OMERS you were anything other than a broker.
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   You say, "Yes."  You -- you didn't --
 19                 A:   I --
 20                 Q:   -- tell anybody.
 21                 A:   I didn't tell anybody.
 22                 Q:   And throughout the piece, the only
 23  time you've told us that you had a meeting of any
 24  substance was this meeting on October 23, 2008.
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   And other than that, you never came
  2  close to negotiating anything --
  3                 A:   No, I didn't.
  4                 Q:   -- with OMERS or Oxford.
  5                 A:   No, I did not.
  6                 Q:   And in fact, at that meeting, you
  7  delivered a letter, and it was a letter from Mr. DeCicco.
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   And -- and, in fact, Mr. DeCicco was
 10  the person at that point that was negotiating principally
 11  on behalf of WCD.
 12                 A:   That's correct, yes.
 13                 Q:   And earlier, in the striking of the
 14  Agreement of Purchase and Sale, Mr. Cook was the person
 15  who negotiated on behalf of WCD.
 16                 A:   Yes, completely.
 17                 Q:   And in terms of the amendments to the
 18  Agreement of Purchase and Sale, that was Mr. DeCicco?
 19                 A:   I believe so, yes.
 20                 Q:   Right.  And on the termination of the
 21  Agreement of Purchase and Sale, that was Mr. DeCicco.
 22                 A:   Correct.
 23                 Q:   And similarly, with respect to the
 24  settlement of the lawsuit, that was you.  You spoke to
 25  Mr. O'Brien about arranging some meetings, but you did


  1  not do the negotiating.
  2                 A:   I did not, no.
  3                 Q:   And that was Mr. DeCicco that did the
  4  negotiating regarding the settlement of the lawsuit.
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   So that from the OMERS or Oxford
  7  perspective throughout, they would -- if -- if they
  8  concluded that you were in fact the broker on the deal,
  9  that would have been consistent with your view of your
 10  role on the deal at that point in time.
 11                 A:   Correct.
 12                 Q:   Thank you.  Those are my questions.
 14                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 17                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   I wonder if we
 18  could break now, because that will allow Mr. Rothstein to
 19  consult with the person she needs to consult with?
 21  need some time to speak to someone?
 22                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   I would appreciate
 23  it if we could --
 24                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Sure.
 25  Why don't we break now and come back at two o'clock.


  1                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Thank you.
  2                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thanks.
  3                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
  4  please.  The Inquiry stands recessed till two o'clock.
  6  --- Upon recessing at 12:23 p.m.
  7  --- Upon resuming at 2:09 p.m.
  9                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 10  please.  The Inquiry's reconvened.  Please be seated.
 11                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   Good afternoon,
 12  Commissioner.
 14  afternoon.
 17                 Q:   Good after, Mr. McCallion.  I'm Linda
 18  Rothstein.  We met this morning.
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   I think you know I act for World
 21  Class Developments and Mr. DeCicco.  And I think you know
 22  that my firm is Paliare Roland.  I know it's hard to say.
 23  And I think that you met two (2) of my colleagues last
 24  summer, Ms. Margaret Waddell and Mr. Jean-Claude Killey;
 25  is that right?


  1                 A:   Correct.
  2                 Q:   Okay.  And indeed, am I correct that
  3  you met them when you first discussed WCD's litigation
  4  with OMERS at Mr. Bisceglia's office last August, is that
  5  right?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 Q:   Do you know the date of that meeting,
  8  Mr. McCallion?
  9                 A:   I -- I do now, but I didn't remember
 10  it.  I believe it's August the 6th.
 11                 Q:   Right.  And am I right as well that
 12  my colleagues, Ms. Waddell and Mr. Killey, were in
 13  attendance at that meeting with you --
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   -- Mr. DeCicco, and Mr. Bisceglia?
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   And as between Mr. Bisceglia and my
 18  firm, I take it you don't really know who had the greater
 19  role in the preparation of your affidavit or any of the
 20  affidavit materials that were --
 21                 A:   No.
 22                 Q:   -- filed on behalf of WCD, is that
 23  fair?
 24                 A:   That is fair.
 25                 Q:   All right.  So when you say that you


  1  believe that Mr. Bisceglia prepared it, is that really
  2  more in the way of an assumption than actually...
  3                 A:   I had no knowledge.
  4                 Q:   Okay.  Now, dealing with the events
  5  that followed your swearing of your affidavit on August
  6  24th, 2009 -- because we know that's the date that it was
  7  ultimately sworn -- you've told your counsel, Mr. Gover,
  8  that sometime after that, it was brought to your
  9  attention by your mother that the word "principal" had
 10  been used to describe your role in WCD.  You told us
 11  about that this morning.
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   Okay.  And as a result of that
 14  conversation, you saw fit to make a change to your
 15  affidavit, right?
 16                 A:   Correct.
 17                 Q:   All right.  And in order to do that,
 18  you attended at Mr. Bisceglia's office.
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And am I correct, sir, that you
 21  attended at Mr. Bisceglia's office on September the 11th
 22  of 2009?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 24                 Q:   All right.  Am I correct, sir, that
 25  Mr. Bisceglia himself was not in the office; he was


  1  downtown doing an examination for discovery?
  2                 A:   Yes.
  3                 Q:   All right.  And so you spoke to his
  4  staff, a member or two (2) of his staff.
  5                 A:   I spoke to Emilio.
  6                 Q:   All right, you first spoke to Emilio.
  7                 A:   And then he said, Go to the office,
  8  and they will prepare it for you.
  9                 Q:   Okay.  So -- but he didn't know at
 10  the time what you were contemplating doing.  He simply
 11  knew that you wanted to make a change.  Am I correct
 12  about that?
 13                 A:   I believe I explained it to him.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  I anticipate, sir, that Mr.
 15  Bisceglia will be filing an affidavit in this
 16  proceedings.  And his evidence is that he didn't in fact
 17  know what you were contemplating, but he said, Go speak
 18  to my staff, and if they can assist you, by all means.
 19                 Does that accord with your recollection?
 20                 A:   Not completely.
 21                 Q:   All right.  In any event, you went to
 22  his office.  You instructed his staff to make a change to
 23  the affidavit by deleting the word "principal" and saying
 24  that that should be deleted from your affidavit, is that
 25  right?


  1                 A:   It was deleted, yes.
  2                 Q:   And then am I correct that in the --
  3  in the end result, after having instructed his staff to
  4  do that, his staff told you that they would not
  5  commission your affidavit?
  6                 A:   I didn't ask the staff to.  I assumed
  7  Emilio was not there, so I had to find someone else.
  8                 Q:   All right.  So you don't know
  9  anything about whether Mr. Bisceglia in fact instructed
 10  his staff not to commission your proposed affidavit.
 11                 A:   No, I do not know that.
 12                 Q:   All right.  And you then took the
 13  affidavit, and you didn't expect it to be commissioned in
 14  Mr. Bisceglia's office.
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 Q:   All right.  And then you told your
 17  counsel that you then went to another lawyer's office and
 18  had it commissioned.
 19                 A:   Correct.  
 20                 Q:   Right.  Okay, those are all my
 21  questions for you, sir.
 22                 A:   Thank you.  
 23                 Q:   Thank you very much.
 24                 A:   Thank you.


  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  4                 Q:   So, Mr. McCallion, as you know, I'm
  5  Will McDowell.  I'm Commission counsel.
  6                 A:   Yes.  
  7                 Q:   And we've met a number of times.
  8                 A:   Yes, quite a few.  
  9                 Q:   It's the nature of these things, I
 10  guess.  You're in -- I took from your evidence that
 11  you're in very close contact with your mother, the Mayor.
 13                 A:   Quite often, until the Inquiry, of
 14  course.
 15                 Q:   So if you go back to 2007, 2008,
 16  2009, at that point, you were driving her to various
 17  functions?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   You accompanied her at functions?
 20                 A:   At some of them, yes; not all.  
 21                 Q:   And you do various things around the
 22  house for her, cleaning the -- the pond --
 23                 A:   Yes.  
 24                 Q:   -- and cleaning the pool, I take it.
 25                 A:   Sometimes.  The pond takes more work.


  1                 Q:   Right, but you're in -- you're in
  2  touch with her -- you were in touch with her daily, I
  3  take it.
  4                 A:   Daily almost, yes.  
  5                 Q:   And you're still in touch with her a
  6  lot now, I hope.
  7                 A:   Well, a lot, yeah.  
  8                 Q:   But back then you were in touch every
  9  -- every day with her.
 10                 A:   Nearly.  
 11                 Q:   And recapitulating your evidence from
 12  this morning, as I made a note of it, it's your evidence
 13  that as far as you know, you did not realize that -- that
 14  she did not realize that you were anything but a real
 15  estate agent in this deal.
 16                 A:   Correct.  
 17                 Q:   Until relatively recently.
 18                 A:   Until relatively recently.  
 19                 Q:   And just -- we'll -- we'll go back
 20  over this, but again, taking your evidence from this
 21  morning, your evidence is that today you understand that
 22  you are a principal of WCD.
 23                 A:   Correct.  
 24                 Q:   In fact, you're the beneficial owner
 25  of shares of WCD.


  1                 A:   Yes.  
  2                 Q:   But that you didn't realize that
  3  through 2007 and 2008.
  4                 A:   That is right.  
  5                 Q:   Right, and that that was the case,
  6  notwithstanding, that you had invested thirty thousand
  7  (30,000) plus seventy-three thousand (73,000) plus fifty
  8  thousand (50,000) in the company.
  9                 A:   Correct.  
 10                 Q:   So a hundred and fifty three thousand
 11  five hundred (153,500).
 12                 A:   I didn't invest it.  I loaned it.  
 13                 Q:   You loaned it.  Fair enough.  You had
 14  signed a promissory note wherein you represented that you
 15  had authority as a signing officer.
 16                 A:   Correct.  
 17                 Q:   Right.  You had received living
 18  expenses from the company.
 19                 A:   Well, from the money I put in, I
 20  wanted some of it out to pay for living expenses, right.  
 21                 Q:   You put -- you put money in, you got
 22  money out of the company.  Last week, I believe we showed
 23  you a document which appears to indicate that your
 24  colleagues at WCD were, in fact, marketing the company on
 25  the basis that you were a part owner.


  1                 A:   I didn't know that.  
  2                 Q:   You didn't know that at the time, but
  3  that -- it appears that that's what they were doing.
  4                 A:   It appears that way, yes.  
  5                 Q:   Right.  And, sir, I -- I believe that
  6  Mr. Cook will come here and say that he thought that you
  7  were his partner.
  8                 A:   I can't answer that.  
  9                 Q:   Similarly, Mr. Couprie, you don't --
 10                 A:   Mr. Couprie was his partner, in my
 11  opinion, at the time.  
 12                 Q:   Right, and as we now know, you were
 13  in an ownership position of the company, as was Mr.
 14  Couprie at that period of time.
 15                 A:   Yes.  
 16                 Q:   Now, if we could turn up Affi --
 17  sorry -- Exhibit 212, which is your August 24th
 18  affidavit.  So just scrolling down and going to paragraph
 19  4.
 20                 So on paragraph 4, you say that in
 21  2004/2005 you became interested in developing Blocks 9
 22  and 29.
 23                 A:   Yes.  
 24                 Q:   Nine (9) being the south block,
 25  twenty-nine (29) the north block.


  1                 A:   Yes.  
  2                 Q:   On behalf of one of my clients, you
  3  say, Leo Couprie?
  4                 A:   Yes.  
  5                 Q:   In fact -- well, I appreciate that
  6  this affidavit was sworn for a particular purpose.
  7  Taking from your evidence this morning, your involvement
  8  with this piece of land goes back to 2002.
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   Right.  And in 2002, you were put in
 11  contact with some Chinese investors.
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   And this was a Mr. Shim?
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   And then you travelled to China.  Was
 16  it for the sole purpose of -- of having a meeting about
 17  these lands?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   And you met with a number of
 20  investors, including the Marble King.
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   Right.  And it's my understanding
 23  that you also met the Tin King on this voyage.
 24                 A:   Not on that specific trip.  That was
 25  another trip.


  1                 Q:   Another trip.  But these -- these
  2  were obviously men of considerable means.
  3                 A:   Oh, yes.
  4                 Q:   Right.  Who were -- the hope was that
  5  they were going to develop a hotel and condo development
  6  on these lands --
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   -- nine (9) and twenty-nine (29)?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   Nine (9) and twenty-nine (29) have
 11  been described to us as the last best piece of land in --
 12  in downtown Mississauga.
 13                 A:   I would have said the same.
 14                 Q:   Okay.  And in addition to that, in
 15  2004 you met a group of Korean investors, is that --
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   -- true?  And you made a proposal
 18  with Mr. Moldenhauer?
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And that took some time to work its
 21  way through, but in the end that -- that was not
 22  successful.
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   So in 2004/2005, you're continuing
 25  what is by now about a three (3) year project to try and


  1  do something on these lands.
  2                 A:   Well, prior to -- well, the time
  3  between Mr. Shim and the Koreans, there was nothing being
  4  done.
  5                 Q:   Fair, but -- but this is something
  6  that you began in 2002, and you're continuing in
  7  2004/2005?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   And then carrying onto paragraph 5,
 10  you say that:
 11                   "I knew that the City had developed an
 12                   overall concept for how it wanted lands
 13                   in the City Centre to be developed to
 14                   make the City Centre more of a
 15                   destination location."
 16                 Nothing secret about that.  That was in
 17  official documents from the City going back to 1994.
 18                 A:   I don't know the dates, but, yes.
 19                 Q:   And this is something -- you carry on
 20  in that paragraph.  You say:
 21                   "I believe that incorporating a hotel
 22                   and convention centre into a
 23                   development designed for the lands
 24                   would be essential in order to get City
 25                   approval for any development in the


  1                   lands."
  2                 Right?
  3                 A:   That's what it says.
  4                 Q:   That's what it says.  In fact, that's
  5  what you believed.
  6                 A:   I believed you needed a hotel beside
  7  the Living Arts Centre.
  8                 Q:   Right.  Because this was an important
  9  public project for the City.
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   And it -- it had been identified in
 12  that way for some time.
 13                 A:   Yes.  It was well known.
 14                 Q:   Now, I take it, following on from
 15  that, that you aware that this was your mother's goal as
 16  well on behalf of the City.
 17                 A:   As well.
 18                 Q:   Right.  This was something that she
 19  had campaigned for for some time.
 20                 A:   Yes, but it wasn't her exclusive
 21  idea.
 22                 Q:   No.  I mean, the City -- City council
 23  had signed on, I gather, back in the '90s.
 24                 A:   I don't know when they signed on with
 25  it, but --


  1                 Q:   And it's my understanding --
  2                 A:   -- everybody --
  3                 Q:   -- that you -- you heard her at times
  4  give speeches on this issue, and --
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   -- and so this was something that
  7  wasn't particularly secret.  Now, your evidence from this
  8  morning was that you -- you have a close family.
  9                 You speak, as I gather, five (5) or six
 10  (6) times a week to your mother.
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   You said that you have to answer the
 13  question whether you're working or not at any given time.
 14                 A:   She likes --
 15                 Q:   Familiar maternal topic, I guess.
 16                 A:   She likes to drive you.
 17                 Q:   And you -- as I understood your
 18  evidence, you spoke about what you were up to, what you
 19  were working on, almost every time you saw her?
 20                 A:   Well, not specific, but in general.
 21                 Q:   In general.
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   What are you working on, that kind of
 24  thing.
 25                 A:   Yeah.


  1                 Q:   And so may I assume that when you
  2  went to China on this project, that's something that you
  3  would have mentioned to her.
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   Right.  And when you're in touch with
  6  the Korean investors, that's something that you would
  7  have mentioned to her.
  8                 A:   Probably.  More so the Chinese than
  9  the Koreans.
 10                 Q:   So when you get up to paragraph 6 in
 11  the affidavit, you say that you approached the applicants
 12  -- and I'm skipping some of the words -- who were the
 13  owners of the lands:
 14                   "...through their property manager
 15                   Oxford, namely Mr. Michael Nobrega,
 16                   with a rough proposal."
 17                 You're taking the idea which you have had
 18  in mind to put a hotel and conven -- and condos on this
 19  land, and you're taking that directly to Mr. Nobrega.
 20                 A:   No, I phoned Mr. Nobrega to find out
 21  who I would have to take it to at OMERS -- or Oxford,
 22  sorry.
 23                 Q:   All right.  But you started --
 24                 A:   Because I didn't know who to deal
 25  with there.


  1                 Q:   But the one (1) person that you knew
  2  there, fortuitously, was Mr. Nobrega.
  3                 A:   Correct.
  4                 Q:   And you knew him from functions, and
  5  I assume that you -- you have to say "yes" or "no" for
  6  the record.
  7                 A:   Yes.  Yes.
  8                 Q:   And I assume that you met him through
  9  your mother at one (1) of these functions?
 10                 A:   Oh, for sure.
 11                 Q:   Right.  And you took this idea of
 12  developing these lands, and -- and as I say, you started
 13  with him, and then he put you on to the right person at
 14  Oxford?
 15                 A:   He put me to the right person at
 16  Oxford.
 17                 Q:   Then at paragraph 7 you say that:
 18                   "OMERS was sufficiently interested in
 19                   my rough proposal, that I concluded
 20                   that a deal could likely be struck with
 21                   the vendors, so I began assembling a
 22                   development team, including architects,
 23                   planners, and hotel consultants. "
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   That's true?


  1                 A:   Basically.
  2                 Q:   Basically.  But it was you who was
  3  there first, and then you assembled the team?
  4                 A:   Yes.  
  5                 Q:   Yeah.
  6                 A:   Well, Mr. Couprie was already there
  7  because he had the money.
  8                 Q:   Well, let's just back up.  You had
  9  the idea, if I can put it that way --
 10                 A:   I had the idea.
 11                 Q:   Right.  And let me just finish this.
 12  You began in 2002 to promote the idea.  You went to one
 13  (1) group, and then in 2004/2005 to another group.
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   And then you went to the land owner?
 16                 A:   No, I went to Mr. Couprie first.
 17                 Q:   Okay.  Let's -- I wasn't clear about
 18  that.  So you went to Mr. Couprie -- is it Couprie or Co
 19  -- Couprie?
 20                 A:   Couprie.
 21                 Q:   All right.  So you went to Mr.
 22  Couprie, and you wanted to ensure that he would put
 23  something substantial under the project?
 24                 A:   Correct.
 25                 Q:   Right.  But again, this wasn't --


  1                 A:   As to him, I had nothing to go with.
  2                 Q:   Right.  But you were putting the
  3  project together?
  4                 A:   I was putting it together, but
  5  without him, I couldn't do it.
  6                 Q:   Fair enough.  But when you said in
  7  the affidavit that you were doing this on behalf of one
  8  (1) of your clients, this is paragraph 4, Leo Couprie, in
  9  fact, that's -- three (3), sorry -- that's not -- four
 10  (4).
 11                 In fact, that's not really what I've heard
 12  you describe today.  I'm not being critical, but what --
 13  what I'm hearing today is that you were the proponent of
 14  the proposal; he was going to invest in it.
 15                 A:   Well, you have to go back to the
 16  Koreans; they were going to finance it.  Then I needed --
 17  they wanted me to put a team together so that they could
 18  finance it.  So I needed financing and I needed someone
 19  to negotiate the agreement.
 20                 Q:   All right.  But Mr. Couprie, I
 21  gather, was going to be the investor?
 22                 A:   Correct.
 23                 Q:   Right.  And otherwise, this was your
 24  proposal; he is the investor, correct?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   And then WCD was incorporated, as I
  2  understand it.  If we then go back to your evidence from
  3  this morning, you then got Mr. Cook involved, because he
  4  had a lot of experience, and he knew how to negotiate
  5  with the City.
  6                 Is that right?
  7                 A:   No, with OMERS.
  8                 Q:   All right.  But, I mean, he knew how
  9  to negotiate just generally?
 10                 A:   Yes, right.
 11                 Q:   And you wanted him to deal with --
 12                 A:   But specifically with -- 
 13                 Q:   the vendor --
 14                 A:   -- OMERS.
 15                 Q:   All right.  But again, you were there
 16  first and then you got him involved?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   All right.  So let's look at Exhibit
 19  258.
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 23                 Q:   So this is written as of October 4th,
 24  2005.  Mr. Hagas (phonetic) and Mr. Latimer are emailing.
 25                   "We have been attempting to reach the


  1                   proposed purchaser development partner
  2                   today."
  3                 And then it carries on:
  4                   "If you feel you need to communicate
  5                   further with Hazel, then you can advise
  6                   her that we are attempting to contact
  7                   Mr. Cook."
  8                 And then it carries on.  So the contact
  9  with Mr. Cook is in relation to a proposal of which you
 10  are part?
 11                 A:   I helped create.
 12                 Q:   You're part of it?
 13                 A:   What does "part" mean?
 14                 Q:   Well, we'll go back over all of it.
 15  You've been up -- you've been trying to get this up and
 16  running for a number of years, with a number of proposed
 17  financial partners?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   In that sense you are part of it?
 20                 A:   Okay.
 21                 Q:   You are the proponent, if I can put
 22  it that way?
 23                 A:   I guess.
 24                 Q:   Right.  And so when -- when your
 25  mother is in contact with OMERS about this issue, she's


  1  in contact with OMERS about a group of which you form
  2  part --
  3                 A:   I was the instigator of the group,
  4  yes.
  5                 Q:   Right.  Right.  And you remained
  6  involved in the group at this point?
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   Now, I take it that at that point Mr.
  9  Cook is involved, Mr. Cook is a long-standing family
 10  friend?
 11                 A:   Yeah.  
 12                 Q:   He's a friend not only of you, but he
 13  knew your father, and he knew your mother go -- knows
 14  your mother from a long time back?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   And I take it that the Mayor knew
 17  that you were involved in some way in this project?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   Right.  You're talking to her all the
 20  time of what you're up to; this would be one of the
 21  topics for discussion?
 22                 A:   Quite possibly.
 23                 Q:   Now can we look at Exhibit 148 for a
 24  second.
 25                 Now, this is an agreement that's signed at


  1  the bottom by Mr. -- Mr. Brown, Jared Brown (phonetic),
  2  who incorporated WCD?
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   And this was an -- an earlier offer
  5  that was presented; we heard some evidence about it
  6  yesterday.  I take it that you were aware of the contents
  7  of this offer?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   And did you give instructions with
 10  respect to the price that was going to be offered?
 11                 A:   I believe so.
 12                 Q:   And can we find the date of this
 13  offer?  I think it's at the bottom.  I understand that
 14  it's --
 15                 A:   2005 somewhere.
 16                 Q:   March 21st of 2005.
 18  number is this again?
 19                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   148, Commissioner.
 20                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Page 7.
 21                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Page 7.  Thanks.
 23                       (BRIEF PAUSE)


  1                 Q:   Can we advance it to page 7, or do we
  2  just put the -- there we go.
  3                 So Mr. Brown has signed on behalf of World
  4  Class, March the 21st, 2005?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   He is the lawyer who -- who was
  7  involved in the incorporation?
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   And for the time being, he's the --
 10  he's the shareholder, I take it?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   Now, can we pull up Exhibit 261?
 13                 So going in the middle of the page there,
 14  I think this follows on from what you've said:
 15                   "For your infor -- Hi Fred [it says],
 16                   Paul Haggis at OMERS.  For your
 17                   information, I had a rather spirited
 18                   talk with Your Worship yesterday..."
 19                 I take it that's not out -- not out of
 20  character for your mother to have a spirited talk with
 21  somebody?
 22                 A:   No.
 23                 Q:
 24                   "...about some land that Oxford has at
 25                   Square One.  She is not happy that


  1                   Michael Latimer is not selling the land
  2                   to her preferred group."
  3                 Again, the group at that point involves
  4  you, and it involves Murray Cook?
  5                 A:   And Leo Couprie.
  6                 Q:   And Leo Couprie.  And then at the end
  7  of that paragraph -- although I did su -- he says:
  8                   "I should give the holding to Michael
  9                   Nobrega, who, of course, can do no
 10                   wrong, as far as she's concerned."
 11                 I take it that meets with your
 12  understanding that she -- your mother and Le -- and Mr.
 13  Nobrega have a good relationship?
 14                 A:   I believe so.
 15                 Q:   Right.
 16                   "I think I did a pretty good of doing -
 17                   - keeping my cool, although I did
 18                   suggest that threatening me was not a
 19                   good idea."
 20                 Were -- some allowance for colour here,
 21  but did your mother tell you that she had had these
 22  spirited conversations with --
 23                 A:   Not that I'm aware of, no.
 24                 Q:   No.  You've no recollection of that?
 25                 A:   No.


  1                 Q:   Okay.  Now, moving ahead, let's pull
  2  up Exhibit 189.
  3                 So by this point, Mr. Cook has made an
  4  offer, which has started the ball rolling, to build a
  5  five-star hotel?
  6                 A:   I believe it was four-star.
  7                 Q:   Well, let's -- okay, let's go to
  8  Exhibit 260 for a second.
  9                 So this is -- have you seen this one
 10  before, December 12th, 2005?  This is the offer signed by
 11  Mr. Cook to Ron Peddicord.
 12                 A:   Okay.  I don't remember seeing it
 13  specifically.
 14                 Q:   So the third paragraph there:
 15                   "We'd originally proposed the freehold
 16                   purchases of three (3) parcels, one (1)
 17                   for a five-star hotel."
 18                 A:   Okay. 
 19                 Q:   Right.  And then appreciating that
 20  things morph, it becomes two (2) parcels of a land and a
 21  four-star hotel?
 22                 A:   Correct.
 23                 Q:   Okay.  So let's look at Exhibit 189.
 24                 So, Mr. Gover took you to this one.  The
 25  agreement of purchase and sale is executed when relative


  1  to this.  Is it January the 31st?
  2                 A:   I believe, yes.
  3                 Q:   And Mr. Couprie, if we look at the
  4  passage here, is agreeing to lend the sum of seven fifty
  5  (750), seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars
  6  ($750,000), but then the triggering event in the next
  7  paragraph appears to be: (as read)
  8                   "That upon Wold Class Developments
  9                   obtaining a financial partner, the
 10                   principal loan amount will be repaid."
 11                 So seven fifty (750) will go back to him,
 12  and an additional seven hundred and fifty thousand
 13  dollars ($750,000).
 14                 A:   Correct. 
 15                 Q:   All right.  So Mr. Couprie is going
 16  to take some risk in this project, but if a -- if a big
 17  financier is found, he gets a pretty good reward.
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   He can double his money.  He might
 20  double his money in twelve (12) months.
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   All right.  And then the agreement
 23  appears to contemplate the notion that the share is going
 24  to be held in trust.
 25                   "This condition -- [this is the third


  1                   paragraph.]  This condition will remain
  2                   whether the shares of World Class
  3                   Development Limited are held in trust
  4                   or not by the lender."
  5                 Do you see that?
  6                 A:   Which is the third paragraph?
  7                 Q:   "The lender retains the exclusive
  8  right;" do you see that one?
  9                 A:   Oh, yes.  Yes.
 10                 Q:   And so you see there that there's a
 11  notion that the -- the shares may be held in trust?
 12                 A:   Yes, I see that.
 13                 Q:   And then there's also an agreement
 14  that security can be placed?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   All right.  Now, we've heard a bit
 17  about the -- the setting in which this was witnessed.  It
 18  was witnessed by your mother?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   At dinner?
 21                 A:   At dinner.
 22                 Q:   On the eve of both the Agreement of
 23  Purchase and Sale being signed?  Not by the ---
 24                 A:   No.  Whatever the date is on this
 25  agreement.


  1                 Q:   But around that time?
  2                 A:   It's around that time.  
  3                 Q:   It's been a long negotiation and it's
  4  come to fruition?
  5                 A:   Yeah.
  6                 Q:   And it's also on the eve of you and
  7  Mr. Couprie travelling to Asia?
  8                 A:   Yeah.
  9                 Q:   And is it to China this time, or to
 10  somewhere else?
 11                 A:   I think it was Vietnam, Thailand, and
 12  China.
 13                 Q:   Right, so a longish trip, I take it.
 14                 A:   Ten (10) days.
 15                 Q:   And this is at Pier 4 on the
 16  waterfront?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   I'm not all that familiar with
 19  waterfront restaurants.  Is this a -- like, a dark one,
 20  or a light one, or...?
 21                 A:   It tends to be dark.
 22                 Q:   It tends to be dark.  And so there's
 23  you, and your mother, and Mr. Couprie, and you need a
 24  witness, and so your mother agrees that she will be the
 25  witness.


  1                 A:   Yes.
  2                 Q:   But you've told us that Mr. Couprie's
  3  wife is also there.
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   Right.  So she could have been the
  6  witness as well.
  7                 A:   Could have been.
  8                 Q:   Right.  And if you carry on to
  9  Exhibit 190, this is the Declaration of Trust.  Mr. Gover
 10  has reviewed this with you.  But essentially, Mr. Couprie
 11  agrees that he will not deal with the property except to
 12  transfer it to you.
 13                 So the shares, he can't dispose of to
 14  anybody else except to you, and he's holding 80 percent
 15  of them in trust?
 16                 A:   Yes.
 17                 Q:   And then there's a provision about
 18  the deposit.  And once again, your mother is the witness
 19  for this document?
 20                 A:   Correct.
 21                 Q:   Now, can we agree that these
 22  documents create a relationship between you and WCD that
 23  is more complicated than you simply being a real estate
 24  agent?
 25                 A:   Yes, I do now.


  1                 Q:   You do now.  That your lending -- or
  2  sorry, you're -- you're guaranteeing quite a large amount
  3  of money?  1.5 million, in effect.
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   And then you're becoming the
  6  beneficial shareholder of most of the shares of the
  7  company?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   All right.  Now, I appreciate your
 10  evidence that your mother didn't read this and you didn't
 11  review it with her, but let me ask you this:  Prior to
 12  getting into politics, your mother had been in business
 13  for twenty (20) odd years?
 14                 A:   Yes.
 15                 Q:   And she's a very sophisticated person
 16  about business concepts?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   And so, if she had read these
 19  documents, she would have understood, both that you were
 20  making a very substantial, potential, financial
 21  commitment to the company, and she would have understood
 22  immediately that you were effectively a shareholder of
 23  this?
 24                 A:   If she had read them, yes.
 25                 Q:   Right.  But that -- but these


  1  concepts are -- are something that is well within her
  2  understanding to grasp all this.
  3                 A:   To grasp, well, if she had read them,
  4  yes.  
  5                 Q:   Right.  Now, let me just pause and
  6  look at this issue of you and your knowledge of trusts.
  7  Now, I don't mind telling you I got a C plus in trusts in
  8  law school, so we're more or less on equal footing here,
  9  but --
 10                 A:   No, maybe I'd be a little less.  
 11                 Q:   Right, but you've been in -- in
 12  commercial real estate for how many years?
 13                 A:   Twenty-five (25).  
 14                 Q:   Twenty-five (25).  And I take it that
 15  from time to time, you've run across a situation where
 16  somebody has bought land as a trustee.
 17                 A:   No.  
 18                 Q:   You haven't.  You -- you never had
 19  the situation where somebody is doing a land assembly for
 20  some project, and a lawyer or somebody buys, in trust,
 21  for some other person.
 22                 A:   Oh, for a corporation to be
 23  incorporated.
 24                 Q:   Right, yes.  So you're familiar for
 25  that -- with that notion.  So you know that a lawyer, in


  1  those circumstances, doesn't own the land, right?
  2                 A:   Correct.  
  3                 Q:   Can't sell the land to anybody else,
  4  because the land belongs to the beneficiary of the trust.
  5                 A:   Well, the corporation he's going to
  6  incorporate.  
  7                 Q:   Yes, in this example, the
  8  corporation's the beneficiary, and you understand that.
  9                 A:   Yes.  
 10                 Q:   Right.  So that this notion of a
 11  trust is something that, in fact, you've been familiar
 12  with for a long time.
 13                 A:   In the relation of buying a piece of
 14  property, yes.  Not in holding shares.  
 15                 Q:   Right, but you appreciate now,
 16  sitting here that --
 17                 A:   Today I do.  
 18                 Q:   -- it's the same notion.
 19                 A:   Yes.  
 20                 Q:  Right.  That if I buy land as a lawyer
 21  in trust for a corporation, the shares of which are going
 22  to be owned by Ms. Rothstein, the land that I'm buying
 23  isn't mine; it's -- it's obviously Ms. Rothstein's
 24  corporation.
 25                 A:   Correct.  


  1                 Q:   Now, let's look at Exhibit 197.  When
  2  Mr. Gover reviewed this one with you -- and I take it
  3  there's no issue between us that where it says, in
  4  capital 'B,' "Leo 20 percent," so he's continued to own
  5  sixteen (16) common shares of the corporation, that those
  6  shares, he continues to hold for you.
  7                 A:   Yes, now.  
  8                 Q:   This is something you now appreciate.
 10                 A:   Yes.  
 11                 Q:   And the Landplex company -- I think
 12  we've covered this -- is the -- is Tony DiCicco's
 13  company.
 14                 A:   Yes.  
 15                 Q:   Now, after this document was
 16  executed, do I take it that Mr. Couprie's interest was
 17  limited to seeing that he was repaid for his investment?
 18                 A:   Primarily.  
 19                 Q:   Was he involved in the day-to-day
 20  affairs of the company after this?
 21                 A:   He never really was involved in the
 22  day to day.  
 23                 Q:   Right.
 24                 A:   I represented him.  
 25                 Q:   Right, so you were his -- his place


  1  at the table.
  2                 A:   Yes.  
  3                 Q:   And from this point on, his interest
  4  is really in just making sure that at least his
  5  investment is repaid.
  6                 A:   At least.  
  7                 Q:   Right, and his investment, over time,
  8  was repaid, as I understand it.
  9                 A:   The deposit money was.  
 10                 Q:   Right, and the deposit money was the
 11  seven hundred and fifty thousand (750,000)?
 12                 A:   Correct.  
 13                 Q:   Now, let me just spend a -- a moment
 14  or two (2) on the question of what it was that you were
 15  going to get from a successful transaction.
 16                 So if the -- if the Agreement of Purchase
 17  and Sale had actually closed and this project was going
 18  to be built, let's just look at some of these things.
 19                 First of all, you had in mind that you
 20  would be the agent who would sell the condominium units.
 21                 A:   Correct.  
 22                 Q:   And you'd earn a commission on those.
 23                 A:   Yes.  
 24                 Q:   Standard commission is what -- 3
 25  percent for a unit like that?


  1                 A:   No.  On a condominium, maybe one and
  2  a half (1 1/2).  
  3                 Q:   One and a half (1 1/2).  And so there
  4  were going to be something like two thousand (2,000)
  5  units over time?
  6                 A:   I think there was twenty-five hundred
  7  (2,500).  
  8                 Q:   Twenty-five hundred (2,500), so it
  9  maybe a variance.  So if it's two thousand (2,000) at 1
 10  1/2 percent, then the upside or gross commission for you
 11  is $3 million, is that right?
 12                 A:   It'd probably be more than that.  
 13                 Q:   More than that.  So if you go to
 14  twenty-five hundred (2,500) it would be three million,
 15  seven fifty (3,750,000)?
 16                 A:   I think it's more like ten (10) or 12
 17  million.  
 18                 Q:   More like ten (10) or twelve (12) --
 19                 A:   Yes.  
 20                 Q:   -- on 1 1/2 percent?  Your math is
 21  probably better than mine, but --
 22                 A:   Well, it was a $1 1/2 billion
 23  project. 
 24                 Q:   Okay, sorry about that.  If we take -
 25  - let's just take two hundred thousand (200,000) as the -


  1  - as the unit cost.  I've skipped a step here.
  2                 At a unit cost of two hundred thousand
  3  (200,000), which is low, at 1 1/2 percent, that would
  4  generate 3 million?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   And then we can -- we can play with
  7  the numbers.  You know, if the unit costs are higher,
  8  it's 1 1/2 percent of that.
  9                 But -- but your upside is actually in the
 10  millions of dollars?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   And you may need employees, you may
 13  have to split this and so on?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   But if you are the Peter McCallion
 16  Real Estate Inc., in gross terms, as you say, you may
 17  generate $10 or $12 million?
 18                 A:   Gross.
 19                 Q:   Gross.
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   Right.  But that's what was in it for
 22  you, in --
 23                 A:   That's what was in it for me.
 24                 Q:   Right.  Now in addition, you were
 25  going to get paid a commission on the sale of the land?


  1                 A:   Initially, that's what I was hoping
  2  for, yes.
  3                 Q:   All right.  And you recall that one
  4  of the occasions in which we -- we met was the cross-
  5  examination of an affidavit you filed in the Commission?
  6                 A:   Yes.
  7                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Now, could we give
  8  the Commissioner and the Witness a copy of the
  9  transcript?  Thank you.
 10                 So, Commissioner, by agreement with --
 11  with counsel, I think I actually undertook this on the
 12  record, that the evidence from this -- from the cross-
 13  examination, which was relevant to the proceedings before
 14  you, we would file.
 15                 So this is an expurgated version of the
 16  transcript.
 19                 Q:   So at question 57, I asked you -- the
 20  question now was intended to make an obvious point, but:
 21                   "If the sale were completed and WCD
 22                   went ahead with its project, that you
 23                   would be paid a commission?
 24                   A:   Correct.
 25                   Q:   So the -- right.  So then if the


  1                   project proceeded to completion, you
  2                   would receive a commission, correct?
  3                   A:   Correct.
  4                   Q:   If, in fact, if WCD purchased the
  5                   property, you would receive a
  6                   commission?
  7                   A:   Correct.
  8                 The last question and answer, I think, are
  9  in error; but you're asked those questions, and you gave
 10  those answers, correct?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   And obviously, you were intending to
 13  tell the truth that day?
 14                 A:   I was intending.
 15                 Q:   And -- right.  But -- but today, can
 16  I just understand from you, it was contemplated that you
 17  would earn a commission in the beginning?
 18                 A:   Yes.
 19                 Q:   Right.
 20                 A:   But by the time the deal was signed,
 21  there was no commission involved in the deal.
 22                 Q:   Well, let's talk about that.  OMERS
 23  was not prepared to pay you commission?
 24                 A:   Yes.
 25                 Q:   I take it it remained to be


  1  negotiated with Mr. DeCicco by that point, whether
  2  commission was going to be paid?
  3                 A:   Yes, and it was -- 
  4                 Q:   Mr. --
  5                 A:   -- pretty -- an it was pretty obvious
  6  he wasn't going to pay me.
  7                 Q:   All right.  Now, the last point, of
  8  course, is that if you had 16 percent of the shares of
  9  this company and the deal had closed successfully with
 10  OMERS and the project had gone ahead, the profits from
 11  that shareholding would have flown through to -- to the
 12  company, would have flowed through to you through your
 14                 A:   As of now, yes.
 15                 Q:   Right.  Now, I want to understand a
 16  little bit more about the transition between Mr. Cook,
 17  and Mr. DeCicco.  Mr. De -- Mr. Cook, according to you,
 18  was to head up this project to -- to deal with the
 19  vendors.
 20                 That was one of the things he was going to
 21  do?
 22                 A:   Yes.
 23                 Q:   And he was going to deal with the
 24  approvals process --
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   -- with the assistance of the experts
  2  you were going to hire?
  3                 A:   He was going to hire.
  4                 Q:   He was going to hire.  And was it
  5  contemplated that he would also find financing?
  6                 A:   It was a possibility.
  7                 Q:   Right.  Something that he would be
  8  looking for as well as you?
  9                 A:   Well, we had the Koreans originally,
 10  and they had dropped out.  So then we were going to have
 11  to find somebody.
 12                 Q:   Right.  And so the issue going into
 13  2007, the summer of 2007, was whether or not Mr. Cook was
 14  going to be able to find investors?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   Right.  Or, I guess, whether you were
 17  either?
 18                 A:   One of us.
 19                 Q:   Right.
 20                 A:   Or both.
 21                 Q:   And from this morning, I took it that
 22  you were concerned that if Mr. Cook brought in new
 23  investors, that this would adversely affect your
 24  interests?
 25                 A:   In the commission part of it, yes,


  1  absolutely.
  2                 Q:   So that the worry was that the new
  3  investors might have their own person in mind to sell
  4  these condominium units?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And that person might not be you,
  7  obviously?
  8                 A:   It might not be me.
  9                 Q:   Now, let's just think about this.  If
 10  new investors come in and they say, We don't want to lend
 11  money, we want to hold shares, you were holding, as we
 12  now know, first 80 percent of the shares, and then
 13  subsequently, a -- a lower amount.
 14                 Can we agree that new investors who wanted
 15  to -- to hold shares would dilute your proportion of the
 16  shareholding, whatever that happened to be at the time?
 17                 A:   Well, at the time it was Leo, but it
 18  would dilute Leo, yes.
 19                 Q:   Would dilute Leo.  And Leo was
 20  holding a trust for you?
 21                 A:   For me.  
 22                 Q:   Right.  So that would be an adverse
 23  affect, as well?
 24                 A:   I don't know if it's adverse.
 25                 Q:   Well, you'd have less --


  1                 A:   You'd have funding. 
  2                 Q:   Right.  You'd -- you'd get the money,
  3  but you'd have fewer shares, and your proportionate
  4  shareholding would fall?
  5                 A:   I don't think I could finance 80
  6  percent of a $1.5 billion deal. 
  7                 Q:   So you think the deal was worth $1.5
  8  billion?
  9                 A:   Built out.
 10                 Q:   Built out?
 11                 A:   Yes. 
 12                 Q:   That's a realistic number?
 13                 A:   According to Mr. Cook's projections.
 14                 Q:   All right.  But the point is, I
 15  guess, to be taken from that last answer, is that you
 16  were eager to get additional investment, and if your
 17  shareholding was diluted, so be it?
 18                 A:   So be it. 
 19                 Q:   All right.  Because what you were
 20  really looking for was to make money on the commission
 21  sales of the condominium units?
 22                 A:   Yes. 
 23                 Q:   Right.  Now, we expect that Mr. Cook
 24  will come here and say that you had a conversation with
 25  him in the summer of 2007, wherein you said that you no


  1  longer wanted him to be your partner.
  2                 Do you recall having a conversation of
  3  that --
  4                 A:   I don't recall saying "partner", no. 
  5                 Q:   Did you have a conversation with him
  6  where you told him effectively that his involvement was
  7  being limited?
  8                 A:   I believe that, yes.
  9                 Q:   What do you recall saying to him?
 10                 A:   Well, I don't recall the exact words,
 11  but  he was at the process of trying to squeeze Mr.
 12  Couprie out, and that would adversely affect me, so we
 13  needed to find someone else.  
 14                 Q:   What had he ever done?  Like, what --
 15  give us a list of the acts that he undertaken which
 16  actually had the effect of squeezing Mr. Couprie.
 17                 A:   I believe he -- he wasn't paying any
 18  bills, which I believed he was paying. 
 19                 Q:   So the examples we were shown this
 20  morning were bills from the plant --
 21                 A:   Page & Steele.
 22                 Q:   Page & Steele, the architects?
 23                 A:   Yes. 
 24                 Q:   Architects --
 25                 A:   AIMCo.


  1                 Q:   -- don't work without being paid, I
  2  take it?
  3                 A:   Not very long.
  4                 Q:   And there's this company -- I think
  5  it's the -- the ampersand sym -- symbol, & Co.?
  6                 A:   Yes. 
  7                 Q:   What is it that they did?
  8                 A:   They were planners, as well.  I don't
  9  remember exactly what they did.  I think they were into
 10  conceptual design.   
 11                 Q:   But the idea was that the -- these
 12  people weren't being paid, and therefore investors had to
 13  be found to pay the bills?
 14                 A:   Correct.   
 15                 Q:   And then that had the effects that
 16  you've described?
 17                 A:   Exactly. 
 18                 Q:   All right.  Now, so you then got Mr.
 19  DeCicco involved?
 20                 A:   Correct.   
 21                 Q:   And you -- I understand from you,
 22  that you knew Mr. DeCicco going back a few years when you
 23  had held listings for him?
 24                 A:   Yeah. 
 25                 Q:   So I take it that by the time that he


  1  became involved in 2007, he was somebody that you knew
  2  well?
  3                 A:   Yes. 
  4                 Q:   Had he been a good friend of yours
  5  going back to 1997?
  6                 A:   Well, I'd attend dinners at his house
  7  and whatnot, yes.  
  8                 Q:   Right.  And then if we can look at
  9  some of the calendar entries for the Mayor.  Let's pull
 10  up Exhibit 234.
 11                 So this is a meeting -- do I take it that
 12  you arranged this meeting in February of 2003?
 13                 A:   Could be.  
 14                 Q:   And sitting here today, do you think
 15  that that was a -- a pure social occasion or would it --
 16  would it have been a business occasion?
 17                 A:   Well, it doesn't say what time.  Six
 18  o'clock?  I can't answer.  
 19                 Q:   All right.  Let's --
 20                 A:   I wasn't doing business in terms of
 21  WCD at the time, so -- 
 22                 Q:   No.  I understand.  But could this
 23  have been a meeting to discuss his business?
 24                 A:   It could have been.
 25                 Q:   Right.  And this --


  1                 A:   I cannot say yes or no.
  2                 Q:   Right.  And a meet -- a meeting
  3  arranged by you with your mother to discuss it?
  4                 A:   That could be, yes.
  5                 Q:   Right.  So let's look at Exhibit --
  6  yeah, I see I've got the wrong number here.  Let's look
  7  at MIS078001001; do you have that?
  9                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 11                 Q.  Sorry, page -- sorry, I apologize.  Go
 12  to page 2 of that.
 13                 All right.  So this is won:
 14                   "Barbeque event with Tony DeCicco and
 15                   sixteen (16) others at Mayor's house."
 16                 This was won at Mayor's Gala.  This is
 17  August 2003?
 18                 A:   Yes.  
 19                 Q:   And this is a fund-raising means that
 20  your mother has, I take it, to -- these things are
 21  auctioned off?
 22                 A:   Yes, at the Mayor's Gala.
 23                 Q:   Right.  And they're bought typically
 24  not by individuals but by individuals representing a
 25  group of people?


  1                 A:   Yes, different companies.
  2                 Q:   Right.  And is this the one, because
  3  we've got a list of them that we haven't put in yet, but
  4  is this one for which Tony DeCicco and his group would
  5  have paid twenty-thousand dollars ($20,000)?
  6                 A:   I don't remember what he paid but I -
  7  - 
  8                 Q:   But did it tend to be in those --
  9                 A:   It's in those figures, yes.
 10                 Q:   Right.  And then if we go to page 3,
 11  so September the 9th of 2003, this one is to discuss the
 12  banquet hall project.  I take it that's Mr. DeCicco's
 13  project?
 14                 A:   Yes.  
 15                 Q:   And go to page 4.  This is November
 16  2003, a two o'clock meeting, middle of the day; this
 17  would be a business meeting?
 18                 A:   Quite possibly.   
 19                 Q:   Right.  And in this period I assume
 20  this is to discuss Mr. DeCicco's business rather than
 21  yours?
 22                 A:   Oh, it's not mine, for sure.
 23                 Q:   Right.  Is it probably his?
 24                 A:   Most likely.
 25                 Q:   All right.  Go to page 5.  Any


  1  recollection of this one?
  2                 A:   I don't remember it.
  3                 Q:   Let's look at page 6, April 24th,
  4  2004.  You've requested an urgent business meeting at the
  5  Delta Meadowvale with Mr. DeCicco?
  6                 A:   Yes --
  7                 Q:   Any idea -- I assume this is not your
  8  business?
  9                 A:   It's not mine.
 10                 Q:   Do I take it that it would be his
 11  business?
 12                 A:   Could be.
 13                 Q:   All right.
 14                 A:   I don't remember it.
 15                 Q:   Do you remember what the urgency was?
 16                 A:   No, I don't.  
 17                 Q:   Let's go ahead to page 9.  So this is
 18  going forward in your preparation Mayor at home and
 19  preparation for Tony DeCicco barbeque, winner of Mayor's
 20  gala, Ruth's Chris will be catering.  Again, this is one
 21  that would've cost, in the winning bid, plus or minus
 22  twenty thousand dollars ($20,000)?
 23                 A:   Probably, right.
 24                 Q:   And Mr. DeCicco or his -- Mr. DeCicco
 25  and his group have been the successful bidders?


  1                 A:   Yes, right.  
  2                 Q:   And did he say or there are many --
  3  there are many things that can be bid on, many auction
  4  items at these galas, and this is just --
  5                 A:   Not -- 
  6                 Q:   -- one of them.
  7                 A:   -- that many.
  8                 Q:   How many would there be?
  9                 A:   Live auction, I think there was only
 10  four (4) or five (5) items.
 11                 Q:   Right.  And so they're -- there are
 12  things like trips to --
 13                 A:   Trips.
 14                 Q:   -- Europe and that kinda thing?
 15                 A:   Yeah.  
 16                 Q:   Is the Mayor's -- is dinner at the
 17  Mayor's house always the biggest selling item?
 18                 A:   In most cases.
 19                 Q:   So it draws the highest bid of all of
 20  the things on offer?
 21                 A:   Yes.  
 22                 Q:   So there's one that I saw that you'd
 23  go to France for thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), but
 24  to have dinner with your mother it would be twenty-five
 25  thousand ($25,000)?


  1                 A:   Yes.  
  2                 Q:   Which one would you rather do?
  3                 A:   France.
  4                 Q:   I'm not gonna -- I'm not gonna take
  5  advantage of you in that way.
  6                 Now, if we look at page 13, this is one
  7  with -- this is one with Mr. Couprie -- no, sorry, this
  8  is one with you and Mr. Di Poce and Mr. DeCicco.  Again,
  9  we're getting closer to the time of the WCD transaction.
 10                 Mr. Di Poce ultimately did invest in WCD?
 11                 A:   I found that out afterwards, yes.
 12                 Q:   Right.  And you didn't know it at the
 13  time?
 14                 A:   No, I did not.  
 15                 Q:   Right.  Now, I understood from you
 16  that, not in your evidence, but in some of the interview
 17  processes that you were keeping Mr. DeCicco apprised of
 18  what you were doing with the WCD project?
 19                 A:   Yes.  
 20                 Q:   All right.  Because he was somebody
 21  who had considerable means and might invest in it
 22  ultimately?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   All right.  And do you know at this
 25  occasion, would you have been discussing the projects


  1  with that grouping of people?
  2                 A:   No. 
  3                 Q:   Now -- I'm sorry, page 14, let's look
  4  at that one.
  5                 So this is 2006, you and Leo Couprie, so
  6  this a meeting in the middle of the day.  Had you, by
  7  this point, formed the view that Mr. Couprie should be
  8  part of the company?
  9                 A:   He was already part of the company
 10  before that.
 11                 Q:   He was already part of the company
 12  before that point but he hadn't invested the money yet?
 13                 A:   No.
 14                 Q:   So he's part of the company.  You're
 15  meeting in the middle of the day.  I assume there's a
 16  business reason for this meeting?
 17                 A:   Could be, but it wouldn't have
 18  anything to do with WCD at that point.
 19                 Q:   Well, what would it have had to do
 20  with?
 21                 A:   Well, I can't tell you.  Probably --
 22  Leo probably requested it.  Could be something else he
 23  was doing.
 24                 Q:   All right.  But you can't tell us one
 25  (1) way or the other?


  1                 A:   I can't absolutely --
  2                 Q:   Correct.
  3                 A:   -- say it wasn't but I -- most likely
  4  it was not.
  5                 Q:   Okay.  If we -- if we go forward
  6  eleven (11) months or almost a year, Mr. Couprie, in
  7  fact, invests seven hundred and fifty thousand (750,000)?
  8                 A:   Correct.
  9                 Q:   Right?  And your mother witnesses
 10  that --
 11                 A:   Correct. 
 12                 Q:   -- that document?
 13                 A:   A year later. 
 14                 Q:   Right.  And at this point he's
 15  already involved in this company and you're already
 16  taking steps to advance the project?
 17                 A:   Correct.
 18                 Q:   And can I suggest to you that it may
 19  well have been a topic -- a topic for discussion at this
 20  meeting?
 21                 A:   Could have been a topic.
 22                 Q:   Could have been.  Is it more likely
 23  than not that it was?
 24                 A:   It's more likely not than it was.
 25                 Q:   More likely or not that it was a


  1  topic?
  2                 A:   No, that it was not.
  3                 Q:   Was not a topic?
  4                 A:   At that time, no.
  5                 Q:   All right.  And why is it at that
  6  time?
  7                 A:   Well, nothing was happening fast.
  8                 Q:   Right.  Let's go ahead to page 15.
  9  So this is in the summer of 2006?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   It's a barbeque that Mr. Couprie --
 12  Mr. Couprie, I gather, is somebody who has also known
 13  your family for a long time?
 14                 A:   Since 2002, yes.
 15                 Q:   Since 2002.  But he's become a good
 16  friend of yours?
 17                 A:   Yes, a very good friend.
 18                 Q:   And do you socialize with your mother
 19  and Mr. Couprie?
 20                 A:   Sometimes, yes.
 21                 Q:   Right.  And going back to 2002/2003
 22  you would have done so, as well?
 23                 A:   Not so much in 2002 because we met in
 24  December.
 25                 Q:   Right.  But going forward 2000 --


  1                 A:   Going forward, yes.
  2                 Q:   All right.  And this one -- do you
  3  know whether this one is a social occasion or is it more
  4  than that?
  5                 A:   This is for sure a social.
  6                 Q:   Now we don't want to pick on Mr.
  7  DeCicco and Mr. Couprie necessarily because I understand
  8  from your evidence this morning that your mother has
  9  these sorts of relationships with lots of developers?
 10                 A:   Lots of developers.
 11                 Q:   And so developers will call her to
 12  try and get through planning obstacles?
 13                 A:   Assumption being, yes.  Or problems.
 14                 Q:   Problems.  They'll call her to try
 15  and get put together with other -- other people who can
 16  help them?
 17                 A:   Correct. 
 18                 Q:   And do I take it that -- that she has
 19  a certain amount of social contact with -- with
 20  developers, dinners and lunches and so on?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   Right.
 23                 A:   As well as other corporations.
 24                 Q:   No, fair enough.  Does she follow a
 25  practice or a policy about who pays for lunch or who pays


  1  for dinner?
  2                 A:   If she does, I don't know what it is.
  3                 Q:   Right.  Now if we go -- if we go
  4  forward to the point at which Mr. Couprie -- sorry, which
  5  Mr. Cook is leaving the corporation and Mr. DeCicco has
  6  joined the corporation, there is then an issue which
  7  arises over the Put Agreement?
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   Or the Call Agreement, whichever you
 10  want to -- but the idea is that Mr. Cook can require that
 11  Mr. DeCicco buy him out of the company?
 12                 A:   Yes.
 13                 Q:   And the concern, as I understand it,
 14  is that Mr. Cook could require that he be bought out at a
 15  considerable sum of money too early in the process?
 16                 A:   I don't completely understand the
 17  agreement but I believe that I understand it to something
 18  to that effect, yes.
 19                 Q:   Right.  So the idea is that you want
 20  Mr. Cook onboard with all of his skills and expertise and
 21  connections until you've got the thing basically done and
 22  this agreement in some way allowed him to get out earlier
 23  than that point?
 24                 A:   Well, if I read the agreement I
 25  believe it had to be close to the closing of the


  1  agreement.
  2                 Q:   Right.  There's a -- we don't need to
  3  pull it up but there is a fairly complicated set of
  4  terms?
  5                 A:   Yeah, it's kind of complicated.
  6                 Q:   Now Mr. DeCicco, at any rate, formed
  7  the view that this agreement, this Put Agreement, had to
  8  come to an end?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   And if we pull up Exhibit 194, this
 11  is the termination document.  This is the one that was
 12  sought to have signed.
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   And this one is actually signed.  And
 15  so that was the end of the process.  Let's look at
 16  Exhibit 272.
 17                   "Emilio will fax that agreement to your
 18                   home today, and so on.  It covers all
 19                   the points.  You can set up a meeting
 20                   with Murray."
 21                 A:   Okay.
 22                 Q:   Right.  You knew that -- that your --
 23  your mother was going to be involved in this process to
 24  try and get resolution of the issue?
 25                 A:   Yes, because Tony trusted that she


  1  could keep the peace.
  2                 Q:   Right.  Well, I was going to come to
  3  that.  Let's pull up Exhibit 236.  I'm going to suggest
  4  to you that it doesn't look as though Mr. DeCicco was
  5  looking for your mother to play referee necessarily.
  6  Let's look at this one, scrolling down.  The message is:
  7                   "Were you able to, or have you
  8                   considered getting Murray to sign the
  9                   agreement terminating the call?  The
 10                   sooner we get it, the better off we
 11                   are."
 12                 Right?
 13                 A:   Okay.
 14                 Q:   And I take it that really what he's
 15  proposing there is that she be an emissary, that she
 16  reach out to Murray and see whether she can get Murray to
 17  sign this agreement?
 18                 A:   I would assume by that, yes.
 19                 Q:   Right.  And let's look at Exhibit
 20  238.
 21                   "Please call me at your earliest
 22                   convenience.  I'd like to speak with
 23                   you regarding Murray Cook.  We received
 24                   a letter from his lawyer stating we
 25                   haven't the authority to do things.  I


  1                   suggested to Peter that it would be
  2                   good if we meet tomorrow."
  3                 And do you recall whether you did have a
  4  meeting on this issue about the -- the letter from Murray
  5  Cook's lawyer?
  6                 A:   No, I don't recall that.
  7                 Q:   All right.  Now just to put this in
  8  perspective, Murray Cook is someone who you've known your
  9  entire adult life, I take it?
 10                 A:   Yes.
 11                 Q:   And he's known your parents, and he
 12  knows your mother going back many years?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   Right.  And how does your mother --
 15  or how did your mother decide what action to take in
 16  relation to this?
 17                 A:   Well, I don't know how she decided
 18  what she did.
 19                 Q:   Now what do you recall of what she
 20  did in order to assist in getting this agreement signed?
 21                 A:   I believe she had a meeting with Tony
 22  and Murray at one (1) point, and I don't believe it was
 23  resolved.
 24                 Q:   Now we may come to it but,
 25  ultimately, you were able to send the agreement, the


  1  signed agreement, back, is that right?
  2                 A:   I was sending it?
  3                 Q:   I think I have a note to come back to
  4  this, but I thought I saw it as an attachment to one of
  5  your emails.
  6                 A:   I don't recall that.  I don't know.
  7                 Q:   Okay.
  8                 A:   If you have it, show it to me.
  9                 Q:   I'll come back to it.  Now is it your
 10  view that your mother took sides in this dispute?  Did
 11  she take active steps to try and get the -- Murray to
 12  sign the agreement?
 13                 A:   I don't believe she took sides.  She
 14  was trying to keep the peace.
 15                 Q:   Okay.  Now if I can ask you a few
 16  questions about your relationship with some of the City
 17  officials.  Turn up Exhibit 265.  Middle of the passage,
 18  John Filipetti communicating with Michael Kitt:
 19                   "I received a call from Ed Sajecki who
 20                   indicated that   Peter McCallion spoke
 21                   to him further on Saturday after the
 22                   three (3) of us spoke.  According to
 23                   Ed, Peter asked Ed what the City could
 24                   do that might give us as vendors
 25                   comfort that the hotel would be built.


  1                   As a result, Ed called to say the City
  2                   would be prepared to consider amending
  3                   the official plan to require a hotel to
  4                   be built."
  5                 And so on.  Do you recall having a
  6  discussion with Ed Sajecki, and from the date I believe
  7  it would have been at the Mayor's gala?
  8                 A:   That's quite possible, yes.
  9                 Q:   All right.  And do you recall
 10  suggesting to Mr. Sajecki that perhaps the official plan
 11  could be changed?
 12                 A:   Well, I asked what he could do in
 13  order to require a hotel --
 14                 Q:   Right.
 15                 A:   -- and he suggested the official
 16  plan.
 17                 Q:   And Mr. Sajecki suggested the
 18  official plan be changed?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   And could we just have a look -- I
 21  don't have the exhibit numbers, but OMR002002899 --
 22  002002899.  It's on the exhibit list, I'm certain.  Two
 23  forty-nine (249), thanks.  Exhibit 249.
 24                 There's reference there to a surprise
 25  meeting requested by you on October the 9th, I guess,


  1  because it's the day following this.  Do you recall this?
  2                 A:   I recall a meeting.
  3                 Q:   Right.  And then could we have a look
  4  at MIS079001041.  Again, it will be an exhibit, I just
  5  don't know the number.  So this is on October the 9th.
  6  There's reference to -- by Mr. DeCicco, a message left
  7  for the Mayor.
  8                   "Please give me a call about the
  9                   meeting this morning on how we can move
 10                   forward."
 11                 Right?  So you've requested a meeting for
 12  October the 9th?
 13                 A:   With Michael Kitt.
 14                 Q:   Right.  And then Mr. DeCicco appears
 15  to be talking to your mother about a meeting on October
 16  the 9th as well?
 17                 A:   I assume he was talking to her about
 18  it, by that.
 19                 Q:   Right.  But -- they're talking about
 20  the same meeting, as far as you know?
 21                 A:   No, I don't know.
 22                 Q:   You don't know.  But from the timing,
 23  do you know of any other meeting that day?
 24                 A:   Well, no other meeting I had.  
 25                 Q:   All right.  Now, let's look at


  1  Exhibit 262.  This is referring, I believe, to a letter
  2  which you had delivered on October 23rd.  And the idea
  3  here was that WCD might agree to increasing the selling
  4  price by 2.5 million if the hotel conditions were
  5  dropped.
  6                 And the last sentence:
  7                   "Peter has advised us he has spoken to
  8                   the key people at the City who are
  9                   apparently okay with the restrictions
 10                   being removed."
 11                 Now, do you remember to whom you had
 12  spoken at the City?
 13                 A:   That would be Ed Sajecki.
 14                 Q:   Ed Sajecki.  And he had indicated
 15  that removing the hotel restriction was all right,
 16  correct?
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   Let's look at Exhibit 247.
 19                 A:   Just the timing of it, not removing
 20  the hotel.
 21                 Q:   Well, let's just talk about that for
 22  a second.
 23                 A:   The idea was that, for the time
 24  being, you wouldn't have to build a hotel.  But the idea
 25  was to still have a hotel there --


  1                 Q:   So the zo --
  2                 A:   -- eventually. 
  3                 Q:   Okay, so the zoning would be changed
  4  to require that a hotel be built?
  5                 A:   Or whatever -- or the official plan
  6  or whatever needed to be done.
  7                 Q:  But from the point of view of the
  8  vendors, did we accept that the vendors really wanted a
  9  hotel there, right?
 10                 A:   The vendors did, and a lot of people
 11  did.
 12                 Q:   Right.  From the vendors'
 13  perspective, once title to the land passes, the zoning
 14  can be changed back, can it not?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   And same thing with the official
 17  plan?
 18                 A:   I believe.
 19                 Q:   Right.  And if we look at Exhibit
 20  247, this is in relation to the key people at the City,
 21  and this is received a bit -- this is received with a bit
 22  of skepticism, I guess, by Mr. Charles, on behalf of the
 23  AIMCo people.
 24                   "We'll wait until you've spoken to the
 25                   key people, person/mall, and with the


  1                   City."
  2                 I take it, just to be fair to you, you'd
  3  never spoke to your mother about this issue?
  4                 A:   No.
  5                 Q:   Right.  And the person to whom you
  6  did speak was Mr. Sajecki?
  7                 A:   Correct.  And then, scrolling down,
  8  having said what you just said, no, keep going up, sorry:
  9                   "If approving a site plan is sufficient
 10                   to satisfy the City, why couldn't we do
 11                   that ourselves," and so on.
 12                 And then Mr. Sajecki -- sorry, Mr. Charles
 13  says to Mr. Kitt at the time -- says:
 14                   "We'll wait until you've been able --
 15                   Mr. Filipetti, we'll -- you've been
 16                   able to speak with the Mayor."
 17                 So just putting that together, you have a
 18  proposal which you have vetted with Mr. Sajecki, correct?
 19                 A:   Yes.
 20                 Q:   That's not good enough for the
 21  vendors.  They're going to vet it with your mother.
 22                 A:   Okay.
 23                 Q:   Now, you talked this morning about
 24  there being an issue which had arisen at some point about
 25  your involvement with this transaction.


  1                 A:   I was not aware of that. 
  2                 Q:   All right.  Well, let's look at
  3  Exhibit 257.  So this is an email.  Mr. Walker is a
  4  planning consultant who works with Barry Lyon.  The
  5  company's N -- NBLC for short?
  6                 A:   Yeah. 
  7                 Q:   He's emailing Mr. Bisceglia, Mr.
  8  DeCicco, and then worldclass@primus.ca; that's an email
  9  address that belongs to you?
 10                 A:   Correct.   
 11                 Q:   And then it's copied to a number of
 12  other professionals.  So there's a list there.
 13                   "Barry and I spoke with Marilyn Ball."
 14                 Marilyn Ball is the -- is one of the
 15  planning -- senior planning staff?
 16                 A:   Yes. 
 17                 Q:
 18                   "She is not happy with a number of
 19                   design changes/non-changes."
 20                 And it goes down.
 21                   "The reduction in size of the
 22                   conference facilities."
 23                 And you were involved in that issue, I
 24  take it?
 25                 A:   Yes. 


  1                 Q:   And there's a discussion about where
  2  there's room to manouevre effectively.  In terms of
  3  attendees -- second to last paragraph:
  4                   "She is requested that I email her our
  5                   list, and that they will set it up.
  6                   Our tentative list includes Emilio,
  7                   Tony, Drummond/Sandro (phonetic), Carol
  8                   and ourselves."
  9                 You see that?  That's who they want at the
 10  meeting?
 11                 A:   Okay. 
 12                 Q:   And then:
 13                   "Not sure if the optics are right for
 14                   Peter to attend."
 15                 A:   Okay. 
 16                 Q:   So this is an email that went
 17  directly to you, Mr. McCallion, on that date, February
 18  the 23rd --
 19                 A:   Yes. 
 20                 Q:   -- where this issue about the
 21  propriety, or the advisability of you attending a meeting
 22  with city staff, is raised?
 23                 A:   I have to admit, I probably didn't
 24  read all of the emails I got completely.
 25                 Q:   Okay.  But if you got that one, you


  1  would've seen there's an issue?
  2                 A:   If I had read the bottom, yes. 
  3                 Q:   Right.
  4                 A:   I usually only read the -- I -- the
  5  items that she was speaking of specifically at the top.
  6                 Q:   But I take it that this lines up with
  7  your evidence this morning, which is that, you know, in
  8  some ways, being the son of the Mayor has been a
  9  hindrance to you?
 10                 A:   Yes. 
 11                 Q:   Right.  So that this would be an
 12  example where --
 13                 A:   That's an example of a hindrance.
 14                 Q:   Right.  That somebody would say, you
 15  know, we're not sure that Peter McCallion should be
 16  dealing on this issue in this way?
 17                 A:   Yes. 
 18                 Q:   Now, do I take it from the answer
 19  that you gave a second ago, that you don't have any
 20  recollection of any discussion with anyone after getting
 21  this email?
 22                 A:   No. 
 23                 Q:   You don't know whether you got it or
 24  not?
 25                 A:   Well, I probably got it, yes.   Did I


  1  read the entire email?  Probably not.  
  2                 Q:   Right.  Do you remember reading any
  3  part of the email?
  4                 A:   Well, I probably remember the --
  5  specifically, the one (1), two (2), three (3), four (4).  
  6                 Q:   Now, let's pull up Exhibit 269.  So
  7  this is the document that I think you saw last week?
  8                 A:   Actually, I haven't seen it yet.
  9                 Q:   Sorry?
 10                 A:   I have not seen it yet.  
 11                 Q:   Okay.  So it was read to you over the
 12  phone or something?
 13                 A:   I believe so, yeah.
 14                 Q:   So let's go into the first page.  And
 15  this, as you understand it, is a document which was being
 16  used to market the investment opportunity in World Class
 17  and the hotel/condo project?
 18                 A:   That's what I've been told.  I
 19  haven't seen it yet, so... 
 20                 Q:   Well, hopefully we'll get to see it
 21  together in a second here.  So there's the table of
 22  contents, and then let's go one (1) more page in.  So
 23  this is dated June 2008, and it says:
 24                   "World Class is effectively owned by
 25                   three (3) individuals.  Mr. Tony


  1                   DeCicco, and Mr. Peter McCallion, and
  2                   Mr. Murray Cook."
  3                 A:   What's the date of this?
  4                 Q:   June 2008.
  5                 A:   Yes, okay. 
  6                 Q:   Right.  So I appreciate your evidence
  7  that you had not seen this, but in the middle of 2008 it
  8  appears that this was being used, or had been created for
  9  marketing purposes, and advertising you as an owner?
 10                 A:   Correct.  By that, yes.
 11                 Q:   Now, do you appreciate that once your
 12  involvement as more than an agent became known -- or, I
 13  guess to be fair, that the suspicion of your involvement
 14  in a capacity other than that of an agent became known,
 15  that it caused concern in the vendor group?
 16                 A:   Not that I was aware of.  
 17                 Q:   You weren't aware of it at the time?
 18                 A:   No, I was not.
 19                 Q:   Let's look at Exhibit 273.  So this
 20  is Craig Coleman, who was an advisor for the Alberta
 21  Group.
 22                   "And last, I would like to know exactly
 23                   what Peter McCallion's interest in this
 24                   project is."
 25                 Right?  This is something that he's


  1  raising?
  2                 A:   Yes, I have not seen this, but...
  3                 Q:   Right.  Okay.  Let me find one (1)
  4  document number here; two (2) seconds.  So can we pull up
  5  OMR002002558?  So this is a memorandum that is sent
  6  internally at Oxford of the deal.  Sets out at the top:
  7                   "December 12th was the notice date by
  8                   which the potential purchaser was to
  9                   provide notice"
 10                 and carries on; describes the extension
 11  periods.
 12                 The second paragraph in bold:
 13                   "As the extension notice was not
 14                   received, the conditions must be
 15                   satisfied by December 19th"
 16                 and so on.  We know that it, in fact, was
 17  extended over to January the 9th, but let's go to the
 18  second page.
 19                   "We undertook to persuade our co-owner"
 20                   --
 21                 Again, this is Oxford/AIM --
 22                   "that a clean sale could be
 23                   orchestrated as follows:"
 24                 And then it sets out a number of factors.
 25  Then go down to the bottom.


  1                   "AIM rejected these arguments with the
  2                   following rationale."
  3                 And the one (1), of course, that's of
  4  interest to us is the third one.
  5                   "AIM do not want to tie any
  6                   concessations -- concessions from the
  7                   City to this deal, because the un --
  8                   the potential unfavourable optics in
  9                   their view.  They are also
 10                   uncomfortable with the involvement of
 11                   Peter McCallion as an apparent
 12                   principal of WCD."
 13                 Do you see that?
 14                 A:   Yes, I see it.  
 15                 Q:   Right.  Now, I appreciate you didn't
 16  know this at the time, but you see that based on this
 17  report, one (1) of the reasons that the deal, in fact,
 18  was terminated, it would appear, is because of your
 19  involvement.
 20                 A:   It appears, based on that statement.  
 21                 Q:   Right.  And this is the first that
 22  you have known of that, I take it?
 23                 A:   Yes.
 25  that been marked?


  1                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   That, I think, is
  2  in, but can we mark that --
  3                 THE COURT CLERK:   Exhibit 275.
  4                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   275.  Thank you.
  6  --- EXHIBIT NO. 275:       OMR002002558 - memorandum -
  7                             WCD - update on sale of
  8                             blocks 9 and 29 at Square One
  9                             dated December 15, 2008
 12                 Q:   And then just to pull out Exhibit
 13  142.  This is a report -- entered the notes from Mr.
 14  Charles, the bottom in the left:
 15                   "December 16th, follow-up re. response
 16                   to letter.  Mayor assured everyone that
 17                   Peter McCallion was off the file, and
 18                   has no further involvement in the
 19                   project."
 20                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   What's
 21  the date of that?
 22                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   That is December
 23  the 16th, Commissioner.


  1                 Q:   And there's more evidence to come in
  2  this, obviously, but if your mother said that to
  3  somebody, she did so without consultation with you?
  4                 A:   Yes.  
  5                 Q:   And in fact, she was incorrect.  If
  6  she said that, she was incorrect.
  7                 A:   If she said that, it was incorrect.  
  8                 Q:   And then up on the -- the right hand
  9  side:
 10                   "Tony took Murray Cook out of equation.
 11                   Mayor brought Tony into deal when Mayor
 12                   thought Murray Cook wouldn't be able to
 13                   deliver."
 14                 Looking at that, was your mother involved
 15  in Tony -- in Tony DiCicco joining the project?
 16                 A:   No, not at all.  
 17                 Q:   Were you aware of your mother's view
 18  about whether Tony, or sorry, Murray Cook would or
 19  wouldn't be able to deliver?
 20                 A:   I'm not aware of that.  
 21                 Q:   Right.  And so, we'll have more
 22  evidence about this, but insofar as your mother's
 23  involvement in this, these are new ideas for you.  You
 24  haven't --
 25                 A:   Yes, I was not aware.


  1                 Q:   Now -- now, the deal terminated, as
  2  we've heard, on January the 9th of 2009.  There was then
  3  a period where effectively nothing was happening between
  4  the two (2) sides in this terminated deal, but then there
  5  was litigation.
  6                 A:   Correct.
  7                 Q:   Right.  And you have testified this
  8  morning about encountering Mr. O'Brien at some golf
  9  dinner?
 10                 A:   Correct.
 11                 Q:   And did -- just to be clear about
 12  this, did Mr. O'Brien come to your mother and ask whether
 13  he could be of assistance, or was it the other way
 14  around; did your mother go to Mr. O'Brien?
 15                 A:   Well, he came to me.
 16                 Q:   He came to you.  And he offered to
 17  assist in getting this resolved?
 18                 A:   Yes, he did.
 19                 Q:   And he came to you in your capacity
 20  as being associated with WCD?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   Now, if we look a these mechanics,
 23  let me put it that way, of this discussion Mr. O'Brien's
 24  going to have, Mr. O'Brien had been the city manager?
 25                 A:   Yes.


  1                 Q:   And in that capacity he'd been an
  2  advisor to your mother?
  3                 A:   I would say, yes.
  4                 Q:   Well, to the City --
  5                 A:   Even -- even afterwards.
  6                 Q:   Right, and afterwards; I was going to
  7  come to that.  He has remained a trusted advisor.
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   In a way that other city managers are
 10  not, I take it, former city managers?
 11                 A:   Well, some of them have moved away,
 12  so I can't answer that.
 13                 Q:   Right, but --
 14                 A:   Distance wise alone, he's close.
 15                 Q:   Close.  And he sometimes does -- he
 16  has dinner with her from time to time?
 17                 A:   I believe so, yes.
 18                 Q:   He does errands for her, if I could
 19  put it that -- from time to time?
 20                 A:   I don't know about that.
 21                 Q:   He is a trustee of the family trust
 22  that your family has?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   Right.  And with our new found
 25  knowledge of trust here, you're a beneficiary of the


  1  trust.
  2                 A:   I believe I am.
  3                 Q:   Right.
  4                 A:   May not be after this.
  5                 Q:   Well, fair enough, but as matters
  6  stand you're a beneficiary.
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   And so here is your mother's advisor,
  9  and  -- in this special capacity, his formal capacity, at
 10  least, being the trustee, he's setting off to try and
 11  resolve things with Mr. DeCicco?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   But he's also a director of one (1)
 14  of the OMERS entities?
 15                 A:   Yes.
 16                 Q:   And you sit in on these negotiations
 17  on the side of WCD?
 18                 A:   I'm sitting there putting them
 19  together --
 20                 Q:   Right.
 21                 A:   -- because the only way it's going to
 22  be resolved is Tony and OMERS --
 23                 Q:   So you --
 24                 A:   -- come to a settlement.
 25                 Q:   All right.  But I mean, why are you


  1  there?  Do you assume the -- the peacekeeper role here,
  2  or...
  3                 A:   Yes, kind of, because Tony can be
  4  argumentative.
  5                 Q:   And just so we have it from you, what
  6  was your understanding of what Mr. O'Brien was doing in
  7  these meetings?
  8                 A:   He was trying to come to an
  9  agreement, a satisfactory agreement, between the two
 10  sides.
 11                 Q:   M-hm.
 12                 A:   A settlement agreement.
 13                 Q:   Now, let's pull up Exhibit 215.
 14  These are notes taken by the city solicitor.  This is
 15  September 3rd of 2009.  Mary Ellen Bench.  We understand
 16  she'll give evidence consistent with these notes:
 17                   "Hazel has called him and suggested he
 18                   talk to me."
 19                 That's Mr. O'Brien.  Going down a couple
 20  of bullets:
 21                   "Met with DeCicco and Peter McCallion
 22                   at her request."
 23                 So Mr. O'Brien is saying that he met with
 24  Mr. DeCicco, but also you at the mayor's request?
 25                 A:   I didn't know it was at her request.


  1  He offered.
  2                 Q:   All right.
  3                   "Has read affidavits."
  4                 Sorry.
  5                   "Discussed with Michael Latimer.  Has
  6                   read affidavits by DeCicco and Peter
  7                   McCallion.  Concerned with conflict."
  8                 A:   So that's after -- oh, that's
  9  September 3rd, yeah.
 10                 Q:   Right.  At this point, did -- did
 11  your mother say anything to you about her concern about a
 12  conflict in relation to this issue?
 13                 A:   No.
 14                 Q:   And then going down to September 5th:
 15                   "Had a long -- he had a long chat with
 16                   Hazel this morning."
 17                 That's Mr. O'Brien:
 18                   "She is not that excited about the
 19                   Sheridan deal."
 20                 And then carrying on:
 21                   "Concerned that if the City goes ahead
 22                   with deal that -- with Sheridan, could
 23                   put the City in a precarious position."
 24                 Do you see that?  He's quoting --
 25                 A:   Which point is that?  


  1                 Q:   Would he just be quoting --
  2                 A:   Oh, that one. 
  3                 Q:   Did you have an understanding from
  4  Mr. DeCicco that -- that he had an improved bargaining
  5  position, given that the Sheridan deal was now coming up
  6  to a closing?
  7                 A:   I wasn't aware of the Sheridan deal.
  8                 Q:   At all?  Even by this point?
  9                 A:   No.
 10                 Q:   Okay.
 11                   "Recommends bringing Hazel up to date
 12                   before it goes to counsel."
 13                 And then the next bullet:
 14                   "Hazel has agreed to declare a
 15                   conflict."
 16                 Next bullet:
 17                   "No, she has talked to Peter and
 18                   DeCicco."
 19                 Again, so this is a couple of days later.
 20  Did you have any discussion about your mother's concerns
 21  about being in a position of conflict in that time
 22  period, September 5th?
 23                 A:   I was not aware of that, no.
 24                 Q:   All right.  And then it carries on.
 25  Just to cover this off, do I take it that you were not


  1  speaking with your mother about this conflict of interest
  2  on her part, in September of 2009?
  3                 A:   No.
  4                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   All right.
  5  Commissioner, I'm going to move to another area.  Could
  6  we perhaps break?
  7                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Sure.
  8  Take fifteen (15) minutes.
  9                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 10  please.  The Inquiry stands recessed for fifteen (15)
 11  minutes.
 13  --- Upon recessing at 3:29 p.m.
 14  --- Upon resuming at 3:47 p.m.
 16                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 17  please.  The Inquiry is reconvened.  Please be seated.
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 22                 Q:   Just a few remaining points, sir.  In
 23  relation to the affidavit -- I'm sure that you're sick of
 24  telling the story about the affidavits, but there's the
 25  first, the August 24th one, and Ms. Rothstein's reviewed


  1  the circumstances of that --
  2                 A:   Correct.
  3                 Q:   -- being sworn.  And then, I guess,
  4  we will see the evidence from Mr. Bisceglia or the people
  5  in his office about the circumstances surrounding why
  6  that firm didn't commission a further affidavit.
  7                 But, in any event, you went to Mr.
  8  Schwarz, to his office?
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   And Mr. Schwarz has, from time to
 11  time, acted as your mother's personal solicitor, I take
 12  it.
 13                 A:   Yes, for many years.
 14                 Q:   For many years.  And in fact, we're
 15  talking about the family trust, and so on; he's the one
 16  that did those arrangements.
 17                 A:   Yes.
 18                 Q:   So you went back, taking aversion
 19  which you understand -- not you understood -- which was -
 20  - which contained the expression of your desire to
 21  correct the record.
 22                 A:   Correct.
 23                 Q:   And then after you swore that one you
 24  vetted that one with -- with your mother, I gather?
 25                 A:   I believe I sent a copy to Mary Ellen


  1  Bench.
  2                 Q:   All right.  And in any event, it was
  3  communicated to you, was it by your mother that it was
  4  insufficiently clear?
  5                 A:   Probably.  Yes, I don't a hundred
  6  percent remember that, but --
  7                 Q:   Now, with respect to the -- the first
  8  affidavit, the -- yeah, the August 24th one, we want to
  9  be clear about this.  Did you discuss the affidavit with
 10  your mother over the telephone before it was sworn?
 11                 A:   All I said was there was a lot of
 12  changes that I had to make from the first affidavit that
 13  Emilio gave me.
 14                 Q:   All right, so --
 15                 A:   I didn't discuss what they were.
 16                 Q:   All right.  So the first affidavit,
 17  just so we have this, is the August 24th affidavit,
 18  Exhibit 212?
 19                 A:   Whatever the number is, yeah.
 20                 Q:   Well, let's just look at it to make
 21  sure.  This is an important point.
 22                 Let's go down to the first paragraph -- or
 23  the second paragraph, I guess.
 24                 A:   Yes, that's the one.  
 25                 Q:   "I'm one of the principles."  So you


  1  did discuss this affidavit, Exhibit 212, with your
  2  mother?
  3                 A:   Over the phone, saying before this.
  4                 Q:   Before it sworn?
  5                 A:   Before signing.  
  6                 Q:   Before signing it?
  7                 A:   Before signing it.
  8                 Q:   Right.
  9                 A:   I said there was a lot of changes
 10  from the draft that Emilio sent me.
 11                 Q:   Right.
 12                 A:   And I corrected them.
 13                 Q:   Oh, and I take it the litigation that
 14  was going on was a matter of interest to her because the
 15  Sheridan deal was pending?
 16                 A:   Well, to her, it would have been
 17  interesting, yeah.  I didn't know about the Sheridan deal
 18  though.  
 19                 Q:   All right.  Did you look at any of
 20  the other affidavits in the proceeding?
 21                 A:   I saw none.
 22                 Q:   And you discussed to some extent the
 23  substance of this affidavit with your mother?
 24                 A:   No, just the fact that I had to make
 25  a lot of changes --


  1                 Q:   All right.
  2                 A:   -- not what they were.
  3                 Q:   I have to ask you, sir, you say that
  4  you knew nothing about the Sheridan transaction at any
  5  point?
  6                 A:   Well, it was in the newspaper much
  7  after this.
  8                 Q:   But hadn't it been announced with a
  9  lot of fanfare in the spring of 2009?
 10                 A:   Yes, I remember that, but it wasn't
 11  specific to a site.
 12                 Q:   It wasn't specific to a site?
 13                 A:   Or if it was, I thought it was on a
 14  site where the theatres were.
 15                 Q:   So you thought that it was going on a
 16  different portion of the Square One lands?
 17                 A:   Correct, not where we were.
 18                 Q:   And, at some point, did you figure
 19  out that it was, in fact, where you were?
 20                 A:   After the fact.
 21                 Q:   Long after this?
 22                 A:   Yes, after this.
 23                 Q:   So long after August the 24th?
 24                 A:   Long after.
 25                 Q:   All right.  And so there's a second


  1  affidavit and then there was a third affidavit.  Did Ms.
  2  Bench ask you for the third affidavit?
  3                 A:   I believe I sent it.  I don't believe
  4  she asked for it specifically.
  5                 Q:   All right.  And what was it that
  6  prompted you to -- to do the third affidavit?
  7                 A:   That it wasn't completely clear.
  8                 Q:   Right.  And having sworn that
  9  affidavit, what did you do with it?  I mean, you have
 10  version 1, version 2, version 3.  You got --
 11                 A:   Right.
 12                 Q:   -- version 3 sworn.  What do you with
 13  it at -- at that point?
 14                 A:   I sent it to Emilio's office after it
 15  was commissioned, and I believe --
 16                 Q:   All right.
 17                 A:   -- I sent a copy to Mary Ellen Bench.
 18                 Q:   Right.  Now is it possible that you
 19  discussed it with Mr. Couprie, the first affidavit, or
 20  the second, or the third?
 21                 A:   I didn't discuss the details of it.
 22  I told him that I had their affidavit that I had to sign
 23  and I had a lot of --
 24                 Q:   You had to sign?
 25                 A:   -- and I had a lot of changes to it.


  1  I didn't discuss with him what the changes were either.
  2                 Q:   All right, but let's just get this
  3  straight.  In advance of swearing the affidavit, the
  4  Exhibit 212, you did discuss this with Mr. Couprie?
  5                 A:   I told him I had an affidavit to
  6  sign.
  7                 Q:   Right.  And did you discuss with him
  8  that it touched on the nature of your involvement with
  9  WCD?
 10                 A:   No.
 11                 Q:   All right.  Now as I understand it,
 12  one (1) of the complications in describing your role was
 13  that you no longer had the trust document?
 14                 A:   Correct.  I thought I'd discarded it.
 15                 Q:   Right.  And I can't remember offhand
 16  how you extinguish a trust, but I don't think ripping up
 17  your copy is good enough.
 18                 A:   Well, I don't know that.
 19                 Q:   Right.  So you thought that because
 20  you no longer had your copy, that was the end of the
 21  trust?
 22                 A:   That was the end of it.
 23                 Q:   All right.  We now know, of course,
 24  that if you'd asked Mr. Couprie for his documents, he had
 25  all the signed documents.


  1                 A:   I thought he had discarded his too
  2  because it had served the purpose.
  3                 Q:   Right.  Okay.  So do you know whether
  4  Mr. Couprie brought the documents in to -- to Mr.
  5  Bisceglia once we got into the Inquiry?  Are you aware?
  6  Before -- or before we got into the Inquiry?
  7                 A:   I don't know when he provided those
  8  documents.
  9                 Q:   So during -- is it possible during
 10  the --
 11                 A:   I assume it's during the Inquiry.
 12                 Q:   Is it possible that it's early as
 13  during the litigation?
 14                 A:   I'm not aware of that.
 15                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Okay.  I'm going
 16  to conclude in a second, and then it may be useful to
 17  actually have Ms. Rothstein ask a couple of questions to
 18  clarify this.
 20  right.
 23                 Q:   Now let's look at -- let's look at
 24  Exhibit 144.  So this is one that -- an exhibit that
 25  garnered some attention at the end of our last session of


  1  the Inquiry:
  2                   "The important thing to maintain is to
  3                   maintain a relationship with the City.
  4                   Have you done this to date?"
  5                 Says Mr. Kitt.
  6                   "I don't trust the buyer, and there's
  7                   no doubt they are using Hazel in this
  8                   process.  It is difficult to tell her
  9                   that, especially with her son
 10                   involved."
 11                 Now you gave some evidence this morning
 12  about the number of calls that Mr. DeCicco had made to
 13  your mother.
 14                 A:   M-hm. 
 15                 Q:   And you seemed surprised by that
 16  evidence?
 17                 A:   The number of calls, no.
 18                 Q:   You weren't surprised by that?  You
 19  were unaware of that though, I gather?
 20                 A:   I was unaware, but I'm not surprised.
 21                 Q:   And you're not surprised because this
 22  is just something that developers have done, I take it?
 23                 A:   Some people do, yes.
 24                 Q:   What do you say to the suggestion
 25  that they were using your mother in the process?


  1                 A:   I don't believe they were.
  2                 Q:   All right.  Just lastly, to finish
  3  off, why did you send version two of the affidavit, the
  4  September 11th affidavit, to Ms. Bench?  What prompted
  5  that?
  6                 A:   Just more clarification.
  7                 Q:   Your mother had spoken to you about
  8  clarifying this?
  9                 A:   I believe so, yes.
 10                 Q:   And this was becoming a public issue,
 11  I guess?
 12                 A:   I don't believe at that point it was.
 13                 Q:   Okay.  But you wanted there to be
 14  some clarity in the issue?
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   All right.  Thank
 17  you very much.
 19  Rothstein, did you have some further questions?
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 23                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   Before I ask a
 24  question or two (2), could I just wait until after Mr.
 25  Lax?  It will only be on my clarification as to when the


  1  documents involving WCD were given by Mr. Couprie to Mr.
  2  Bisceglia.  I don't know that off the top of my head,
  3  and...
  4                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Right.
  5  All right.  Mr. Lax...?
  8                 Q:   Mr. McCallion, I'm Cliff Lax.  I'm
  9  the lawyer for the Corporation, the City of Mississauga.
 10                 A:   Okay.
 11                 Q:   And now having heard your evidence,
 12  would this be a fair summary of what it is that -- that
 13  you wish the Inquiry to accept, that from 2005, from the
 14  incorporation of WCD, until just recently in preparation
 15  for your testimony here, you believed that your role at -
 16  - with WCD was nothing other than that of a real estate
 17  agent?
 18                 A:   Correct.
 19                 Q:   You now say that you realize that
 20  that was wrong and that, in fact, you are the owner of 16
 21  percent of the equity of WCD?
 22                 A:   Correct.
 23                 Q:   And I take it that even when you
 24  borrowed the money, the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)
 25  from TACC, which is Exhibit 196, Your Honour -- Mr.


  1  Commissioner, and at that at that time you represented
  2  that you had signing authority on behalf of World Class,
  3  that you were wrong to believe that you were misleading
  4  in any way, because a real estate agent would normally
  5  have signing authority on behalf of the client.  Is that
  6  correct?
  7                 A:   That's correct.
  8                 Q:   But, lo and behold, you now find out
  9  that you were wrong to have thought that you were wrong,
 10  because you were really a principal in the company when
 11  you borrowed the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) from
 12  TACC.  Is that correct?
 13                 A:   I know that today, yes.
 14                 Q:   You're aware that when Mr. Cook
 15  engaged litigation with the company; that he claimed that
 16  he and you, not Couprie, but that he and you were the
 17  real partners in WCD.
 18                 A:   I didn't know that. 
 19                 Q:   He has the 20 percent, you as to 80
 20  percent.
 21                 A:   I didn't know that.
 22                 Q:   You didn't know that?
 23                 A:   I didn't see his litigation.
 24                 Q:   And after Mr. DeCicco came in were
 25  you aware as to whether or not Mr. Bisceglia, the lawyer,


  1  through his family, was also an investor in WCD?
  2                 A:   No, I did not.
  3                 Q:   Are you aware today that Mr.
  4  Bisceglia --
  5                 A:   As a result of the Inquiry, yes.
  6                 Q:   And when did you become aware that
  7  the lawyer for WCD was also one (1) of your partners in
  8  WCD?
  9                 A:   During the process of the Inquiry.
 10                 Q:   And so, Mr. McCallion, you told Mr.
 11  McDowell that you were not aware that the company had
 12  gone out to seek financing in June 2008 and, in fact,
 13  they had retained Ernst & Young for that purpose.
 14                 That's Exhibit 269, Mr. Commissioner.
 15                 If you go to the third page of the
 16  document, please.  This is where World Class Developments
 17  is described as effectively owned by three (3)
 18  individuals, Mr. DeCicco, yourself, and Mr. Cook, and you
 19  agreed that that was factually correct as of June of
 20  2008.
 21                 A:   It was knowledge after the fact.
 22                 Q:   It was correct at the time that Ernst
 23  & Young prepared this document?
 24                 A:   I didn't know that.
 25                 Q:   And then when the affidavit was


  1  prepared for you, the one that's caused so much
  2  difficulty because of the mistake that was made in which
  3  you desc -- you were described as a principal of WCD,
  4  that affidavit was either drafted by Mr. Bisceglia or,
  5  alternatively, he was in the room when it was being
  6  reviewed with you; is that correct?
  7                 A:   No.
  8                 Q:   I thought you said that at the first
  9  meeting that you had, it was at Mr. Bisceglia's office in
 10  which the -- the affidavit was discussed?
 11                 A:   No, it was not.
 12                 Q:   Sorry?  Go ahead.
 13                 A:   No, it was not.
 14                 Q:   All right.  It was not.  So you were
 15  at -- it was the only meeting at which -- at which you
 16  were present?  Refresh my memory.  The affidavit was
 17  prepared in draft form and you made revisions to it in
 18  two (2) separate drafts; is that correct?
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   And -- and you received that
 21  affidavit at Mr. Bisceglia's office?
 22                 A:   By email.  
 23                 Q:   By email.  And you did not know at
 24  the time that Mr. Bisceglia was not only the lawyer for
 25  WCD but also one (1) of your partners?


  1                 A:   I did not know that.
  2                 Q:   And you're now suggesting that the
  3  lawyer for WCD and one (1) of your partners had it wrong
  4  when he described you as a principal of WCD?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   When, in fact, you now know that the
  7  only person who was wrong in that regard was you for
  8  believing that you weren't a principal?
  9                 A:   Correct.
 10                 Q:   Have you received any portion of the
 11  $4 million recovery that WCD made on the sale of the land
 12  or on the resolution of the litigation with OMERS?
 13                 A:   None.
 14                 Q:   You now know that you have a 16
 15  percent interest in that -- in that recovery?  You've
 16  known that I take it for more than a few days?
 17                 A:   More than a few days, yes.
 18                 Q:   And that would suggest, therefore,
 19  that you have an entitlement to 16 percent of the net
 20  profits of this company?
 21                 A:   I believe that, yes.
 22                 Q:   In addition, you would have an
 23  entitlement to recover the loans that you made to the
 24  company, correct?
 25                 A:   I expect to recover the loans, yes.


  1                 Q:   So that as we sit here today, you
  2  expect to recover a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000)
  3  for your own benefit, fifty thousand (50,000) going to
  4  TACC on the loans, correct?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And you expect to recover 16 percent
  7  of the net recovery that the -- that the other
  8  shareholders received?
 10                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Well, with respect
 11  that's not the witness' testimony.
 12                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Well,
 13  he's being cross-examined.  I mean, if -- if --
 14                 THE WITNESS:   I don't expect to receive
 15  any money.
 18                 Q:   Well, you would have an entitlement
 19  to receive 16 percent.  Your entitlement would be no less
 20  and no greater than that of Mr. DeCicco, correct?
 21                 A:   Correct, if you analyse it that way.
 22                 Q:   If what?
 23                 A:   If you analyse it that way.
 24                 Q:   Well, you're a shareholder like him?
 25                 A:   Well, I -- the money should go to


  1  Leo, and if he decides to give it to me that's his
  2  choice. 
  3                 Q:   Well, he holds your shares in trust
  4  for you, so you'd know he would have no choice?
  5                 A:   I guess he wouldn't.
  6                 Q:   All right.  So as we stand here
  7  today, you would have an entitlement to recover 16
  8  percent of the amounts that all -- that were paid to all
  9  of the other shareholders, as well as the loans, correct?
 10                 A:   Correct.   
 11                 Q:   When did you realize that you would
 12  have an entitlement to this recovery?
 13                 A:   About a month ago through the process
 14  of the Inquiry.  
 15                 Q:   And did you advise the Commission
 16  that the basis upon which the Commission had ordered
 17  funding for your legal fees on the basis that you could
 18  not afford to pay them was no longer the case and that
 19  you could now rec -- had the basis of recovering this sum
 20  of money to cover your expenses?
 21  OBJ            MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Mr. Commissioner, I
 22  object.  In my submission, what Mr. Lax seems to be
 23  trying to do is to re-litigate an issue that was
 24  determined by you in response to a motion brought on
 25  March 4th, 2010.


  1                 And I remind Mr. Lax that the evidence of
  2  the witness is that he doesn't intend, doesn't expect, to
  3  receive anything from the proceeds apart from repayment
  4  of the loan.  So I submit that that's an unfair question
  5  that's being put to the witness --
  6                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Well,
  7  whether he expects to receive anything or not, I think
  8  the point that Mr. Lax is making is that because of this
  9  trust agreement he may be entitled to certain funds.
 10                 And I think the point that Mr. Lax is
 11  making is that Mr. McCallion, in the course of seeking
 12  funding, swore an affidavit outlining his financial
 13  affairs and I think the point Mr. Lax is making is, one,
 14  this wasn't part of that evidence, and secondly, if it
 15  wasn't did he bring it to the attention of the Commission
 16  that there had been a change in his circumstances?
 17                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Well, I accept that.
 18  It -- but with the proviso that we have to remember that
 19  the witness' testimony has been that it's been only
 20  recently and --
 21                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Well, I
 22  don't know when it was he simply said that he realized
 23  that he was entitled legally to some of these proceeds
 24  once the Inquiry got under way.  I think that's all he
 25  said.  He didn't say when, and I don't know when.


  1                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Well, perhaps Mr. Lax
  2  could ask that question then because --
  3                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Perhaps
  4  he will.
  5                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   -- fairness to the
  6  witness really requires it, in my submission.
  8  right.  Well, I think Mr. Lax may do that.
 11                 Q:   I thought I heard you say, Mr.
 12  McCallion, you realized that your entitlement -- you
 13  realized your entitlement about a month ago, that's what
 14  it --
 15                 A:   Yes. 
 16                 Q:   All right.  And my question was that
 17  in the -- in the month since then have you written to the
 18  Commission to indicate that the circumstances set out in
 19  your affidavit regarding need had -- had changed?
 20                 A:   No, I did not. 
 21                 Q:   I wonder if you could now please turn
 22  -- and this may be an exhibit or part of it may be an
 23  exhibit, to which I apologize -- to COM0010020095 and 96.
 24                 These -- these are summaries, Mr.
 25  McCallion, of monies that were received by the company


  1  Landplex and the sources of the receipt of the money.
  2                 I'd like you to help me a little bit with
  3  who the people are.  John Di Poce we know was an
  4  investor.  Was he an investor right from the beginning of
  5  Mr. DeCicco's arrival or did he come in subsequently?
  6                 A:   I do not know that. 
  7                 Q:   And do you know that he was an
  8  investor?
  9                 A:   No, I did not. 
 10                 Q:   And we're going to come back to the
 11  meetings that -- that he attends with your mother in --
 12  in her office.  Did -- did you have any idea of whether
 13  or not those meetings had anything to do --
 14  OBJ            MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   Your Honour, if I -
 15  - I'm sorry, Mr. Lax.  I don't know -- I don't know what
 16  he's on, Your Honour.  I'm going to take the position, if
 17  I may -- I'm sorry, I'm doing the wrong thing here to
 18  object.  My first objection.
 19                 Your Honour, this document my client gave
 20  to Commission counsel, and we had understood that there
 21  would be some discussion about some of the names on this
 22  document, and the propriety of having those names
 23  disclosed before they -- it would be made an exhibit.
 24                 So forgive me if I've missed this on the
 25  exhibit list and not raised this issue sooner.  So that's


  1  my mea culpa there, Your Honour.  But in any event, I
  2  would -- I would ask you why this is an interest that's
  3  engaged by the City of Mississauga?
  4                 It wasn't something that your Commission
  5  counsel was interested in from this witness, and I don't
  6  see why Mr. Lax's client would be concerned about this
  7  aspect of the case.
  8                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Well, I
  9  don't know either.  I've seen this for the first time
 10  moments ago.  What I understand it is, is that it's a
 11  document presumably obtained from Mr. DeCicco because it
 12  --
 13                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   It was prepared by
 14  Mr. Bisceglia for the purposes of the Inquiry to assist
 15  Commission counsel.
 16                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   All right.  Well,
 17  a couple of things.  That is true, I -- a couple of
 18  things.  I didn't know that this document had made its
 19  way out of the exhibit list, but having said that, there
 20  has been evidence about Mr. Di Poce's investment, for
 21  example --
 22                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   There
 23  has.
 24                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   -- without
 25  objection.  And the documents which have been produced


  1  relatively recently, within the last ten (10) days or so
  2  by the -- by WCD, we have imported to court book on
  3  notice to the parties because we got them, frankly, quite
  4  late in the day.  So -- so I -- I don't --
  5                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   This wasn't with
  6  those, Mr. McDowell.  This one you had from the outset of
  7  the Inquiry.
  8                 THE COURT CLERK:   Ms. Rothstein, could
  9  you speak up, please.
 10                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   I'm so sorry.  And
 11  I just want to just respond to Mr. McDowell, if I can.
 12  This document is one (1) of the very first documents my
 13  client gave to the Inquiry long before it ever had
 14  standing, or applied for standing.
 15                 My very first meeting with Mr. McDowell,
 16  we produced this and many other documents on the
 17  condition that there would be a discussion about to what
 18  extent it would be redacted.
 19                 So I didn't know, Your Honour, that this
 20  was going to be on the exhibit list today.  I'm not sure
 21  whether that's my mistake or not, although it appears
 22  your counsel was also mistaken.  And it raises some
 23  significant concerns.
 24                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Was it
 25  agreed, Ms. Rothstein, that there would be discussion


  1  about this document if it was going to be tendered, and
  2  that there -- there might be some redactions?
  3                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   Correct.
  5  have those discussions taken place?
  6                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   No, because I
  7  didn't know this was going to be an -- an exhibit today,
  8  and I certainly didn't foresee that Mr. Lax would be
  9  using this to cross-examine Mr. McCallion.
 11  Mr. McDowell, does that fairly summarize the --
 12                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   It is although, as
 13  I say, we've been overtaken to some -- to some extent,
 14  but we know Mr. Bisceglia is a shareholder, we know Mr.
 15  Di Poce is.  I mean, I'm happy to have the discussion,
 16  but I think at this --
 17                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   And there's no
 18  problem with that.  That's in the public record, and I
 19  don't have -- Mr. Bisceglia and Mr. --
 20                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   And all
 21  we know now is that Mr. Lax is asking about certain of
 22  these people, including Mr. Di Poce --
 23                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   Right.
 24                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   -- who
 25  we've already heard about.


  1                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   I have no trouble
  2  with that, but there's others on the list, and my concern
  3  is about him going through the document, as I anticipated
  4  was his purpose, for the purpose of determining who all
  5  these companies were.
  6                 And if there is anyone that needs to be
  7  asked about that, if that does become a matter of
  8  relevance, my client will be testifying and he will be
  9  able to answer those questions.
 10                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Okay.  To be
 11  clear, this one has not yet been marked, and we've killed
 12  the media switch, so it's not going off into the -- into
 13  the ether, but maybe Mr. Lax can get around to --
 15  Lax, if there has been an undertaking given to --
 16                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   I wasn't aware of --
 18  discuss --
 19                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   I wasn't aware of it,
 20  of course.
 21                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   No, but
 22  if there had -- if there were discussions, I think in
 23  fairness those discussions might go on after you --
 24  because we're not going to get finished today.  You're
 25  not going to get finished with Mr. --


  1                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   No.
  3  McCallion this afternoon.  Now, I'm just wondering --
  4                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   We can deal with it in
  5  the morning.  I'll be happy to -- to abide by the outcome
  6  of whatever those discussions are.
  8  And then perhaps move on to something else now, and come
  9  back to that if it's determined that that's something
 10  that can be done.
 13                 Q:   Yeah.  If I could just move on then
 14  to Exhibit 195, which has been discussed already in the
 15  evidence.
 16                 Mr. McCallion, this is the very partial
 17  listing of receipts and disbursements during the limited
 18  period from September 1st, 2006, to August 21st, 2007.
 19  So we don't know what happened before or after.
 20                 A:   Okay.
 21                 Q:   All right.  Excuse me.  And so what
 22  we do see as your counsel took you to -- if you look at
 23  January the 12th, we see the initial deposit from Mr.
 24  Couprie of two hundred and fifty-five thousand dollars
 25  ($255,000) on January the 12th, 2006.


  1                 A:   That would be 2007.
  2                 Q:   2007, sorry, yes.  And then going
  3  down to March the 7th, we see an initial deposit from you
  4  of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000)?
  5                 A:   Correct.
  6                 Q:   And then on March the 16th -- we'll
  7  come back to this in a moment.
  8                 But on March the 16th and on March the
  9  30th, we see two (2) cheques of a thousand dollars
 10  ($1,000) going out to you for consulting.
 11                 A:   Correct.
 12                 Q:   I take it that you were to be paid
 13  two thousand dollars ($2,000) a month as a consulting
 14  fee?
 15                 A:   No.
 16                 Q:   Well, if we go down to the last entry
 17  of June 28th, not having received any fees in the months
 18  of April, May and June, we see a further payment to you
 19  of six thousand dollars ($6,000).  It appears that you're
 20  catching up for the three (3) prior months at two
 21  thousand dollars ($2,000) a month.
 22                 A:   That is incorrect.   
 23                 Q:   All right.  So is it a pure
 24  happenstance then that in March you were paid consulting
 25  fees of two thousand dollars ($2,000), and in June you


  1  received six thousand dollars ($6,000), which just
  2  appears to be the equivalent of two thousand dollars
  3  ($2,000) a month?
  4                 A:   It appears.
  5                 Q:   All right.  And what was the
  6  rationale then for the two (2) cheques of a thousand
  7  dollars ($1,000), and what was the rationale for the
  8  cheque for six thousand dollars ($6,000)?
  9                 A:   Living expenses.   
 10                 Q:   Was there a consulting agreement that
 11  provided how you were to be paid?
 12                 A:   None.
 13                 Q:   So let me understand.  Would you just
 14  walk into Mr. Couprie, you'd say, I need a cheque for six
 15  thousand dollars ($6,000)?
 16                 A:   Basically.
 17                 Q:   And because you owned 80 percent of
 18  the company, he gave it to you?
 19                 A:   No, he had the cheques.
 20                 Q:   And did he ever say no?
 21                 A:   No.
 22                 Q:   And then going back then to your --
 23  to the listing, on March the 28th, Mr. Couprie puts in a
 24  further one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to make
 25  his total investment now three-fifty-five (355)?


  1                 A:   Correct.
  2                 Q:   And on April the 5th a cheque is cut
  3  to Mr. Couprie but apparently charged to you for two
  4  thousand three hundred and ten dollars and thirty cents
  5  ($2,310.30).
  6                 Why were you being charged with expenses
  7  that were being actually paid to Couprie?
  8                 A:   We were going on a trip, and that was
  9  the cost of the trip.
 10                 Q:   I'm sorry, "we were going on a trip."
 11  You and Mr. Couprie were going on a trip?
 12                 A:   Correct.
 13                 Q:   Couprie was going to pay for it?
 14                 A:   Well, he paid through -- for it from
 15  the money from -- that I had put into WCD.
 16                 Q:   You'll have to take it a little
 17  slowly, because I didn't understand that answer.
 18                 A:   The two thousand three hundred and
 19  ten dollars and thirty cents ($2,310.30) was the cost of
 20  a trip. 
 21                 Q:   Right.  And Couprie paid for it, and
 22  you repaid Couprie, and it was charged to your account?
 23                 A:   No, the money I had put into the
 24  company, he used to pay for the trip.
 25                 Q:   Why was it the money that you put


  1  into the company?  Why wasn't it the money that he put
  2  into the company?
  3                 A:   Because it was my trip.
  4                 Q:   He -- he had already put in three
  5  hundred and fifty-five thousand dollars ($355,000) at
  6  that stage.
  7                 A:   Well, that's got nothing to do with
  8  the trip.
  9                 Q:   I see.  And so where is your money
 10  then that you talk about that you put in that's going to
 11  be used to pay for the trip?
 12                 A:   That's it there.
 13                 Q:   Where?
 14                 A:   The two thousand three hundred and
 15  ten dollars and thirty cents ($2,310.30).
 16                 Q:   No, that's a charge not a credit.
 17                 A:   Well, I didn't put it in.
 18                 Q:   That's a che -- that's a payment
 19  going to Mr. Couprie.
 20                 A:   To pay for the trip. 
 21                 Q:   All right.  And so did you put in the
 22  equivalent amount of money to -- to make the company
 23  whole?  Where -- where was this -- this money is coming
 24  out of the company's bank account.
 25                 Why was it being charged to your account?


  1                 A:   Because I put in thirty thousand
  2  (30,000).
  3                 Q:   I see.  All right.
  4                 On May 24th you put in another seventy-
  5  three thousand five hundred dollars ($73,500).  You told
  6  Mr. Gover that that money came from commissions that were
  7  owing to you on the sale of homes from De Zen Realty or
  8  De Zen Construction?
  9                 A:   Yes.
 10                 Q:   Let me just understand that question.
 11  Real -- realty commissions owing to you are not cash.
 12  Did you go and borrow against commissions that were owing
 13  to you, or were they paid to you?
 14                 A:   They were paid.
 15                 Q:   All right.  So, I take it then, that
 16  there would be a record of a commission payment to you
 17  sometime in 2007; there would be at least seventy-three
 18  thousand five hundred dollars ($73,500) from De Zen
 19  Construction?
 20                 A:   Correct.
 21                 Q:   You, in turn, took that che -- that
 22  money and paid it over to the company?
 23                 A:   Correct.
 24                 Q:   And then we turn to July the 30th,
 25  and you put in fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), and


  1  that's the money that you borrowed from TACC?
  2                 A:   Correct.
  3                 Q:   Now, July 30th is the day before Mr.
  4  Couprie and Landplex -- or Mr. Couprie, at least -- comes
  5  in to WS -- WCD, because we look at Exhibit 197, there's
  6  a Shareholders' Agreement with Couprie on August the 1st,
  7  2007.
  8                 A:   Yes.
  9                 Q:   My question is this: you told us that
 10  Mr. Couprie was coming in -- I'm sorry, Mr. -- I keep --
 11  Mr. DeCicco was coming into the company to lead the
 12  company and to be a financial resource for the company,
 13  correct?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   Since Mr. DeCicco was expected to be
 16  putting in money, why was it that on the day before he
 17  comes into the company, that you, Peter McCallion, have
 18  to go out and borrow fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)
 19  from TACC?
 20                 A:   I wanted to ensure the site plan fee
 21  was paid.
 22                 Q:   But you knew that the next day
 23  DeCicco, a man with significantly greater resources than
 24  you, would be joining the company, and he could easily
 25  write that cheque?


  1                 A:   I could, but I didn't know how fast
  2  it would happen.
  3                 Q:   Is it possible that the other
  4  explanation is that DeCicco said, All right, I'll come in
  5  and be your partner, but I want to see you, Peter
  6  McCallion, having some skin in this game, and I want to
  7  see your investment in this company up by fifty thousand
  8  dollars ($50,000)?
  9                 A:   Absolutely not. 
 10                 Q:   Now, when you borrowed the fifty
 11  thousand (50,000), or when you guaranteed the debt of --
 12  of World Class Developments, personally, you knew that
 13  you did not have the wherewithal to order that guarantee
 14  if demand was made on it?
 15                 A:   Correct.
 16                 Q:   And was that an open secret between
 17  you and Mr. Silvio de Gasperis of the TACC group?  Did he
 18  know that too?
 19                 A:   Not that I was aware of.
 20                 Q:   He believed you had resources?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:   Did he ask you for any evidence to
 23  support that belief?
 24                 A:   No.
 25                 Q:   When he extended the loan to World


  1  Class Developments Limited, did he ask for a financial
  2  statement for World Class Developments Limited, as to its
  3  ability to repay the fifty thousand dollar ($50,000)
  4  loan?
  5                 A:   No, he did not.
  6                 Q:   Did he know that the next day, that
  7  Mr. DeCicco would be stepping into the company as the
  8  majority owner?
  9                 A:   No, he did not.
 11                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 13                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Just a moment, sir; I
 14  may have just one (1) more question, then I'll sit down
 15  for today.
 17                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 20                 Q:   Now, I just want to ask you a couple
 21  of other questions.  This morning, Mr. Gover asked you
 22  about licensing difficulties you had in maintaining your
 23  registration as a real estate agent in the Province of
 24  Ontario.
 25                 You told us that your licence was


  1  suspended on two (2) occasions?
  2                 A:   Correct.
  3                 Q:   Correct?
  4                 A:   Yes.
  5                 Q:   The first was because of a failure to
  6  comply with the continuing education --
  7                 A:   Correct.
  8                 Q:   -- requirements?  How long was your
  9  licence suspended for on that occasion?
 10                 A:   I think two (2) or three (3) months.
 11  It took me two (2) or three (3) months to do the courses.
 12                 Q:   And do you know when that was?
 13                 A:   2007.
 14                 Q:   And then the next year, was it, 2008,
 15  that your licence was suspended for non-payment of the
 16  insurance --
 17                 A:   No, it was 2009.
 18                 Q:   2009.  And how long was your licence
 19  suspended on that occasion for?
 20                 A:   From September 'til January -- or
 21  March.  Sorry, March.  
 22                 Q:   So that's a longer suspension, six
 23  (6) --
 24                 A:   Correct.   
 25                 Q:   -- six (6) months or so?


  1                 A:   Whatever.
  2                 Q:   And on either occasion, was your
  3  employment as an agent terminated by the brokerage
  4  company for whom you worked?
  5                 A:   Terminated?  I couldn't work.  
  6                 Q:   Was your relationship as an agent for
  7  the broker terminated on either of those two occasions?
  8                 A:   Not that I was aware of.  No. 
  9                 Q:   Did you go back to work for the same
 10  brokerage firm after the six (6) month suspension?
 11                 A:   Yes. 
 12                 Q:   And who was that?
 13                 A:   Storemont Associates (phonetic).
 14                 Q:   And that's who you'd been working for
 15  before?
 16                 A:   Yes. 
 17                 Q:   And on the pri -- on the first
 18  occasion, when there was the shorter suspension, who
 19  would you have been employed with at that --
 20                 A:   I believe I was with Royal LePage.  
 21                 Q:   And did you go back to work with them
 22  after?
 23                 A:   No.  I went to Storemont.
 24                 Q:   And was the fact that you went to
 25  Storemont in any way related to a decision of Royal


  1  LePage that they didn't want you back?
  2                 A:   No. 
  3                 Q:   I'll have more questions in the
  4  morning -- more questions in the morning, Your Honour.
  6  right.  Thank you.
  7                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Mr. -- I do have --
  8  we've prepared a chronology of -- of where -- where we're
  9  going with the documents, which we're -- propose to hand
 10  out to any counsel who wants it, to the Commission.  It
 11  might save you some note-taking time.
 13  me.
 14                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   And --
 15                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Anybody
 16  object to that?
 17                 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
 19  right.
 20                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   All right.
 22  want to pass these up?
 23                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   So we'll -- I'll have
 24  -- we'll hand it up to you --


  1  Tomorrow would be fine.
  2                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   -- tomorrow.
  3                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Now, Mr. Gover
  4  wishes to address you.
  5                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:  Yes, Mr.
  6  Gover?
  7                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Yes.  Thank you, Mr.
  8  Commissioner.  And, Mr. Commissioner, I do have
  9  submissions concerning the scope of questioning by the
 10  City's counsel.  And let me elaborate on that very
 11  briefly.
 12                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   I think it might
 13  be better if we excuse the witness for this.
 14                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Yes.  I
 15  think you're finished for the day, Mr. McCallion, unless
 16  Ms. Rothstein wanted to ask some questions at this point.
 17                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   I'm in your
 18  counsel's hands.
 19                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Or do
 20  you wish to wait till -- until the end?  Sorry?
 21                 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN:   I -- I'm in your
 22  counsel's hands.
 23                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   In -- in the morning
 24  will be fine.


  1  right.  Mr. McCallion, thank you very much.
  2                 THE WITNESS:   Okay.
  3                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   You may
  4  leave.
  6                     (WITNESS RETIRES)
  9  right.  Mr. Gover...?
 10                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Thank you, Mr.
 11  Commissioner.  I'm aware of the hour, and I will be
 12  brief.  Of course, Mr. Lax acts for the Corporation of
 13  the City of Mississauga, and he's allowed to ask
 14  questions in this Inquiry to the extent of the interest
 15  of the Corporation of the City of Mississauga.  Your
 16  rules reflect that, of course, and I'm referring to Rule
 17  32(b) which provides:
 18                   "That people with standing will have an
 19                   opportunity to cross-examine the
 20                   witness to the extent of their
 21                   interest."
 22                 Now, in my submission, we need to be
 23  mindful -- although I've given some latitude to Mr. Lax
 24  thus far, to the question of how a municipality's
 25  interest is implicated, or could be implicated, in an


  1  inquiry such as this.
  2                 And clearly, if its conduct, or the
  3  conduct of one of its elected officials or non-elected
  4  officials has been called into question by a witness, or
  5  the appropriateness of its process, in some respect, is
  6  called into question, then its interest is engaged.
  7                 When we consider the process of a public
  8  inquiry, of course, the Commissioner and Commission
  9  counsel are required to ensure the fairness of what is,
 10  after all, an inquisitorial process.
 11                 And of course, we're guided by comments
 12  such as Mr. Justice Cory's comment in the Krever
 13  Commission, and also Justice Binnie in Consortium
 14  Developments, which was a case dealing with a municipal
 15  public inquiry.
 16                 And that, of course, has implications for
 17  how the Commissioner conducts the inquiry, and it's
 18  accepted that Commission counsel's role is as the
 19  guardian of the public interest.
 20                 Now, unlike most public inquiries, this
 21  particular one has an obvious political dimension.  We
 22  know that a divided council has passed the resolution,
 23  creating it.
 24                 However, once created, an inquiry under
 25  the Municipal Act is like any other public inquiry.  The


  1  City, though, I recognize is undoubtedly an important
  2  party, but its counsel must not usurp the role of
  3  Commission counsel, and counsel for the municipality is
  4  constrained to examine witnesses to the extent of its
  5  interest, as Rule 32 provides.
  6                 Now, in my submission, what you've just
  7  heard about what was disclosed to Mr. de Gasperis, or
  8  what may have been disclosed to him or may not have been
  9  disclosed to him, and about employment arrangements as a
 10  real estate agent in those periods in question, rightly
 11  causes one to question whether this is an example of
 12  cross-examining the witness to the extent of the City's
 13  interest.
 14                 And, in my submission, we must take into
 15  account that while questions such as this may have been
 16  properly within the ambit of Commission counsel,
 17  Commission counsel chose not to ask those questions.
 18  And, now, for Mr. Lax to ask them, in my submission,
 19  really amounts to assuming a role that is not
 20  contemplated in our law.  And, really, Mr. Lax has now
 21  sought to assume the role of a special prosecutor.
 22                 He is not the Kenneth Star of this case
 23  and, in my submission, ought to be precluded from asking
 24  questions which do not fall within the ambit of Rule
 25  32(b), which, after all, reflect our law.


  1                 So I put Mr. Lax on notice, and I have
  2  finished at 4:30, that I will have objections tomorrow
  3  whenever, in my submission, questions are asked which
  4  don't engage the City's interest, but instead deal with
  5  these collateral issues which Commission counsel has seen
  6  not -- seen fit not to deal with.
  7                 Thank you for hearing me out on that, Mr.
  8  Commissioner.
  9                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
 10  you, Mr. Gover.  Rather than ask Mr. Lax or Commission
 11  counsel to respond now, I think what we'll do is hear any
 12  argument.  In the event that you object to any line of
 13  questioning that Mr. Lax decides to pursue, and I'll hear
 14  -- I'll hear from Mr. Lax and perhaps from Commission
 15  counsel at that time.
 16                 MR. BRIAN GOVER:   Thank you very much,
 17  sir.
 19  o'clock.
 20                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 21  please.  This Inquiry stands adjourned for the day.
 23  --- Upon adjourning at 4:32 p.m.


  2  Certified Correct,
  6  ________________
  7  Sue Kranz, Ms.

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

July 28th, 2010  

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Uh oh Latimer mentions that David O’Brien “briefed” them. (We know how O’Brien “briefs”….) about 4 hours ago


Mayor’s lawyer up. Expecting more “sweetheart” questions. about 4 hours ago


Yep, I was right about sweetheart questions… about 4 hours ago


Truly left to wonder the degree to which OMERS wags the municipal tail… about 4 hours ago

And then there were two Tweets from home.


@phinjogombu re: “Peter McCallion can’t recall anything about any of the meetings he arranged.” I refer to it as the David O’Brien defense. about 3 hours ago via web in reply to phinjogombu


I retract what I said in yesterday’s Twitter about feeling sorry for Peter McCallion. My sympathies were both stupid and misplaced. about 2 hours ago


You can find video archives of today’s hearing at Rogers Cable 10 Mississauga.

News reports on today’s Inquiry.

McCallion’s memory tested

Mississauga News -Joseph Chin
Jul 28, 2010 – 1:34 PM

Testifying for a second day at the Mississauga judicial inquiry, Peter McCallion said he has little recollection of at least half-a-dozen meetings…

Still on the stand. Peter McCallion is testifying today at the Mississauga judicial inquiry. Staff photo by Fred Loek
Related Stories (Mississauga News)

Mississauga inquiry: Peter McCallion ‘misled’ mother on his role in company …

National Post – ‎2 hours ago‎
Peter McCallion, son of Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion arrives at Mississauga’s Ontario Court of Justice where he testified at an inquiry regarding the

Hazel McCallion’s son keeps it under his hat

Toronto Sun – Michel Mandel – ‎2 hours ago‎
For poor Peter McCallion, the divorced real estate agent with a Grade 12 education who’s never risen to the success of his mom

Royson: Ending the state of denial

Toronto Star – Royson James – ‎2 hours ago‎
To the army of Hazel McCallion apologists — many itching to re-elect her Oct. 25 — testimony out of the Mississauga judicial

McCallion met with developers in secret meetings, inquiry hears

Toronto Star – Tannis Toohey – ‎3 hours ago‎
Peter McCallion waits in the witness box while awaiting an end to the mid-morning break Wednesday at the Mississauga judicial inquiry,

Mayor’s lawyer pins the blame on her son
Hazel McCallion’s inquiry defence: Peter ‘misled’ her on his role in the company she backed

Toronto Star -Phinjo Gombu Urban Affairs Reporter
Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer has unveiled her defence at a judicial inquiry

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry sheds light into Enersource, Borealis, OMERS, a sneaked-in veto clause –and David O’Brien

June 18th, 2010  

We present the video, complete with transcript.

YouTube Video, “Mississauga Judicial Inquiry shines light on ENERSOURCE’s Public Pretend, Pretend, Pretend…” (5:11 min)

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


Music: Chicken Dance

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Enersource Pretend Public Meeting, January 22, 2009):

Yup, okay, come forward quickly, if you wouldn’t mind. They’re going to close the TV off at eleven o’clock so—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Enersource Pretend Public Meeting, January 22, 2009):


There’s one, like really pressing question that I have. It has to do with that famous contract and the change and everything else. And it has to do with Accountability.

And my question is, where is the former City Manager, David O’Brien? Why wasn’t he here? Why have Mississaugans have to be dependent on He-Said/She-Said and everyone else’s memory?

Did David O’Brien ever offer to come in here and clear things up?

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Enersource Pretend Public Meeting, January 22, 2009):

No. He didn’t offer, nor was he invited.


Music: I Don’t Remember by Peter Gabriel

MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

Can we have Mr. O’Brien sworn, please.

COURT CLERK,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

—the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you, God?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

I do.

MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010 ):

Mr. O’Brien, you became the City Manager at Mississauga in 1995?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

That’s correct.

MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010 ):

Now, just back up before then. Where were you before you were City Manager at Mississauga or what were you before?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010 ):

I started my career in 1974 in the City of Sudbury, my home town. I started working as the Mayor’s executive assistant, as a matter of fact. In 1981, became the City Manager of Sudbury. In 1983, I went to become the Chief Administrative Officer of the region of Ottawa/Carleton. In 1987, I became the City Manager of the City of Gloucester in Ottawa when it was still a region.

And in 1989, I became the City Manager of the City of Ottawa. And then in 1995, I came to be the City Manager of the City of Mississauga.
So my — my — thirty (30) years of my career were spil — spent in the municipal public service.


MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

— before I answer I should just make a broad statement. I haven’t been involved in this process for some ten (10) years, so I’ve —

MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010 ):

No, understood.

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

— my memory is not going to be as good as it would be on something that I might have done last week, at the best.


MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Enersource Pretend Public Meeting, January 22, 2009):

Did David O’Brien ever offer to come in here and clear things up?


MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

I’m sorry, Mr. McDowell, I don’t re — I don’t recall who that buyer was.


MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

Um, do you remember this memo?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

I — I don’t. I — it was one of the memos that you gave me in our — one of our interviews. I don’t remember it up until that point in time.


MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

–I take it it follows that you don’t remember the system that — that you set up?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

I — I don’t. I can assure you if Hazel McCallion asked me to set up a system, I did it. I just don’t remember it.


MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Enersource Pretend Public Meeting, January 22, 2009):

Did David O’Brien ever offer to come in here and clear things up?


MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

You don’t have any recollection at this point, of having worked with staff to set up a system?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):



MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

And how often would you be in discussions with Mr. Nobrega?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

Oh, I can’t remember specifically how often, but as we got near the end it would have been a couple of times a week, I’d say, easily.


MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

Yes, I do recall discussing this with Mr. Nobrega.

MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

All right, when?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

Um. Around this time. I can’t pinpoint the day, but I remember him talking to me about that,


MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Enersource Pretend Public Meeting, January 22, 2009):

Did David O’Brien ever offer to come in here and clear things up?


MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

In person or on the phone?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

I –I can’t recall.

MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

And would you have had this document, or a version of this document, in front of you when you’re talking to him?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

I can’t recall.


MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

Now, do you remember whether the sequence went that you asked Mr. Nobrega — or Mr. Nobrega — that you spoke about this, and then you said to Mr. Houston, I have spoken and this is fine? Or did Mr. Houston tell you about this, and then you circled back with Mr. Nobrega?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

I — I don’t recall, but I assume for– if I can do that, what would have happened is Mr. Nobrega and I would have discussed it, and I would have said to Mr. Houston, This is a proposal from Borealis, OMERS, what do you think?


MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

And do you recall the discussion with Mr. Houston?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

No, I don’t. I’m sorry.


MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

You — let’s just be clear about this. Do you recall asking him about the legal impediment, or is this just something that you would have done?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

This is something I would have done. As I said I — earlier, I — I assume that I would have done that — that — because that’s what I normally would have done.


MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Enersource Pretend Public Meeting, January 22, 2009):

Did David O’Brien ever offer to come in here and clear things up?


MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

–then as the 905 — 905 proposal didn’t work, and it didn’t work for — for — for a — a good reason, and a crazy reason.

MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

Okay. The good reason is Bill 100 then becomes less attractive, I take it?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):


MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

Okay. The crazy reason?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

There’s no way any Mayor of Mississauga is going to let Hazel McCallion run their utility.

MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

Sorry. Any Mayor of a — another municipality?

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

Right, right.

MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL,  (Commission Counsel, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

All right.

MR. DAVID O’BRIEN (Former City Manager, former CEO Toronto Hydro, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, May 27, 2010):

So, that was the struggle, and I’m sorry to put it as bluntly as that, but that’s actually what the position was.


Music: Chicken Dance

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Enersource Pretend Public Meeting, January 22, 2009):

Did David O’Brien ever offer to come in here and clear things up?

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Enersource Pretend Public Meeting, January 22, 2009):

No. He didn’t offer, nor was he invited.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Enersource Pretend Public Meeting, January 22, 2009):

Okay, thank you, that’s one thing I wanted to know. And just to be clear, Borealis….


To be fair to all those involved, and especially to Mr. O’Brien, we present a link to Mississauga Judicial Inquiry – May 27 2010  coverage of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, before Justice J. Douglas Cunningham, Commissioner. Testimony: David O’Brien, former City Manager and first President and C.E.O. of Enersource.

And here’s a link to the May 27, 2010 court transcripts.

And to be fair once again, Mr. David O’Brien did admit responsibility (and I’ll simply cut-and-paste from the court transcript.

16                 Q:   If that's the concern, once the Put
 17  expires why is there justification for nevertheless
 18  having the language?
 19                 A:   I don't think that language should
 20  have stayed after the Put expired.
 21                 Q:   Right.
 22                 A:   I -- and I know it did stay and that
 23  was an oversight.
 24                 Q:   That was an oversight?
 25                 A:   Yeah.


  1                 Q:   And just to follow on, the time at
  2  which the City has leverage on that issue of the duration
  3  of two point one five (2.15) is at the beginning of the
  4  deal?
  5                 A:   I -- I'm sorry, would you repeat
  6  that.
  7                 Q:   The time when you've got leverage
  8  with the other party to the deal is before you conclude
  9  the deal?
 10                 A:   Yes, yes.
 11                 Q:   Right.  Because you can walk, just as
 12  Borealis can walk?
 13                 A:   Yes.
 14                 Q:   Right.  Now, I'm reluctant to ask
 15  this question, but when you say it's an oversight, whose
 16  oversight is it?
 17                 A:   Well, I was the city manager, I was
 18  the guy responsible for the negotiations, I have to take
 19  the ultimate responsibility.
 20                 Q:   Fair.
 21                 A:   But I could rely on -- on legal
 22  advice.
 23                 Q:   Okay.
 24                 A:   Okay?
 25                 Q:   No, no.  Fair enough.


  1                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Just so
  2  I understand, Mr. O'Brien, what you're saying is that
  3  once the Put expired, that provision giving Borealis, in
  4  the agreement, that vote, that should have been changed?
  5                 THE WITNESS:   I believe so, Your Honour.
  6                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   There's
  7  nothing in the agreement that said that that would happen
  8  when the Put expired?
  9                 THE WITNESS:   No, and that's the problem.
 10  I -- I agree that it should prob -- there probably should
 11  have been language in the agreement that said when the
 12  Put expired that supermajority or the --
 14  Supermajority.
 15                 THE WITNESS:   -- should -- should have
 16  changed.
 18  there was no language in the agreement that said that?
 19                 THE WITNESS:   No, there wasn't.
 20                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   So, is
 21  that the oversight you're talking about?
 22                 THE WITNESS:   Yes.
 24  right.

THAT’S what Mississaugans should have gotten to see and hear back in that public “information” meeting of January 22, 2009.

And THAT’S why I call our city MYTHissauga. Seems the only way for anyone to get Truth out of a city employee is either to file Freedom of Information or better yet, call a Judicial Inquiry!

And I thought I should add this from a May 2000 Audit Committee meeting. In “Audit Recommendations” May 11, 2000 it states, “The Strategic Alliance Agreement, which governs the recapitalization of Hydro Mississauga, Mississauga Wiresco or Mississauga Retailco (as the case may be) on terms and conditions acceptable to the parties not later than July 1, 2000. Staff continue to work towards the completion of the agreement by the aforementioned deadline.”

In "Audit Recommendations" May 11, 2000 it states, "The Strategic Alliance Agreement, which governs the recapitalization of Hydro Mississauga, Mississauga Wiresco or Mississauga Retailco (as the case may be) on terms and conditions acceptable to the parties not later than July 1, 2000. Staff continue to work towards the completion of the agreement by the aforementioned deadline."

Now admittedly this had to do with streetlighting. But even back in May it’s clear that the Strategic Alliance was being “negotiated”.  And in all those months, it takes until December 4th for a “veto clause” to surface?

 21  So, on December the 4th, when you
 22  found out from Mr. Houston that he had received this
 23  blackline letter inserting or suggesting a negative veto,

That’s the other recurrent theme here at MISSISSAUGAWATCH. The number of times that the City (and I suspect many municipalities) wait until the busy Christmas shopping season to “get things done”.

Ho Ho Ho. Like I said, “dark comedy”…


The Mississauga Muse

P.S. Many thanks to the reader who noticed one huge error I made on the date of David O’Brien’s testimony. I had incorrectly referred to it as “June 27, 2009”. Yes, both month and year wrong, believe it or not. Rather it was May 27, 2010.

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

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

May 4th, 2010  

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

Click here to go directly to the clip on MISSISSAUGAWATCH Vimeo


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

January 1st, 2010  


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

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


(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

FEBRUARY 2009 (Uploaded February 10, 2009)

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

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

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube


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

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

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

APRIL 2009 (Uploaded April 17, 2009)


(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

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

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

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



(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

JULY 2009 (Uploaded July 4, 2009)


(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube



(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

SEPTEMBER 2009 (Uploaded September 10, 2009)

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

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube



(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube


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

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

DECEMBER 2009 (Uploaded December 15, 2009)

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

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube


MISSISSAUGAWATCH at www.mississaugawatch.ca



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


The Ontario Ombudsman Twitter


The Ontario Ombudsman Facebook

The Ontario Ombudsman YouTube

The Ontario Ombudsman Flickr

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

November 8th, 2009  

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

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

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

There you have it.

And now, the video, followed by the transcript.


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


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


Councillor Parrish.


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

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

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


Through the City Solicitor.


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

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

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


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

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

[Protests, jeers from audience]


Let her finish please.

[Protests, jeers from audience]


You’ve had your opportunity.

[Protests, jeers from audience]



[Protests, jeers from audience]



[Protests, jeers from audience]


Order. Please proceed.

[Protests, jeers from audience die down]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Murmurs, groans from audience]


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


(whispers) And tell you what to do.


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

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

[Laughter, jeers from audience]


No, I’m sorry…


Order. Order.

[Laughter, jeers from audience]




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

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

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

If it’s OMERS it might take longer.

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


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


Through the Solicitor.


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


The Mississauga Muse

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

November 6th, 2009  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we go.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video: Councillor Carmen Corbasson  (3:50 min)

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



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

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

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

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

Jeer from audience

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

Video: Councillor Frank Dale (1:58 min)

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video: Councillor George Carlson (3:53 min)

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



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

[Someone does]


Thank you, I—


Here he goes.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeers and protests from the audience]


I beg your pardon.

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

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

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

Video: Councillor George Carlson (2:23 min)

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


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


The Mississauga Muse


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

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

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

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

Best quotes for people to Get It.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 4th, 2009  

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


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

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


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

He writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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