MISSISSAUGAWATCH
MississaugaWatch Mississauga Watch

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

June 22nd, 2013  

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

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

                                                     ONTARIO 

                                            SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

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

                                      REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SPROAT J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                        -2-


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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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


-2-

 

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

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

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

[3]  The issues are as follows:

(a) What was Peter’s interest in WCD?

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

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

-3-

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Witnesses

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

Applicant

Elias Hazineh  Applicant
Carolyn Parrish  Supporter and friend

Respondent

Hazel McCallion  Mayor

The City

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

Region of Peel

Robert Elliott                  Manager of Development Financing

WCD

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

Other

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


-5-

 

The Municipal Conflict of interest Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

-6-

 

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

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

The Mississauga Judicial lnquiry

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

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


-7-

 

OVERVIEW OF THE FACTS

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

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

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

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

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


-8-

 

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

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

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

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

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


-9-

 

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

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

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


-10-

 

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

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

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

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


-11-

 

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

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

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

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

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

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


-12-

 

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

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

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

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


-13-

 

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

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

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

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


-14-

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

-15-

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

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

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

DID MAYOR MCCALLION HAVE A DEEMED FINANCIAL INTEREST IN
WCD?

The Law

-16-

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

The Financial Interest of Peter McCallion in WCD

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

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

-17-

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

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

(a) Peter caused WCD to be incorporated.

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

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

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

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

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

-18-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-19-

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

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

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

-20-

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

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

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

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

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


-21-

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

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

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

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

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


-22-

 

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

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

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

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

Analysis and Conclusion

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

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

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

-23-

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

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

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

COULD WCD QUALIFY UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS?

Introduction

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

The Evidence

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

-24-

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

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

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

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

-25-

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

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

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

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

-26-

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

Transitional Provisions.

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

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

-27-

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

Analysis and Conclusion

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

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

-28-

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

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

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

-29-

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

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

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

-30-

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

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

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

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

-31-

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

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

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

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

The Law

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

-32-

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

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

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

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

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

-33-

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

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

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

The Evidence

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

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

-34-

Analysis and Conclusion

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

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

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

-35-

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

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

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

-36-

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

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

The Law

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

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

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

-37-

The Evidence

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

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

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

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

-38-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

-39-

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

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

Analysis and Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

-40-

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

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

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

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

(d) The APS had been signed.

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

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

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

-41-

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

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

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

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

-42-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-43-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-44-

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

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

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

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

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

-45-

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

The Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

-46-

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

The Evidence

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

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

-47-

Analysis and Conclusion

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

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

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

-48-

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

DID MR. HAZINEH COMMENCE THE APPLICATION IN TIME?

The Law

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

The Evidence

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

-49-

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

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

Q. Did you read this article at the time?

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

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

-50-

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

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

Analysis and Conclusion

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

-51-

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

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

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

-52-

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

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

SHOULD THERE BE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST MAYOR
MCCALLION?

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

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

-53-

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

__________________________Sproat J

Released: June 14, 2013

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

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


ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Justice Sproat’s Decision


MISSISSAUGAWATCH court notes

 

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

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

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

April 25th, 2013  

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

COURT NOTES DAY 8 April 15, 2013  Elias Hazineh testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Sproat explores what the procedure would be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECESS  UNTIL RECALLED

10:40 am COURT RESUMES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson asks Hazineh if he were aware of the results?

Richardson then asks if Parrish shared outcome with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson asks Hazineh about his relationship with Carolyn Parrish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McIntyre now gives Hazineh Zingaro’s Inquiry transcript.

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

Exhibit 174 in Zingaro testimony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She reads:

 Q: Did you read the article at the time?

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

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

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

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

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

COURT RESUMES AT 12:05

[Ed. I arrive a bit late.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Sproat objects on behalf of Richardson.

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

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

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

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

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

McIntyre counters with is “we” not Parrish?

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

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

And that pretty much ends it.

Richardson will not re-examine.

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

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

COURT  RESUMES

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

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

Content, Kristjanson sits down. Richardson now up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson states that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richardson introduces the concept of an adverse inference.

He says that:

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

Richardson finishes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kristjanson goes on about:

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

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

Kristjanson now address the defense of Remoteness

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kristjanson now introduces Issue #4. The Time Limitation.

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

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

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

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

Kristjanson refers to Peel Regional bylaw Tab 32.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COURT RECESS

COURT RESUMES AT 3:55

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

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

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

Now evidence of Scott Walker. Page 51.

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

I stopped taking notes… this actually hurts….

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

 

 

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing. The Mayor’s Testimony Day 1. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 11, 2013

April 14th, 2013  

What follows is a summary of notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house on April 11, 2013 —Hazel McCallion testifying. If anyone finds any errors I’d appreciate being advised.

COURT NOTES DAY 4  Thursday, April 11, 2013  1st day of Hazel McCallion’s testimony

9:50 am  Mayor Hazel McCallion arrives and goes straight to the stand (upbeat, confident, laughing with court staff.)

9:55 Diane Kalenchuk, Fran Rider arrive (both involved in December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally opposing Judicial Inquiry) .

10:07 am  court session begins.

Elizabeth McIntyre (lawyer for the Mayor)

McIntyre calls McCallion to the stand. McCallion swears on Bible with a “So help me God.”

McIntyre refers to a document and includes an “accumulation of documents” extracted from other parts of the record (to be presented in chronological order).

McCallion swore an affidavit and states that she stands by evidence in that affidavit. [Ed. On Friday, Day 2 of her testimony, she will retract statements made in her sworn affidavit that she stood by today.]

McIntyre now refers to McCallion’s biography. McIntyre highlights that McCallion was first elected Mayor of Mississauga in 1978. Re-elected all the way to 2010. Involved in municipal politics for an extended period of time. Prior to that McCallion was involved in working for Canadian Kellogg. Worked for Kellogg for 19 years and left in 1967.

McIntyre relates that McCallion started off her political career on the Streetsville Planning Board. There she served as Chair, then became Deputy Reeve of Streetsville and then Mayor of Mississauga.

McIntyre then requests the Mayor to turn to paragraph 8 and reads that Mississauga was once a small collection of towns blah blah etc etc –and one of priorities of the Mayor was to “create a dynamic downtown city core”.

McIntyre then prompts McCallion to give Judge an idea of her  list of challenges.

McCallion states that when she first moved into City Hall, cows and horses were grazing across the  field when she went into her office. Square 1 started in a hayfield. McCallion said that she was successful in making “some progress” towards a city core. They built City Hall and Central Highway for example. Then they built the YMCA. McCallion said, “We tried to demonstrate that the City core had a future.”

McCallion states that office development has been a challenge. That she wanted 12 million sq ft of office space in the City core –and that has not been accomplished.

Then McCallion started on a favourite subject —about the number of Fortune 500 companies in Mississauga etc etc….

McCallion claimed that with these companies, Mississauga needed a convention centre. She stated that the main mission of Council and Staff was to get a convention centre tied in with Living Arts Centre.

But they had no success.

McCallion continued that the ideal location of hotel would be right next to Living Arts Centre along with a reasonably-sized convention centre. That, the Mayor claimed was the mission of Council and Staff —a 4 or 5-star hotel.

McIntyre asks McCallion what time frame. For how long has this hotel/convention centre been a goal.

McCallion says 10 or 15 years or longer. The Mayor explains that Mississauga’s Fortune 500 companies were drawn here by the airport. But they would have to stay in downtown Toronto hotels and then get carted to Mississauga.

McCallion claims she had received “a lot of complaints” about no hotel/convention centre.

McCallion then goes on to say that she’s been the Chair of Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)  and wanted to invite AMO conventions to Mississauga but can’t.

McIntyre asks, so goal of Council was to have convention centre next to LAC.  McCallion responds, yes, goal was to accommodate 1500 delegates to a conference.

McCallion revealed that “OMERS owns a lot of land around City Hall” (including Square 1).

McCallion says the City called for a proposal for a convention centre but got no response.  They went to Hong Kong, China on trade missions hoping to get hotel owners –ie Shangri la (a lot of regurgitation of Inquiry material…).

“Toronto beat us out on it” (re the Shangri la) McCallion says.

McIntyre asks McCallion if the official plan in question pre-dates 2005.

McIntyre refers to McCallion’s affidavit. McIntyre asks McCallion  to tell the court what she recalls she was advised by Peter during this time.

McCallion recounts that Peter knew the City was “anxious” to get a hotel and convention centre. So he approached his mother and said he had an investor to build a hotel/convention centre.

McCallion said that in all this time, Peter’s investor was the only one to express interest at any time.

McCallion said she knew the investor to be Leo Couprie.

McIntyre asks McCallion that In 2005 to what degree was she familiar with Leo Couprie. McCallion responds that she was invited to dinner at his home. But that she didn’t meet that many times with him.

McCallion knew Couprie’s background to be strictly importing.

McIntyre based on what you knew about Couprie did you have any reason for him not to invest?

McCallion said she had no idea how much money Leo Couprie had. She said that Couprie would put down the money (deposit) to buy the City core land.

McCallion  states that in 2005 she knew nothing of the details regarding how much money Couprie would put up in this venture.

McCallion understood Peter would be Leo Couprie’s legal representative as real estate agent.

McIntyre asked the Mayor it came as a surprise to her. McCallion said yes and that maybe it was the opportunity to get what City wanted.

McIntyre asks what came as a surprise. McCallion says the surprise was that Peter was able to convince someone to invest in the City core.

McIntyre then relates a short biography on Peter McCallion. She asks the Mayor when Peter was born. 1953. His occupational history. Residential real estate to industrial/commercial real estate.

McIntyre then asks McCallion, In 2005-2007,  what extent would you have known his real estate practices. McCallion  responds, “Very little.” “He did not share his successes with me.”

McIntyre asks what she understood re him being real estate agent.

McCallion says that she understood that Peter would make sure Leo Couprie didn’t lose money and because Couprie wasn’t experienced, that Peter would help him with real estate issues.

McCallion said she had no idea if Peter had equity in development projects. She adds that to her knowledge Peter did not have a history in investing development projects.

McIntryre says that Mayor McCallion has three children. Paul lives in Milton. Peter in Mississauga. [Ed. At this point the discussion became a bit hard to hear so McCallion admits to having a hearing aid –and needing it.]

McIntyre asks what McCallion’s relationship with Peter was in 2005-2007.

McCallion explains that her husband died in 1997. And that she would count on Peter to look after a lot of the household chores. McCallion said that her son Paul can’t, but because he’s a real estate agent, Peter has flexible hours. And that she has to depend on Peter a lot.

McCallion said that she had frequent contact with Peter. And also that Peter was her driver.

McIntyre asked McCallion about the “flow of information” between Peter and the Mayor. McCallion responds very little. That Peter keeps it to himself. That Paul is different –very open.

McIntyre then asks what McCallion knew about Peter’s financial situation. McCallion explains that she didn’t know Peter’s “financial standing”. McCallion says that “None of my children share their financial status with me.”

McCallion says that she never believed that Peter had the money to pull off The Project (the land, all the hoops to jump through) McCallion knew that would require “Major finances to do it.”

McCallion says that she understood that major investors would still be needed down the line.

McCallion explains that the hotel must be “Not less than a 4-star.” McIntyre asks McCallion for details. McCallion says that the City core would need the minimum of a 4-star hotel to “satisfy the needs of our economic base.” Convention delegates, McCallion says, expect at least 4-star accommodation and as a result they go to Toronto for those 4 or 5-star hotels.

McCallion says that she knew too The Project was “an extremely complicated process” and that Peter would not have the “technical expertise” to pull the process off.

At some point McCallion says she became aware that long-time family friend, Murray Cook would come in. McCallion says that she knew Murray Cook has “vast experience in the development industry —nationally and internationally”.

McCallion says she didn’t know who “they” were. But she guessed one of the investors would be Leo Couprie. And McCallion  knew that Peter would be involved  –in seeking the consultants necessary to grapple with such a major project.

Re World Class Development. McCallion  says that “from Day One” she understood that Leo owned all the shares in the corporation. But that she had no knowledge that Peter was a shareholder.

McIntyre asks McCallion if she thought Peter might be an officer of the company? Employee? McCallion responds no both times.

McCallion repeats that she understood that Peter “represented Leo”.

McCallion testifies that she advised Peter and Murray Cook that she would declare pecuniary interest at City Council should the issue come up. The court determines that it was 2005 that Peter first informed her of his involvement in this project.

McIntyre asks McCallion when did she advise Peter and Murray Cook that she’d have to declare a conflict?  The Mayor said she can’t recall.

McCallion  testifies that she knew that she’d have to declare a conflict at council, planning committee —“or any other committee”.

McCallion testifies that elected officials are not advised as council members when site plans come into the City. Like in any list.

McCallion testifies that developers might approach a councillor before he puts in a site plan application. And that some do. Some don’t.

McIntyre asks McCallion in a project of this nature what would come before council? McCallion says perhaps zoning amendments, official plan impacts. Then it comes to the planning committee. If WCD were to come before the planning committee, McCallion said she’d have declared a conflict of interest.

McIntyre then turns McCallion’s attention to zoning changes. McCallion said that matters related to zoning changes would come as a report with a lot of details about how those changes affect services/infrastructure.

McCallion repeated that anything related to World Class Developments that came before a committee or council she would declare a conflict.

McCallion said she’d seen a lot of development processes come through Mississauga. McCallion testified that she had OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) to lay down the condition that the hotel must come first, then the condos because she knew that developers prefer to build residential first. McCallion states that she felt the hotel must come first and be a condition in the sale of the land.

As a result of the hotel condition, McCallion says, the project failed. McCallion stated that they just couldn’t get 4-5 star hotel with the capacity to serve as a convention centre.

McCallion testifies that the details surrounding a hotel are uncertain because it depended on what the developer envisioned.

McCallion states that she definitely had a personal interest in hotel but that she never had a direct (personal) pecuniary interest. And that the hotel is key to convention centre.

McCallion  testifies that she had no problems attracting condos in city core. That residential development is not a problem. That the major problem is attracting office development.

McCallion  testifies that she had no involvement in residential developments –that she zero’d in on the hotel for involvement.

McIntyre asks if the Mayor would know the process/conditions, the hoops to jump through in the hotel process. McCallion then estimates that the project might take “quite a few years to accomplish. That the process of development has become very complicated.” Depends on size, what they want to do.

McCallion estimates “one to two years for very small project”. And for full approval of a convention centre “two to three years. At least two years.” –to get a building permit.

McCallion repeats what she testified at the Judicial Inquiry about Staff: “We are very diligent. Our Staff is diligent –making sure every ‘i ‘ is dotted”…

McIntyre asks in 2005 –what did you consider your obligations to be regarding interactions with Staff.

McCallion responds, “You should not in any way influence Staff.”

McCallion testifies “I had no involvement” (with site plan staff process). That Staff was aware that she had a conflict and therefore did not want to be involved in any discussion.

McIntyre asks how she was aware. McIntyre asks McCallion “but did you advise Staff prior?”

McCallion responds with “I did but can’t recall when.”

McIntyre asks whether it was usual for Staff to brief councillors on development. McCallion replies it was not unusual.

McCallion testifies that she didn’t attend the WCD briefing in April 2007. That since she was declaring conflict it would not be proper for her to attend the meeting (with Baker, Ball, Sajecki, Cook…)

McCallion then adds, “I’m not interested in the site plans because I believe it’s a responsibility of the Staff”.

McIntyre focuses on the 2005-2007 timeline asking McCallion  is she was ever approached by Marilyn Ball (Director of Development & Design and wife of former City Manager, David O’Brien/OMERS) to be briefed on the WCD project.

McCallion responds that Ball offered and that she had refused. McCallion said from “Day One” Staff knew that I did not want to be involved.

McCallion testifies her concern was that she would be seen to influence the Staff on the WCD application.

McIntyre asks to what extent the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCOI) did not apply to any OMERS meetings!

McIntyre then explores McCallion’s understanding of Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. McCallion responds that “Often when Acts come into being you rely on the Staff to brief you on it.”

McIntyre then asks whether the Staff provided briefing? McCallion responds that she can’t recall. McCallion states that somebody advised Council at the time (the Act came into effect) that when an item comes before a committee/Council, —you have to declare a conflict. McCallion then says she was told that even if you think you have a conflict you should declare.

McCallion said that as Director of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, issues relating to the MCOI Act came up for discussion from time to time. McCallion reports that George Rust’Dye gave presentations. That Rust D’Eye explained some of the cases. McCallion states that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was “A very great concern of the municipalities.”

McCallion states that the Large Urban Mayors now have concerns as well. That the MCOI Act now causing all kinds of complications.

McIntyre mentions that McCallion was charged under the MCOI Act back in 1982. McIntyre asks McCallion if since whether she reviewed the MCOI Act with her lawyer. And whether McCallion had reviewed the decisions of the court?

McIntyre asks McCallion to what extent she took the provision of that Act seriously? McCallion says when Peel Council deals with police budget she declares a conflict of interest regarding her son Paul who is employed by Peel Police.

McIntyre asks “as a councillor how seriously do you take that question?” (direct/indirect pecuniary interest at meetings)

McIntyre then goes back to 2007 and asks McCallion what her understanding of conflict of interest were back then? McCallion responds “If a matter involves, no matter what status, I have a conflict.” That her son Peter represented Leo Couprie. And that if matters relating to WCD came to Council, she  would declare a conflict.

McCallion states that Council was well aware that she had a conflict.

McIntyre now refers to a letter February 2, 2009 and asks who prepared the letter? McCallion says she did.

McIntyre asks McCallion why she prepared the letter, explaining that this February 2, 2009 letter is prior to any issues raised re motion/call for Inquiry.

[Ed. Essentially the letter asks for clarification of MCOI Act and asks what happens if an elected official doesn’t know what business or business contacts your kids have. This letter definitely pre-dates Judicial Inquiry.]

McCallion responds that she had read a government update that encouraged her to write a letter. And also the many discussions at AMO regarding MCOI Act and how it was “creating problems”. Including problems like hobbling a Council to a point where they can’t vote on an issue (ie: development in an area where most councillors live).

McCallion states that “AMO very aware of accumulation of issues surrounding MCOI Act.”

McCallion also said she had “many discussions” re MCOI Act with other municipalities.

[Ed. I’m certain that AMO has had many presentations/discussions relating to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act but McIntyre fuzzies up the timing of all this knowledge/debate McCallion was receiving. For example, interest/issues surrounding municipal conflict of interest intensified in Mississauga from September 2009 through the Rob Ford trials to current.]

COURT RESUMES 11:51

McIntyre now wants to explore Hazel McCallion’s involvement in WCD and its affairs.

Referring to document labelled “Couprie” in log book and the articles of incorporation re World Class Development Ltd. Dates from 2006 and refers to 2005.

McCallion says that she did not see them at the time.

McIntyre refers to page 351. McIntyre asks McCallion to what extent the document reflected her understanding. McCallion says she wasn’t really aware of Leo Couprie’s involvement.

McIntyre asks McCallion if she understood at any time that Leo Couprie was a principal and owned all of the shares in the World Class Developments.

McIntyre then refers to “Lusk” document. An Agreement of Purchase of Sale made on behalf of WCD and OMERS March 21, 2005. McCallion states that she did not see that document at the time.

McCallion testifies that she must have been advised at some time that World Class Developments had put in an offer. But she was aware they were trying to purchase the land.

McIntyre than suggests that at some point McCallion became involved in the negotiations. McCallion said no, not the negotiations but the “exchange”. That Murray Cook had said there was a lot of “exchange” between WCD and OMERS.

McIntyre defines “exchange” as “back and forth proposals”.

McIntyre then asks McCallion to what extent she saw the details of the changes?

McIntyre asks McCallion’s involvement in real estate transactions in general? McCallion says very little. That she may get a call… sharing what difficulties they might have. But that she doesn’t get involved in reviewing documents. That she had no involvement in real estate transaction aside from buying two houses.

McIntyre asks her involvement in WCD’s. McCallion says OMERS never made any effort to build a hotel “they own a lot of land in the city core”.

McIntyre redirects and repeats her involvement. McCallion states that she encouraged OMERS to sell the land to WCD to get the hotel to happen. But that she did not get involved in the details.

McIntyre leads McCallion to explain that she was representing the City, the Council of the City to get a hotel built.

McCallion then testifies that she knew that Ken Lusk represents OMERS and that OMERS owned 50% of Square One. AIMCO (Alberta Investment Management Corporation) the other 50%.

McIntyre gets McCallion to turn her attention to mail from Lusk to Michael Del Bello (OMERS/Oxford). Dated March 9, 2006. McIntyre asks McCallion if she saw that at the time? McCallion says no.

McIntyre reads portions to her. “Unidentified purchaser” Purchaser represented by Mayor’s son who is the purchaser… Pressure on Oxford. .. etc

McIntyre asks meeting with Paul Haggis (Oxford) re “express desire to sell the land”. McCallion  agrees with that statement.

McIntyre introduces a series of other emails referencing her involvement. Phone calls, etc.

McIntyre refers to Tab 8 –an email from Ken Lusk to Ron Pedicord (Oxford) October 20, 2006. “Mayor very upset that transaction taking so long to complete”. [Ed. The content of the email suggests that Hazel McCallion would get a considerable amount of detail about progress of project. Meaning, she wouldn’t need Staff informing her!]

McCallion testifies there was a “rumour” of another hotel coming at Highway 10 and Burnhamthorpe. [Ed. hmm…]

McCallion then goes into great detail, really selling convention/hotel to the court.

[Ed. WOW. No consideration that once meetings done, there’s nothing for convention delegates to do in Mississauga except go to Downtown Toronto!]

McIntyre asks McCallion what due diligence was done on World Class Developments around January 2007 –about the time the agreement was signed.

McCallion reports that Arthur(?) did most of the due diligence on WCD. And that Murray Cook said he was an owner. Spoke to McCallion about whether Murray could pull this off.

McCallion  states that she didn’t recall having the conversation but that she must have.

McIntyre states that Lusk reported that Cook had told him that he owned WCD. [Ed. at least partly]

McIntyre gets McCallion to turn back to the Leo Couprie book. Tab 5. It’s the Agreement of Purchase of Sale of The Property, January 31, 2007.

McIntyre asks McCallion whether she saw this document at the time. McCallion No.

McCallion says she was not aware of the details, but was informed by somebody from OMERS of the condition that the hotel had to be built first.

McCallion can’t recall around what date she knew the agreement had been signed. McCallion can’t recall who told her either. McCallion can recall that the Hotel Built First condition was included.

McIntyre now deals with events from January 2007 to the Regional Council meetings in September and October 2007. McIntyre asks if she recalls any other involvement with the vendors of the Property.

McCallion says yes, that she heard nothing for a long time, then at later point, they had certain deadlines to agree to in order finalize things to meet the conditions. As for the dates McCallion says that she can’t confirm whether it was before or after Sept/Oct 2007.

[Ed. My own dealings with City of Mississauga Staff have taught me that “Can’t recall” can have double meaning. It can mean the inability to remember but also “can’t recall because it’s not in my/City’s interest to share the information with you.”]

McIntyre now goes on to other documents in the Couprie material. Tab 3. McCallion confirms that she saw it at time for her to witness/sign and then also the Declaration of Trust (Tab 4). And McCallion confirms, yes, she witnessed the signatures.

McIntyre then asks McCallion what it means to witness a signature?

McCallion said she’s witnessed signatures for many thousands of documents/passports. That her role is merely to witness the signing/signature in their presence. Means nothing more than that.

As for the documents at Pier 4, McCallion says that Peter and Couprie were leaving for China hoping to get someone to invest in a hotel. They wanted to know what connections she had in China.

McCallion testified that she understood the purpose of the meeting at Pier 4 was to inform them as to what contacts she  had in China as to investment in Mississauga. McCallion also says that Peter and Couprie were the only ones at the Pier 4 dinner meeting.

McCallion said it was a relatively dark restaurant. And that she was asked just to witness their signatures to “cover their absence when they were away”.

McCallion testifies that Leo Couprie told her the purpose of the documents [Ed. then McCallion  appeared to back-pedal so I’m not too sure…]

McCallion states that the documents were to deal with the business with World Class Developments in case something happened during travel.

Referring to Tab 3, McCallion testifies, “I reviewed none of the content of the document. None.” Then she said that for certain lighting conditions and size of type she would have to use reading glasses to see much of anything.

Then McCallion adds that she doesn’t need glasses to sign documents but might to read them.

McCallion states that she can’t recall whether she used glasses to sign that day.

Document at Tab 4. McCallion says “I did not read them” (the words on that document).

McCallion states that she doesn’t recall any discussion of the documents. That she wasn’t given a copy either.

McIntyre asks McCallion to turn to Tab 6 in same book. Shareholder’s Agreement February 28, 2007 World Class Developments, Murray Cook and Leo Couprie.

McCallion states that from Day 1 she was advised that Leo Couprie owned all the shares of the company.

McCallion then testifies that she believed that Peter’s role with WCD was to ensure (try/hoping) that an agreement between WCD and OMERS would happen to purchase of land. Other than that Peter’s additional involvement was “none at all”.

McCallion announces that “I learned more during the Inquiry” re internal affairs of WCD.

McIntyre now turns McCallion attention to the Promissory note signed by Peter McCallion on behalf of World Class Developments for $50,000 from the TACC group.

McCallion testifies that she knows that TACC is a developer and a provider of services.

McIntyre asks McCallion if she saw the Promissory note at the time? McCallion: No. McIntyre asks McCallion if she were aware that TACC was lending money to WCD? McCallion: No.

In addition McCallion was not aware Peter was in position to sign a promissory note on behalf of WCD. McCallion then says, “I was not aware of his finances that would enable him to sign a promissory note.” [Ed. quote 100% accurate.]

McIntyre asks McCallion  that without seeing a document, to what extent she was aware of the financial details of WCD? Ie: Deposits (the ledger).

McCallion responds that she was not aware Peter was contributing or receiving money from World Class Developments. McCallion: “I was not aware.”

McIntyre takes McCallion  to Tab 9, an agreement between Landplex and Leo Couprie. Dated August 31, 2007. McCallion says she didn’t see agreement. But that she did know who Tony DiCicco was though.

McCallion testifies that at some point Peter mentioned that Tony DiCicco got involved because, she assumed, of his experience in development.

McCallion adds that she also knew DeCicco from developments in Mississauga including “joint ventures”. McCallion  testifies that she had discussions with him on occasion ie: access re his development at Derry Road –asked to help by Olympic Flame. McCallion says that she also had a social meeting with DeCicco because his Dad wanted to meet her –had to do with some celebration. McCallion also said that he won the auction for Dinner at Mayor’s house.

McCallion says that she has many conversations with developers.

McCallion testifies that Peter told her the reason DeCicco came in was because they needed somebody assisting WCD getting through the process.

[Ed. Yet at the Judicial Inquiry September 15, 2010 hearing, Murray Cook testified that Peter brought DcCicco in because Cook couldn’t give Peter real estate agent role going forward. Meaning Peter was out of all his money.]

From Murray Cook, initial principal of WCD September 15, 2010

Q = Naomi Loewith, Commission Counsel

A= Murray Cook

MURRAY COOK, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 JUDICIAL INQUIRY TESTIMONY BEGINS

15                 Q:   Did you understand that he expected

16  to be the agent for the eventual condo sales?

17                 A:   No, that didn’t come up until much

18  later.

19                 Q:   Did you have concerns about it when

20  you did learn of it?

21                 A:   Yes, very much.

22                 Q:   Why is that?

23                 A:   You — later, when it appeared that

24  Mr. McCallion’s original investors were unable to — to

25  pony the — the dollars, I advised Mr. McCallion, when he


4445

suggested the — the sale of the individual condos that

it’s very hard to get an investor to invest if you

predetermined who was the selling agent. 

               In most cases, investors/developers have a

team that they’ve worked with over the years and are

comfortable with.  And that’s — that’s not a

conventional real estate cer — sales person.  It’s — I

won’t mention any particular firms, but there’s several

major firms out there that specialize in doing condo

10  sales.  They have low risk.  All they do is:  The

11  developer puts up the sale centre, puts up all the

12  advertising, does all the marketing, and in some cases

13  when you’re dealing with these firms they’ll even tell

14  you how many clipboards their staff need, and pencils.

15                 And that — that is a very different

16  entity.  And to make the project work with predetermining

17  that — an individual real estate sales person, that was

18  a non-starter.

MURRAY COOK, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 JUDICIAL INQUIRY TESTIMONY ENDS

McIntyre then asks, in this period of time, January 2007 Agreement of Purchase of Sale to the October 2007 Peel Region vote, “To what extent would you discuss WCD with Peter?”

McCallion said that Peter discussed bringing DeCicco along. As for any discussion with the City, nothing. McCallion states, “he didn’t keep me well-advised at all.”

McCallion insists that the only time she got involved was when they ran into difficulties with the hotel.

McCallion then goes into a series of “can’t recall”s.  Can’t recall —might have discussed the purchase of the land with Murray Cook. Can’t recall anything with Leo Couprie.

McIntyre now wants to break until 2:15 pm.

Got back and set up at 2:19 pm (arrived a bit late)

McIntyre still up. Topic: building permits.

McCallion said that she certainly advised staff that she did not want to be advised/involved in any discussion/matters relating to World Class Developments. [Ed: That announcement/caution also means all Staff knew WCD had “Special” written all over it!]

McIntyre now moving to the development fees process.

McCallion said she was involved with levies even before legislative authority. That she changed levies in Mississauga and Region a number of times.

McIntyre asks if there’s been another development charge review since 2007? McCallion responds yes, 2012. McIntyre asks McCallion to explain understanding of the role of development charges.

McCallion says it applies to all growth. It’s for the major services, sewage/water lines, roads.

McIntyre then asks what is the role of Regional Council re the setting of Development Charges by-law. McCallion says Peel Staff research for a report and present findings to Council.  McCallion says elected officials depend on Staff to decide what the charges should be based on consultants’ reports and comparisons to the projection created in the first place.

McCallion testifies that the role of Peel Council has to hold public “stakeholders” meetings. McCallion points out the these meetings are between Staff and usually (almost 100% of the time) —developers.

McIntyre asks McCallion the role of Peel Council. McCallion says to field input from all [Ed. can’t follow it… lots of detail and not sure relevance except to… finally got to point]

McCallion states that Peel has always had a transitional period.

McIntyre asks what factors does Peel Council consider. McCallion says what the backlog is, the economic times (in regards to industrial/commercial since increased development fees could make Peel less competitive –a major concern.)

McIntyre now asks McCallion about the economy in 2007. McCallion says the was “starting to tank”. Also price of land. Competition increasing in Halton and Kitchener-Waterloo.

McIntyre then asks McCallion to what extent individual projects are reviewed during the consideration of the transitional period.

McCallion introduces the concern for jobs/unemployment.

McIntyre then asks McCallion to relate the relationship between Development charges and jobs? McCallion says that increased development charges can potentially have an effect in economic downtimes.

McCallion states decisions are based on the impact to the entire community.

McIntyre now goes through details of 2007 Developmental Charges by-law process.

McIntyre mow turns attention to the March 2006 Peel report by Dan Lebreque, Commissioner of Public Works Department for Region of Peel.

McIntyre then asks to what extent McCallion had clear recollection of these events.

McCallion says that they/Peel were behind in their collection of funds. And that Peel needed a certain increase, “not catch up but try to catch up.”

McIntyre returns to the LeBrecque’s March 2006 Peel report.

McIntyre asks McCallion to explain the relationship between development charges and the capital budget. McCallion said it’s projected —an estimate.

McIntyre asks whether McCallion anticipated an increase in development levies. McCallion replies that development fees have always gone up.

Relating to March 2006 McIntyre asks whether McCallion knew that World Class Developments would be affected by those charges. McCallion says it all depended on WHEN –but that she assumed they’d be faced with those charges.

McIntyre asks if McCallion declared a conflict of interest in 2006 when this Developmental Charges review came up at Peel. McCallion testified that since she didn’t know the status of WCD in the process she believed the fee applied to any fee/property tax or any user fee. It applies to everybody, McCallion says. Of general application.

[Ed. McCallion then makes an intriguing statement…] That in McCallion’s experience councillors have never declared a conflict in planning or development!

McCallion  then compares the Peel Development Charges by-law to a dog license fee –declaring that she has not declared a conflict when dog license fees come up even though she owns a dog.

Tab 14 McIntyre refers to a number of presentations made to Peel Council. McCallion explaints that some of these reports elected officials get on the day of the meeting —or the night before. McCallion adds that elected officials have complained to Staff about these last minute deliveries.

McIntyre asks with respect to non-residential development, in May 2007, what was Peel asking to be the cut off? McCallion couldn’t answer.

McIntyre then asks to what extent would Council would rely on Staff regarding the recommendations? McCallion says the desire of Staff would be to have no transition period at all.

McCallion points out that Peel Council doesn’t always accept the recommendations of Staff.

McIntyre refers to Tab 32 in McCallion’s book. Report from LeBrecque in 2007.

Re Letter of the arterial road mentioned yesterday. McCallion testifies that City of Mississauga Staff prepared the letter and Staff felt strongly this road shouldn’t be included. McCallion then states that after Staff prepared the letter it was then ready for her signature.

McCallion insists that the letter/issue was strictly raised by Staff. And that her signature was to show it came from Head of the municipality.

Tab 19 (in HM’s book) Minutes of Peel General Committee for September 6, 2007. Page 657 is an amendment requested by McCallion. Purpose of amendment was to allow for 90-day transition with respect to non-residential and apartments. (November to May 2008).

So the transition period was extended from 60 days to 90 days.

[Ed. The end of April 2008 happens to be when Mississauga Planning Staff were, according to Ed Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building for the City of Misissauga, “burning the midnight oil to help WCD remove the ‘H’ symbol and to avoid paying the higher development fees” —a saving of $11M..]

McIntyre asks McCallion, did you consider what effect this impact would have on WCD?

McIntyre then asks McCallion if anyone at WCD made submissions to Peel regarding fees impact?

McIntyre now moves to Tab 22 in McC’s doc. Peel Council September 13, 2007. Reports that meeting lasted 1 hr 6 min.

The court is told that there is no record of the September 13, 2007 Peel debate. McCallion said, “Yes, unfortunately”…

McIntyre asks McCallion if she can remember what is said at the meeting. McCallion: No. Then adds, “Development levies are general.”

McIntyre then introduces page 685 of McCallion’s document. September 6, 2013 General Committee includes that recommendations relating to residential and non-residential levies be adopted.

Re Staff reports before Council, McCallion says “I hope they do the research on the thing.”

McCallion  says that Brampton Mayor Fennell requested the minutes be “reconsidered”.

This was moved by Fennell, seconded McCallion, and it extended the transition period for medium-high density residential and office even further —to November 1, 2009.

McIntyre asks McCallion if she has recollection of this resolution. McCallion said that Fennell moved it because she had concerns in Brampton about medium-high density residential in her city.

McCallion testifies that she can’t recall the discussion with Fennell. McCallion is very vague about it. McCallion says that at that point the amendment didn’t affect Mississauga –only Brampton.  McCallion  also adds that she can’t remember how much this amendment was actually debated at Council.

McIntyre asks McCallion who drafted the actual wording? McCallion responds that “If anyone drafted it it would be Mayor Fennell.”

McCallion said she didn’t understand that the amendment was directed towards Mississauga.

[Ed. …wording uses “three area municipalities”.]

McCallion  states the she did not consider conflict of interest, “Why would I?” she says. “I had no knowledge of the progress of their application.”

McCallion admits that she knew the way the motion read that the Fennell amendment would affect WCD.

COURT RESUME 3:45 pm

McIntyre still up.

McIntyre now deals with a letter dated September 19, 2007 to Dan LeBreque from Ed Sajecki. This letter identifies areas of intensification. Maps attached.

It shows development projects inside the UGC (Urban Growth Centre). McIntyre asks McCallion whether she got the letter. McCallion says according to the record log, yes, the letter came to her. McCallion states though that she didn’t recall what she did with the letter.

McCallion states that she can’t say whether she reviewed the letter.

McIntyre asks whether McCallion had knowledge of whether World Class Developments was on the list/map. McCallion states that Ed Sajecki never reviewed the content of the letter with her/Council. So no.

McCallion says that it was strictly Staff to Staff letter.

The Development Charges By-Law that was ultimately passed and the exemption ultimately passed applied to Brampton only.

McIntyre refers to McCallion’s affadavit that the developmental charges were of general application.  McIntyre asks whether McCallion was aware of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act exemptions.

McCallion replies, “Oh, yes, because I have reviewed the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.”

McCallion says general application applies all over the municipality. McCallion says that George Rust-D’Eye explained it at the Association of Municipalties of Ontario. McCallion states that “Everybody pays for development levy.”

McCallion states that she knows Rust-D’Eye to be a “specialist in regard to the Conflict of Interest Act”.

McIntyre asks McCallion whether Peter or anyone at WCD discussed fees with her. McCallion: No.

McIntyre informs the court that in Fall 2007 there was an effort by WCD to scramble to get under the wire to avoid a fee increase. McCallion says that for her to be briefed or talk to Staff about it would have created the appearance of influence.

McIntyre asks McCallion if she got a legal opinion. No. McCallion says she was confident in her interpretation of Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

McIntyre asks McCallion what her understanding of Peter’s compensation was. McCallion repeats she believe her son to be the real estate agent and there’d be some compensation with Couprie. When and what basis, McCallion said, she had no idea.

McIntyre asks McCallion whether there were any point before the Inquiry that she knew that Peter was more than a real estate agent. McCallion says she didn’t know until Mary Ellen Bench told her that he was a principal. McCallion then says she phoned her son saying “You have clearly led me to believe that you’re a real estate agent for Leo.”

McCallion testifies that upon knowing that she advised Peter to see a lawyer and get it (the ownership) corrected.

McIntyre asks McCallion why she acted as she did. McCallion states that when she challenged Peter on it he still maintained he was not a principal. McCallion states,“I had been misled and nobody had told me any different.”

McIntyre now goes to the documents in The Buff Folder. As McIntyre is searching about McCallion comments that she’ll be going to a talk show tonight at 9 pm!

McIntyre reports that on May 18, 2005 there’s a records of Peter and Murray Cook meeting with Mayor re WCD. McCallion testifies that she doesn’t recall what was discussed.

McIntyre mentions another dinner. Again McCallion states that she doesn’t recall whether WCD was discussed. McCallion: “I have no idea.”

McIntyre introduces a May 29, 2006 meeting this time, Peter and Murray with Mayor. McCallion states that some of the meetings were at her house and repeats that she can’t recall what was discussed.

McIntyre mentions a December 19, 2006: Tony DiCicco and John DiPoce lunch meeting with McCallion. Again McCallion doesn’t recall what was discussed.

Then McIntyre repeats the Pier 4 dinner-meeting.

Then an April 10, 2007 meeting.

Then McIntyre points out there there’s no record of meetings between January 25, 2007 and November 5, 2007.

McIntyre then points out that the telephone messages start up. Mostly by DeCicco. McIntyre asks McCallion if there were any change in the frequency of her interactions with WCD after Tony DeCicco involved.

McCallion says there was a personality clash between Cook and DeCicco. And that DeCicco hoped she’d intervene. [Ed. See contrary testimony by Murray Cook above]

McIntyre references a put-and-call agreement.  October 26, 2007 from Emilio Bisceglia, lawyer for World Class Developments. It was an unsigned agreement –sent as a FAX. McCallion testifies that she doesn’t remember receiving it. McIntyre asks McCallion if she tried to get Murray Cook to sign it.

[Ed. It’s clear that DeCicco’s phone messages would give considerable details regarding WCD]

McIntyre asks McCallion how many calls she gets in a day? McCallion says that she didn’t get more calls from DeCicco than most developers.

McCallion then insists that she didn’t return all the calls from DeCicco.

When DeCicco’s phone message refers to a budget for WCD, McCallion insists at no time did she know the financial situation of WCD.

McIntyre refers to an entry March 19, Marriott Residence Inn, Toronto. McCallion to be with Sajecki, Gupta, etc to look at a hotel in downtown Toronto. McCallion states that she’d been told that the hotel was somewhat near the quality wanted in Mississauga downtown core. McCallion then says that it wasn’t near what was expected.

McCallion says that a group of Staff and Murray Cook went to the States to look at a hotel there as well.

McCallion then summarizes that the Marriot didn’t anywhere near meet the status of the hotel she/we wanted.

McIntyre then asks McCallion, If her position was not to be involved with Staff why did she go with Sajecki and Gupta? McCallion responds that it was her interest that the type of hotel would meet “our expectations”.

Then McCallion states,“No other meetings, this was the only time.”

BREAK TIL TOMORROW AT 10

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

January 3rd, 2013  

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

As always, the video, complete with video transcript.

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

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

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

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

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

There’s a knob.

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

There she is.

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

Where is she?

Hazel McCallion.

There she is.

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

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

There’s the knob. Right there.

There’s the Mayor.

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


[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

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

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

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

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

 

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

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

December 2nd, 2012  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antonella Artuso quotes as saying:

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

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

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

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

From warrenkinsella.com

Punk and politics: the Ford begone party (updated)

November 30th, 2012, 3:48 pm

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

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

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

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

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

As I tweeted earlier on:

MISSISSAUGAWATCH@MISSISSAUGAMUSE

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

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

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

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

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

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

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

DSC_6011c » Councillor Ron Starr ~ Mississauga Ward 6

So who’s Lorry Smith?

[cut-and-paste]

Name: Lorry Smith

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

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

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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

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

November 3rd, 2011  

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

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

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

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

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

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

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

How do you ensure that Youth thrive?

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

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

And let’s put here, “(and buses)”

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

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

[CLOCK-WIPE]

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

Councillor Iannicca.

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

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

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

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

Yee-up.

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

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

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

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

Period. Full Stop.

That’s what he actually said.

[DIP TO BLACK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DIP TO BLACK]

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

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

[DIP TO BLACK]

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

Do any of you read a newspaper?

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

That’s right.

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

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

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

“Ethical Infrastructure”.

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

Right.

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

To use the words that the Justice used.

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

Do you know what happened to me a week ago?

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

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

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

Well, I’m not.

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

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

[applauds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good for you.

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

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

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

[applauds] Good for you.

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

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

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

My God.

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

Absolutely.

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

Nando—

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

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

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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

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

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

November 2nd, 2011  

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

Memorandum [Corporate logo for City of Mississauga]

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

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

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

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

  1. Mayor’s Gala Fund

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

  2. Need for a Judicial Inquiry

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

  3. Enersource/Borealis Veto

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

  4. The City must have a Hotel Convention Centre

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

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

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

  6. Role of the Office of the Mayor

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

[Iannicca memo ends]

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

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

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse

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

October 11th, 2011  

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

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

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from Mississauga Council Chambers, October 3, 2011

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

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

Ethical Infrastructure.

[CROSS DISSOLVE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

 

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

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

National Post’s Megan O’Toole drops down the “L” word during Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report

October 6th, 2011  

I have to hand it to National Post’s Megan O’Toole. Unique among all members of the media she reached deep from within and flung down the “L” word right into the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Q&A session last Monday.

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

Definition of LIE

1  : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2  : to create a false or misleading impression

: to bring about by telling lies

And with that, you’re ready for this video complete with transcript.

National Post’s Megan O’Toole drops down the “L” word during Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report (3:49 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]
[Caspian & Grafhic – Matrix Shit]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from Mississauga Council Chambers, October 5, 2011

It is Wednesday, October the 5th, 2011 —and this is what struck me about the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report, on Monday.

It was fascinating —to a point of —just incomprehensible for me. The degree to which Commission counsel avoided use of the word “lying”. And I have to credit the National Post’s Megan O’Toole. I think she was the one who first raised the “L” word —”Lied”.

Megan O’Toole, National Post, Mississauga Council Chambers, October 3, 2011

Megan O’Toole, National Post.

So if Peter McCallion essentially lied to the Inquiry about his involvement in the company is there any legal remedy that can now be pursued?

William McDowell, Commission Counsel, Mississauga Council Chambers, October 3, 2011

Well, I don’t want to characterize how he testified. I think it’s fair to point out that by the time Peter McCallion came to testify he acknowledged that he was a shareholder in WCD. So that in his testimony, in fact, what he said was true.

Now the fact that the Commissioner did not accept all of his evidence is a far cry from saying what you just said. So, I think we have to put that in its proper perspective.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from Mississauga Council Chambers, October 5, 2011

What is wrong with the use of the word, “Lie”?

“Lie”, my definition is to make an incorrect statement knowing that it is incorrect with the intent to deceive.

Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Audit Committee meeting, May 11, 2009)

I’m getting a little frustrated as Mayor as we set up policies and then they’re not  followed. And that’s what bothers me.

Anyway.

So now we’re going to set up one up. Fine.

Someone:

Yeah.

Mayor Hazel McCallion  Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009

If we set one up, it better be followed. That is the key. No use setting it up if it’s not going to be followed. You know, I don’t know why there’s such a disregard  for policy.


Mayor Hazel McCallion  Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 20, 2010 Testimony

—and they follow the policies very, very, very diligently.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from Mississauga Council Chambers, October 5, 2011

Lie.

And I tell you, I’m an expert on Lies because I’ve been listening to lies since —2005. That’s what now? Six years?

Six years worth of lies!


Mayor Hazel McCallion Enersource Public “Information” ROGERS Cable 10 TV telecast, Mississauga Council Chambers

—I think the purpose of the public meeting was to give as much information as possible to the citizens.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from Mississauga Council Chambers, October 5, 2011

That’s what we have here. Why not come out and say it?!

And I think when you finally come out and say, “Yes. We have deceived the public. Yes, we’ve lied. And we’ve lied right —looking you in the face and smiling.

It’s only when these people admit to that —that you’re actually going to have the hope of an ethical infrastructure that the public can take some comfort in.

But right now?…

Mayor Hazel McCallion  Respectful Workplace Policy: Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007

Could you put the Mission Statement on again?

I’m wondering why you haven’t included, “Based on its values of Honesty Trust, Quality and Excellence”—why you haven’t included the word “honesty”?

Deputant  Respectful Workplace Policy: Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007

Our, uh, do you want to speak to that, Janice?

City Manager Janice Baker Respectful Workplace Policy: Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007

Um, Madam Mayor, I think from our perspective, these are the values that come out of a series of discussions and workshops certainly at the staff level. I think we all believe that honesty is the basis of trust. So I—

Mayor Hazel McCallion Respectful Workplace Policy: Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007

I hope so.

City Manager Janice Baker (Respectful Workplace Policy: Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007)

You know that—

Mayor Hazel McCallion  Respectful Workplace Policy: Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007

I hope so.

City Manager Janice Baker  Respectful Workplace Policy: Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007

Well, clearly. I mean you can’t, you cannot ha—

Mayor Hazel McCallion  Respectful Workplace Policy: Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007

On the part of Council. And on the part of Staff.

City Manager Janice Baker  Respectful Workplace Policy: Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007

Well our values—

Mayor Hazel McCallion  Respectful Workplace Policy: Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007

Honesty with the citizens.

City Manager Janice Baker  Respectful Workplace Policy: Mississauga Council meeting, May 23, 2007

Our Values are universal.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Signed,
The (I’m soooooooooooooo Sick of the Lies!) Mississauga Muse

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
—Winston Churchill.

MISSISSAUGA'S BOGUS "TRUST, QUALITY, EXCELLENCE" SLOGAN

Justice Cunningham: Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” –in its unethical environment…

October 6th, 2011  

What follows is a two-part video of Justice Douglas Cunningham as he reported on his findings in the Judicial Inquiry report, “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” on October 3, 2011.

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

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

 and…

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

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

 Last, this is a video record of the letter I sent to the city clerk’s office for inclusion in the next Council meeting minutes. The transcript varies only slightly from the script in our last blog, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report won’t change Hazel McCallion’s “Her Town Her Rules”. As for the Inquiry’s recommendations authentically implemented?…

Nonetheless the video includes footage from Council meetings that support why I say that it is absurd to trust McCallion and her MYTHissauga Inc puppet-councillors to do anything authentic with Justice Cunningham’s recommendations.

Hazel McCallion and her councillors will pervert Judicial Inquiry recommendations (6:53 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]
[Caspian & Grafhic – Matrix Shit]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting outside Burnhamthorpe Court House October 3, 2011

It is Monday, October the 3rd, 2011 —post Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report release and I just want to read a statement that I made yesterday. And I just want to put it into the video record.

So I begin:

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

In the Mississauga News article, “Report could be a game changer”, don’t believe “game changer” for a second.

Remember. We are dealing with a Commission that actually allowed Hazel McCallion to delay the release of this “After Labour Day” report until the Mayor had successfully installed yet another puppet-councillor into the Ward 5 Council chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shameless. Absolutely shameless.

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

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

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

As for the Mayor’s lawyer’s use of the weasel phrase “were reasonable and knowable at the time” (no offense to weasels) here’s another reminder. This is the Mayor who goes on forever about how “we are the Best”

“Let’s keep Mississauga right up there. At the top. We are The Best. No question about it. And we just have to convince others that we’re The Best. I know the citizens know we’re the best but it’s important to convince those outside Mississauga that we are The Best.”

and “we must set an example”,

not to mention the City of Mississauga mantra “Trust Quality Excellence”.

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

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

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

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

Inquiry’s recommendations authentically implemented?…

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

Turning camera off.

[Video ends with footage of Mississauga Council May 23, 2007. Hazel McCallion addresses her Communications Department]

Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council May 23, 2007

There’s been great improvement in our public relations. I can see a major advancement in the many pamphlets that you produce, etc. But also communication with the Press, etc. It’s so important.

We don’t get in the Press too often and I hope we don’t get in negatively. But you’ve made every effort to try to —I noticed that the Toronto Star is coming out with a new GTA page. I don’t know if you’ve been in touch with them to find out what it’s all about.

But I hope that we will have a prominent positive item in that Toronto page because it does go across the GTA.

And I think of all the wonderful things that we’re doing in Mississauga. It’s hard to get the publicity —they love bad publicity, the papers. They don’t like good publicity, unfortunately.

But I know you’re working hard to promote all the wonderful things we’re doing in Mississauga for the good of the citizens.

I want you-folks to know that you don’t get an 87 percent response from the citizens that they’re happy with what we’re doing if you-folks weren’t doing a good job. The Staff of the City.

So, congratulations to all of you. Keep up the good work.

Let’s keep Mississauga right up there. At the top. We are The Best. No question about it. And we just have to convince others that we’re The Best. I know the citizens know we’re the best but it’s important to convince those outside Mississauga that we are The Best.

Thank you very much for your contribution.”

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

NEW! Hazel McCallion bobblehead doll commemorates the Mayor's BIGGEST FISH YET!

McCallion 2010 Election Night Victory photos reveal Hazel’s behind-the-scenes “Complexities” in Ward 5 by-election

September 3rd, 2011  

In the July 22, 2011 National Post article, “Council watchers claim guardianship of democracy, political scientist says” Megan O’Toole writes about what she describes as “self-styled council watchers” and their “growing presence in recent years as the proliferation of social media has given them a widening platform to share their views”.

O’Toole gets no fewer than three political scientists to weigh in on “council watchers.” All three PhD’s were condescending —and yes, dismissive.

While Ryerson University’s Duncan MacLellan’s opinion wasn’t the worst of the bunch, his is the most relevant for today’s blog.

Regarding council watchers MacLellan had this to say to the National Post:

“There could be some knowledge that they have that is helpful, but sometimes it is more just reactionary,” says Ryerson University municipal politics expert Duncan MacLellan. “They get people sort of fired up, but in the end [may not] understand the complexities around the decisions that get made.”

Notice O’Toole’s use of ” [may not] “. This would suggest the possibility that Dr. MacLellan really wrote “don’t” as in “but in the end don’t understand the complexities around the decisions that get made.”

What with the Mayor successfully blocking the release of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report until after the Ward 5 by-election, it’s time to introduce one of MYTHissauga’s “complexities around the decisions that get made.”

Today’s blog is unique.  I discovered a series of 64 remarkable photos by photographer “Andrew”.  His Picasa web album is simply labelled “Hazel Victory Night Oct 25, 2010 photos: 64“.

Andrew clearly has unprecedented behind-the-scenes access to Victor Oh, Honourary President of the Mississauga Chinese Business Association. And through Victor Oh, Andrew had unprecedented behind-the-scenes access to Mayor Hazel McCallion’s private October 25, 2010 Election Night Victory Celebration.

Judging by the grins splitting the faces of McCallion’s “complexities” as they popped the champagne, they weren’t so much celebrating Ron Starr’s victory as silencing Carolyn Parrish. After all, can’t have the public know what’s really going on in MYTHissauga —and especially its “complexities”.

Through experience I’ve discovered that videos and photographs “disappear” once MYTHissauga’s “complexities” find out that I’ve discovered them. So I document them through videotape six ways to Sunday.

Watch and discover (if you don’t already know) a major “complexity” —that informed voters are very, very bad for government. And business.

So make no mistake. The same MYTHissauga Elites swilling champagne in these “Andrew” photos: Hazel McCallion, son Peter, Ron Starr, Starr’s “friends for 30 years” Katie and Steve Mahoney, Bonnie Crombie, Victor Oh et al are busy right now pulling their Strings of “Complexities” in this Ward 5 by-election.

And with that introduction, here is my video “colour commentary” of Andrew’s 64 photos. And of course, the video transcript.

If anyone notices an error either in the YouTube video or in this transcript I respectfully request that I be advised. I have been documenting City of Mississauga municipal governance since May 2006 and this research demands Accuracy. Thanks.

Hazel McCallion, Ron Starr, Victor Oh’s Private Election Champagne: Return to MYTHissauga Secrecy (15:07 min)

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

MISSISSAUGAWATCH August 30, 2011 analyzing Andrew’s  ‘Hazel Victory Night Oct 25, 2010″ 64 photos.

It is Tuesday, August 30, 2011 and this is what the Toronto Star looks like. I’ve discovered something that’s really important and I need to document it before it’s removed.

These are photos by a guy named “Andrew” right here, who seems to have an in somehow with the Mayor. A whole bunch of different activities.

The one that I’m interested in —there it is right there. And it’s “Hazel Victory Night Oct 25, 2010”.

[Photo 1: Ron Starr, Hazel McCallion and Katie Mahoney victorious]

And there’s a whole bunch of them and you can kind of see. I’m going to go a little bit further. But what I’m going to do now is, This is Photo 1 as you can see up here.

And I’m just going to do this as a slide presentation.

And what I’ll do is I’ll identify some of the people here. As you can see, if there’s ever any doubt that Katie Mahoney is Hazel’s favoured #1 Councillor. The Mahoney’s have an incredible influence as far as The Councillors are concerned.

And anyway, so here we’ve got Ron Starr, Hazel McCallion and Katie Mahoney. And we’re just going to go through here.

This is “Victory Night” behind-the-scenes. Nobody’s seen this. Neither have I.

[Photo 2: Smiling guy with microphone at podium. Hazel McCallion beside him.]

Not sure who this is.

[Photo 3: Hazel McCallion, microphone in hand, addresses her Faithful.]

Here she is addressing her Faithful.

[Photo 4: The Mayor’s Faithful in rapt attention.]

More of her Faithful.

[Photo 6: Hazel McCallion surrounded by her Faithful.]

This guy here? Prevented the Mississauga News from asking McCallion questions inside the Great Hall. On Election Night.

[Photo 9: Victor Oh, with Mayor beside him, prepares to pop a bottle of champagne.]

Victor Oh, Honourary President of the Mississauga Chinese Business Association. And here he’s popping open a bottle of champagne. And I’m not sure but I think that that’s actually a mayoral candidate as well [note: will verify].

[Photo 10: Victor Oh successfully pops cork to delight of delighted Faithful.]

But what’s important to me right now is to get these documented.

[Photo 11: Delighted Faithful cheer and applaud Victor Oh’s successful champagne popping.]

[Photo 12: Hazel McCallion hoists champagne glass and toasts her Faithful.]

[Photo 13: Victor Oh pours champagne to the assembled Faithful.]

Peter McCallion and girlfriend Jovanna.

[Photo 14: Victor Oh pours more champagne for the assembled Faithful as the Mayor talks to a Faithful.]

[Photo 15: Hazel McCallion receives huge hug from a smiling Faithful as Victor Oh beams.]

There’s Fran Rider, President, or head of the Women’s Hockey Association.

[Photo 16: Hazel McCallion poses with four of her Faithful.]

[Photo 17. Hazel McCallion with Unidentified Faithful. Longo’s corporate banner in background.]

If you ever wonder why Hazel McCallion doesn’t have to campaign, this is why.

Notice in the background here, you’ve got Jovanna and Peter McCallion here checking —let’s just go back. Let’s just do that. Checking Peter’s cell phone there or something. Going back.

Notice the corporate sponsorship “Longo’s”?

[Photo 19: Smiling Unidentified male Faithful with Hazel McCallion and same Unidentified Faithful.]

Not sure who that is.

He shows up later so I’m going to be interested in these two people.

[Photo 20: Victor Oh, Diane Kalenchuk and same Unidentified Faithful.]

Victor Oh and this here, Diane Kalenchuk, Royal LePage real estate agent. “Selling Homes in Mississauga for Over 25 Years!” and also awarded citizen-of-the-year 2002.

Accompanied Hazel McCallion several times to the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry back in September 2010. And also at the Living Arts Centre, February 13, 2011, she was there hovering around celebrating and organizing Hazel McCallion’s 90th birthday.

[Photo 21: Fran Rider, Victor Oh, Diane Kalenchuk pose happily with two Unidentified Faithfuls.]

Fran Rider, Women’s hockey. Victor Oh, accompanying Hazel McCallion on many of the trips to China. And Diane Kalenchuk —this woman driving, in the car with Hazel, and for that matter, Fran Rider, to the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

And those two draw a complete blank to me. Who are they?

[Photo 22: Hazel McCallion in a circle with MYTHissauga Faithfuls.]

 I thought this guy here’s Ted Woloshyn. But you know, when he’s got his back like that, don’t really know.

[Photo 23 Hazel McCallion receives hug from a Faithful as what appears to be Ted Woloshyn looks on.]

Looks kind of like Ted Woloshyn. Now he’s the Toronto Sun columnist and I refer to him as Hazel’s lapdog. But we’re still not sure.

[Photo 24: Hazel McCallion posing with three Unidentified male Faithfuls.]

Not sure who these people are.

[Photo 25: Hazel McCallion at table with her Faithful. Guy who blocked Mississauga News in background.]

Here we have them celebrating at the end. Again, this guy here.

[Photo 26: Hazel McCallion at table with her Faithful. Different angle.]

There’s this guy who looks like Ted Woloshyn in the background. Still not sure.

[Photo 27: Sheldon Leiba smiling with Unidentified smiling Unidentified Faithful and smiling “Starr’s on the Credit” party girl.]

Here’s something that’s really interesting.  This is a guy named Sheldon Leiba, president of the Mississauga Board of Trade. As I keep saying. You don’t have to campaign when you’ve got the Mississauga Board of Trade right behind you.

And this woman right here. She is in a lot of the photographs of Starr’s on the Credit. And I can show that she’s quite the Party Girl.

[Photo 28: Hazel McCallion posing with beaming Katie Mahoney and omnipresent hubbie, Steve Mahoney.]

Keep going.

Like I said, these are the powerhouses beside Hazel. Hazel can depend on these two. December 2, 2009 Rally you had Katie Mahoney going up there saying—”It’s not hard to support our Mayor, trust me.”

[Video insert of Katie Mahoney, December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally]

 Katie Mahoney: “It’s not hard to support our Mayor, trust me.”

[End insert]

It is so true when you’ve got the Mississauga Board of Trade. You’ve got Ted Woloshyn. You’ve got Ron Lenyk, who’s the former publisher of the Mississauga News and was publisher for the longest time.

There’s been no media.

And then Jake Dheer who’s Rogers Cable 10. All these “media”, they were all supporting the Mayor.

Anyway, as I keep saying, two powerful, powerful people and McCallion-backers.

[Photo 29: Hazel McCallion in a talking circle with Katie Mahoney, omnipresent hubbie, Steve Mahoney and Victor Oh.]

Same thing here. Now isn’t this quite the photograph!

 You’ve got Steve Mahoney, Councillor Katie Mahoney, Victor Oh and Hazel McCallion. In the background, Fran Rider, Women’s hockey.

Now there’s a real power photograph.

[Photo 31: Hazel McCallion and Ron Starr in victory embrace.]

Now isn’t that a photograph. Ron Starr hugging Hazel McCallion.

Boy was she happy to get rid of Carolyn Parrish. Because Carolyn Parrish at least for a little while, blew the lid off MYTHissauga

[Photo 32: Hazel McCallion and Ron Starr still hugging.]

And here. Can there be a happier Hazel?

“I got my man in! I got my puppet in!” What a relief it must be for her.

And I suspect now they’re really going to watch the Ward 5 election because the last thing that woman needs is to have Carolyn Parrish back.

After all, Horrors, you wouldn’t want people to know what’s really going on in MYTHissauga.

[Photo 33: Bonnie Crombie, Ron Starr, Hazel McCallion and Katie Mahoney —grins splitting their faces.]

And look at this. Isn’t this the photograph!

If there’s any doubt that Bonnie Crombie is a Hazel puppet —a Hazel uber alles candidate. This is a photograph by Andrew. October 25th—

[Photo 34: Bonnie Crombie, Ron Starr, Hazel McCallion and Katie Mahoney faces splitting in even wider grins.]

2010. Behind-the-scenes look. Look at the delight.

“Yes.! We got rid of Parrish! Yes! We got Ron Starr in! Yes. We can return to our Secrecy!”

Oh! I know! Here’s something else I can tell you. All four of these people were at Starr’s on the Credit and were featured in the Starr’s on the Credit 2008 highlight video.

Including [laughs] Ronnie Hawkins saying something like—

[Video insert of Ronnie Hawkins from Starr’s on the Credit 2008 video highlights]

Ronnie Hawkins: “Folks, I’d like to tell you that it’s an honour to be here meetin’ all you old timers again. Most of you were going to jail before she took over. Now you’re all rich. Whatta girl!”

[End insert]

Yup. You’re looking at MYTHissauga.

Let’s keep going.

[Photo 35: Hazel McCallion poses with “Elect Ron Starr” sign. Ted Woloshyn stands amused in background.]

Now, here’s the first confirmation that I get that the guy in the hockey jacket or whatever, really was Ted Woloshyn.

If there’s any doubt that Ron Starr was Hazel McCallion’s preferred choice, take a look. That’s why we’re documenting all these pictures, saving them. Because eventually you build a map of MYTHissauga.

And a map isn’t just roads, it’s also connections between people. As you see here. So you know, any wonder why Ted Woloshyn writes the way that he does?

[Photo 36: Hazel McCallion poses with “Elect Ron Starr” sign, Ron Starr. Ted Woloshyn stands amused in background.]

Here again. You’ve got Woloshyn. You’ve got Ron Starr. And you’ve got Hazel McCallion.

Ted Woloshyn did his bit in the Toronto Sun and his Toronto Sun columns. And then you had Hazel with the robocall at the last minute. And there they are. She’s got her puppet in.

And I suspect too that Ron Starr is her choice for her successor in 2014.

[Photo 37: Joyous Hazel McCallion poses with joyous Ron Starr as she holds an “Elect Ron Starr” sign.]

Oh yeah, look at this. Let’s go closer. Look at these faces.

“My Ronnie!…”

Thank you, Andrew for these photographs.

[Photo 38: Hazel McCallion admires Ron Starr’s hockey sweater with “STARR 6” lettering.]

And just for the record, you’ve still got Ted Woloshyn’s jacket right there, so he’s enjoying this.

[Photo 39: Hazel McCallion posing with a smiling Unidentified Faithful male and female.]

Now who have we got here? Let’s go back to make sure we’ve got everybody in. Oh. And over here, Fran Rider.

[Photo 40: Darryl Konynenbelt from Global TV with Hazel McCallion waiting for cue.]

[laughs] And speaking of one of Hazel McCallion’s media puppets, this is Darryl Konynenbelt from Global TV. Made an unsuccessful run as Conservative candidate for Mississauga South.

And I think that’s over here, that’s the head of Victor Oh. And we’ve still got Fran Rider in the background here.

[Photo 41: Darryl Konynenbelt from Global TV with Hazel McCallion waiting for cue.]

He’s pretending to be a reporter pretending to be the ever-vigilant media. And talk about, McCallion can always depend on this guy to toss her some sweetheart questions.

[Photo 42: Darryl Konynenbelt from Global TV adjusting his tie ready to speak with Hazel McCallion]

Goddamighty.

[Photo 43: Smiling ROGERS Cable 10 Mississauga standing next to a smiling Ron Starr waiting for cue.]

Oh! And there’s ROGERS Cable 10 with some more Pretend.

This is why this 19-year old who wrote me saying, “The System is CORRUPT, there is no way to fix it”—

[Photo 44: Serious-looking ROGERS Cable 10 Mississauga standing “reporter” interviewing a serious-looking Ron Starr.]

—you’re looking at why.

Now that’s Jake Dheer’s ROGERS Cable 10 interviewing Ron Starr. And you’re going to expect any kind of real questions?

[Photo 45: smiling Identified, smiling Bonnie Crombie, Smiling Sheldon Leiba]

Don’t recognize this guy, but there’s Bonnie Crombie, Hazel McCallion-approved Ward 5 by-election candidate and Sheldon Leiba, president Mississauga Board of Trade.

[Photo 46: four smiling people, “Starr’s on the Credit girl”. Victor Oh, Fran Rider in background.]

This lady. Again. Starr’s on the Credit. There’s Victor Oh. Fran Rider.

[Photo 47: Victor Oh holding bottle of champagne beside smiling “Starr’s on the Credit girl”]

Victor Oh. Starr’s on the Credit. Bottle of champagne. He’s happy.

[Photo 48: Smiling Victor Oh and smiling “Starr’s on the Credit girl”. Close up.]

And the real laugh? This guy also plays big in Safe City Mississauga and the Mississauga Crime Prevention Association.

[Photo 49: Hazel McCallion about to hug someone introduced by a smiling Victor Oh. Ron Starr’s prepping a burger]

She’s [McCallion} about to hug him so, somebody and he’s [Oh] introducing this person.

There’s the champagne. There’s Ron Starr chowing down on a burger.

This is after the cameras go off. This is Election Night.

[Photo 50: Victor Oh beams as Ron Starr uncorks another bottle of champagne. Hazel McCallion backs away, wary of the cork.]

Looks like a private kind-of-thing.

There’s Ron Starr uncorking another bottle of champagne. Look at Hazel.

[Photo 51: Victor Oh beams even more as Ron Starr launches champagne cork up, up and awaaaaaaaay.]

Look at this.

When Hazel McCallion talks about “my people”, she’s not talking about the residents of Mississauga. Here’s her People.

[Photo 52: Smiling Sheldon Leiba beside Bonnie Crombie who’s talking to the smiling “Starr’s on the Credit girl”.]

There’s the head of Mississauga Board of Trade Sheldon, and Bonnie Crombie.

[Photo 53: Unidentified smiling Faithful standing beside Ron Starr and his campaign manager.]

And we’ve got Ron Starr here talking to his campaign manager, Susan Walsh. And I recognize this guy right here at the back. He was at the “Friends of Hazel” Rally on December 2, 2009. Helped organize it.

[Photo 54: Darryl Konynenbelt from Global TV talking privately to Ron Starr. No microphone.]

It’s also interesting that they let in Konynenbelt or whatever and also ROGERS TV but Hazel McCallion refused to allow the Mississauga News to interview her.

[Video insert October 25, 2010 inside Great Hall earlier that evening as election results were coming in]

Donald Barber: “The short, gray-haired guy who’s making the —he’s getting in the face of the Mississauga News. Telling them to get out of the way. Don’t answer any questions. Hazel doesn’t want to answer any questions.”

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: “Which one’s that?”

Donald Barber: “The guy who’s got the roses. There.”

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: “Oh. Uh oh. Don, help ’em out.”

Donald Barber: “What?”

MISSISSAUGAWATCH: “Just watch the knobs here.”] * Note. “knobs” mean Hazel McCallion’s security guards.

[End insert]

[Photo 55: Hazel McCallion posing beside Ron Starr’s grinning and triumphant campaign manager.]

And here’s Hazel McCallion standing next to Ron Starr’s campaign manager, Susan Walsh.

[Photo 56: Unidentified grinner and Hazel McCallion posing beside Ron Starr’s —yep grinning and triumphant campaign manager. Two kids in background.]

You know when they say about “Our kids are our future?” There they are.

They’re talking about that youth. Not the ones in Malton.

[Photo 57: Unidentified smiling youth and Hazel McCallion posing beside Ron Starr’s —you got it grinning and triumphant campaign manager.]

Ah! There’s what I’m talking about. That youth is their future.

[Photo 58: Bonnie Crombie talking to what appear to be two organizers of the December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally.]

There’s Bonnie Crombie again. And it’s important to get that guy. Again, I think that guy is from the Stop the Inquiry Rally. And I even think I know this guy.

[Photo 59: Hazel McCallion and a smiling unidentified Faithful.]

There.

[Photo 60: Hazel McCallion speaking to Charles Sousa.]

Charles Sousa.

[Photo 61: Ron Starr and a smiling unidentified Faithful.]

Let’s just do a close up here.

[Photo 62: Smiling Hazel McCallion posing with smiling Victor Oh and smiling company.]

 Now given the photographs that you see of Hazel McCallion —I think it’s at the Canadian Chinese Business Association, this one isn’t a surprise. And it will be interesting to see how many of these also show up at the Mayor’s 90th Gala Birthday Party.

That’s the expensive one that was $350.00 a ticket.

[Photo 63: Smiling Ron Starr posing with smiling Victor Oh and smiling company.]

There’s Victor now with his new Councillor.

You’re looking at MYTHissauga.

[Photo 64: Smiling Hazel McCallion sitting around a table celebrating Ron Starr’s election and her re-election.]

And that’s it.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Photo credits and special thanks to Andrew at: https://picasaweb.google.com/tee.andrew8

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MUNICIPALITIES: A ROOT OF YOUTH VIOLENCE

“Although it has become common knowledge that those who are pushed out or who drop out of high school are vulnerable to economic and social insecurity, and that this can often lead them into situations of violence, there has been a shortage of critical assessment of all the institutions implicated in this situation.”

—p. 118  McMurtry/Curling Report on the Roots of Youth Violence:  “Volume 3 COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES REPORT”

“Friends of Hazel” (McCallion) Part 2: Introducing The Four Behind Stopcarolynparrish.com –and Paul Keselman

July 18th, 2011  

MISSISSAUGAWATCH Investigation Series, Volume 1, “What citizens should know about stopcarolynparrish.com” (#4)

In the Mississauga News article, ‘Keselman throws hat into Ward 5 ring”, it states:

The married father of two said he felt a “higher calling” to serve.

“I feel divine providence is at play in this election and I’m the person that’s best suited to represent this ward,”

This morning when I Googled “stopcarolynparrish.com” and Mississauga Ward 5 candidate Paul Kesselman showed up in the search results!

And what a surprise to find Paul “divine providence” Keselman by following the link www.burlington.net/election-2010/paul-keselman!

It’s clear that Paul “divine providence” Keselman, self-described “Proud Conservative” didn’t feel enough “divine providence” to inform Mississauga Ward 5 residents that “-266” days ago he was running for  “Ward 5 City & Regional Councillor in Burlington”. Yes! Burlington!

But by far the most outrageous thing about Keselman is his slimy, swarmy “Real Resident Feedback” section at:  www.paulkeselman.com/bio/real-resident-feedback,

Paul “divine providence” Keselman cuts-and-pastes an anti-Parrish comment that he attributes to former Mississauga Ward 3 candidate, Stephen Wahl.  I saved the entire thread comments and fact is, the comment was generated by alias ehdian on Jul 5, 2011 9:05 AM.  [evidence to follow]

To Paul “divine providence” Keselman, “Real Residents” are the same Mississauga News  “Friends of Hazel” cowards hiding behind aliases: “Mantis”, “freddie”, “tankerone” and “ehdian”. —”ehdian”, who for all any of us know, could be Paul Keselman himself “Real Resident”ing under that alias!

And throughout Paul “divine providence” Keselman’s “Real Resident Feedback” section there are references to stopcarolynparrish.com.

Paul “divine providence” Keselman —American-style politics imported to Burlington’s Ward 5 now setting up “divine providence” shop in Mississauga Ward 5. Absolutely fascinating!

Why follow and report on all this, you might wonder. It’s all part of my ongoing research into the Roots of Youth Violence —our lying-“failure to mention” politicians and the resident-infrastucture that prop them up.

Which is as good as any introduction to Part 2 of “Friends of Hazel” (McCallion): Introducing The Four Behind Stopcarolynparrish.com.

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

“Friends of Hazel” (McCallion) Part 2: Introducing The Four Behind Stopcarolynparrish.com (4:56 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting July 16, 2011 while surfing the net, continuing from Part 1.

This guy here. Restoring integrity to Mississauga Council from Oakville and this guy here from Milton. And a reminder that I found that funny and just want to go back.

Yeah, so we’re back here to Cheryl Glassford, just want to be carefully documenting this.

And we’d also said that the two biggest people that you do not want dealing with youth, let alone anything with moving parts is Katie Mahoney and Pat Saito. And the absolute worst of the bunch Katie Mahoney.

[DIP TO WHITE]

“Info”. That’s all she says. However, you could also see that she [Glassford] votes [sic: supports] so clearly she’s right in line with anything that MYTHissauga and Hazel McCallion would want her to do.

[DIP TO WHITE]

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

Anyway.

So we’re back to Cheryl Glassford and happy to have done her and now back to Murray.

Now a reminder that I had videotaped Murray Glassford’s initial photograph here where he was riding on a motorcycle. He’s since changed the page at Christmas time and now he’s put that up. He’s actually a coach or something to do with the North Stars, the minor league here in Mississauga.

So I suspect that that’s where he gets a lot of his influence.

Murray Glassford lists 58 friends. Nothing jumps out. Except this guy. Reminder, Tom Cahill helped with the stopcarolynparrish.com, so we go to Tom Cahill. There he is. And he’s got 414 friends.

And what’s really interesting, very quickly, there she is.

Tom Cahill. “Info”. “Lives in Milton, Ontario”.

And what we’ll do then now is go to Tom Cahill’s flickr site. There he is.

And when you search on various tags he has, you find “Murray” right —search, there it is right there. Search “Murray”. And there’s Murray Glassford.

And it’s still up. I’m surprised actually. It was uploaded, so it’s May 2009. And there’s a Mississauga, City of Mississauga employee. Community Services.

So there it is. Tom Cahill’s friend, Murray Glassford of stopcarolynparrish.com.

[DIP TO WHITE]

And there is Cheryl. Cheryl Glassford who wrote —Hazel McCallion’s apologeticist  and too happy to, look at this:

“She is accused of going to meetings. Is her personal time not her own?”

So in other words, a mayor can go to meetings that benefit her son —what was it? Ten million dollars? For the hotel complex? As long as it’s her own time?

These people did their ALL the prevent the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. And of course we now know why that is. There’s all kinds of stuff that spilled out.

[laughs] Including we find out about the Mayor’s Gala, the Community Foundation of Mississauga. On and on and on.

These are the people behind stopcarolynparrish.com whose mission is, heh, to instore [sic] integrity and respectability. And of course you do that by failing to mention to mention all kinds of things.

In fact that’s how Hazel McCallion stayed in power. Failure to mention. Coaching to keep things Positive Positive Positive. And of course have, you know, have, you know, Ted Woloshyn and Ron Lenyk and Jake Dheer your “media”.

Okay, I’m just trying to think what else before I turn this off, but I think that’s it.

[Music: Behind Blue Eyes, The Who]
[LOGO]
[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Signed,

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

ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES: A MAJOR (unexplored) ROOT OF YOUTH VIOLENCE

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

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

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

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

which brings us to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How much did the legal opinion “Peter McCallion, for material purposes, was not actually the son of the Mayor” cost the City of Mississauga?

February 26th, 2011  

Today’s Blog is a continuation of our last Blog, “Mississauga Council presentation on Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest: the McLean & Kerr Report –Setting the Record Straight”. Both Blog entries are for the historical record and for inclusion in the February 23, 2011 Mississauga Council meeting minutes as well as those of Brampton, Caledon and Peel.

On Wednesday, I addressed City of Mississauga Council to raise concerns about the City’s two outside legal opinions relating to Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest.

I presented a video deputation on an omission in the McLean & Kerr legal opinion.

Then during Public Question Period I asked how much the City paid for the second legal opinion —provided by Stanley Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers) who concluded that Hazel McCallion could not have been in conflict of interest because “Peter McCallion for material purposes, was not actually the son of the Mayor”. Yes. Really…

Today’s video is a fun-watch. It’s me asking that question and the response I received.

This video was created in triple split-screen. Top right video shows Councillors Katie Mahoney and Pat Saito (both staunchly opposed to the Judicial Inquiry) and their reaction to  “Peter McCallion for material purposes, was not actually the son of the Mayor”.

Last, Special Thanks to Rogers Cable 10 Mississauga for their segment (top left).

As always, the video transcript.

Peter McCallion for material purposes was not actually the son of Mayor. This Legal Opinion cost?… (2:51 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]
[Note: Inquiry transcripts or McLean & Kerr sometimes used for accuracy purposes]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

I’ve also Public Question Period, some questions on it. Do you think I can ask it now?

Frank Dale, Acting Mayor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

Yeah. Sure. Go ahead.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

Thank you.

I’ll just see here. I just want to go to this thing here to kind of help you out. It is testimony on August 10, 2010 and I’m asking this for historical purposes and for my own research.

It’s the City Solicitor, here as “A” and “Q” is the cross-examination by Inquiry Counsel, William McDowell. And Mr. McDowell says:

 13                 Q:   Right.  And then you'll see, going
 14  down that page, that he—

and “he” is Stanley Makuch of Cassels Brock, who is the second outside legal opinion. So McDowell says:

  —And then you'll see, going
 14  down that page, that he comes to the conclusion that Peter
 15  McCallion, for material purposes, was not actually the son
 16  of the Mayor.

That’s the City’s second outside legal opinion. And Ms. Bench says:

 17                 A:   Yeah. 

McDowell:

 18                 Q:   Go to the next page, page 7.  He came
 19  to the view, I gather, that unless there was a financially
 20  dependent relationship that Peter McCallion could not be
 21  considered to be the son of the Mayor?

Bench, “That’s right” or:

 22                 A:   That's correct. 

And McDowell:

 23                 Q:   All right.  Apart from this letter,
 24  did he ever offer any authority for that view?

And Ms. Bench.

 25                 A:   He never offered an explanation at

2740

  1  all.  And it's contrary to the case he cited and it's
  2  contrary to the definition of child in the lac -- in the
  3  Act— 

And so my question has to do with the second outside legal opinion and I’m not sure whether I’m allowed to have this answer. But how much did the City pay for the second outside legal opinion? I know I’m allowed to ask. I’m just now sure if I can get the answer to that. Or— Ms Bench?

Frank Dale, Acting Mayor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

Do we have those figures available?

Mary Ellen Bench, City Solicitor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

I don’ t have that information with me here.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

Yeah, I didn’t think so. Okay, that’s my—

Frank Dale, Acting Mayor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

But it would be public information, correct?

Mary Ellen Bench, City Solicitor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

It’s information that can be provided, yes.

Frank Dale, Acting Mayor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

Then I’d ask that, or give direction that it be provide it.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

OK. Thank you, thank you so much. And thanks for letting me present this.

[DIP TO BLACK]
[Music:“Don’t Crash the Ambulance” by Mark Knopfler]

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS. LOGO]

Frank Dale, Acting Mayor (Mississauga Council meeting, February 23, 2011)

There’s been a motion for receipt. All in favour? Opposed if any? Carried. Thank you.

If someone would call the Mayor back.

Additional Resources

87 MIS001009003 Conflict of Interest – Ltr November 11, 2009 – from Mary Ellen Bench To Stanley Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers) Letter 11-Nov-09 6-Jul-10 Liz McIntrye for Mayor

This is a scan of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Exhibit Number 87, Conflict of Interest – Ltr November 11, 2009 – from Mary Ellen Bench To Stanley Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers)”. We respectfully request being advised of any errors between our scan and the original (above) from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website.


Corporate Services Department
Legal Services
City of Mississauga
300 City Centre Drive
MISSISSAUGA ON L5B 3C1
[City of MISSISSAUGA Logo] Leading today for tomorrow
Tel: 905-615-3200
FAX: 905-896-5106
www.mississauga.ca
WRITER’S DIRECT LINE (905) 615-3200 ext 5393
EMAIL: Maryellen.bench@mississauga.ca

November 11, 2009

Mr. Stanley Makuch
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
2100 Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street West
Toronto, Ontario
MSH 3C2

Dear Mr. Makuch:

Re: Conflict of Interest

Receipt after 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 6, 2009 of your letter dated November 6, 2009 is
confirmed.

I was extremely taken aback by the content of your letter. You were retained by me on
September 18th to provide an opinion to me, not to Council. You accepted this retainer, and
there is no basis for you to now assert that Council is your client. By letter agreement dated April
19, 2007, The Corporation of the City of Mississauga retained Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
to provide legal services as required by the City. That retainer letter is very clcar that in carrying
out assignments on behalf of the City you take instructions from me or persons who I designate.
In particular, I draw your attention to paragraph 4 of the retainer and the sentence: “The City
Solicitor is the principal contact of the City for all practice areas.”

This is entirely consistent with and conforms to the commentary under Rule 2.02(1.1) as follows:

“Further, given that an organization depends upon persons to give instructions, the
lawyer should ensure that the person giving instructions for the organization is
acting within that person’s actual or ostensible authority.”

The retainer with your firm clearly states that I am the person with authority to represent the
City, and you are bound by my instructions. The RFPQ to which you responded clearly
identified that you are being retained to provide supplemental legal services. There is nothing in
the retainer that requires me to explain to you how I use your work product. In fact, in the 20
years that I have practiced as an in-house municipal lawyer I have never seen a retainer letter that
would require me to provide you with an explanation regarding how I use your work product.

When I spoke to you about assisting me on this matter, Mike Minkowski was present and we
spoke to you from my office on speaker phone. We were very clear in our instructions
concerning the timelines for this project. I advised you that I would like to receive it Thursday,
September 24, 2009 and that under no circumstances could it be any later than noon Friday,

Form 1012 (Rev 06/01)

MIS.001.009.003


2

September 25, 2009 as it had to be delivered to Members of Council with their agenda packages
that afternoon. You agreed to this time commitment. Notwithstanding the fact that you assured
me that you could have the opinion ready in that time, at one point you even joked that you
thought I might be asking you to do it over the weekend, you failed to deliver your opinion on
time, Not only did you fail to meet the clear timelines, you did not even have a courtesy to call
me and warn me that you were running into difficulties. Having reviewed the product you
produced, I found it very difficult to understand why you could not complete this matter within
the time frame specified.

You have stated that I disagree with your opinion. However, that is not the issue. I made it very
clear to you from the outset that this was to be your opinion. I also advised you that this was a
contentious matter and the reasons for your opinion must be clearly set out including relevant
legal authority to support any expressed opinion, The product that you provided to me, late,
failed to do this and included conjecture without supporting legal authority.

Finally, please be advised that I am declining your request that I explain to you how I used your
opinion for reasons set out above. If you cannot live by the terms of our retainer agreement,
please advise me forthwith and I will remove Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP from the list of
firms retained by The Corporation of the City of Mississauga.

Yours truly,

[signature]

Mary Ellen Bench , BA, LLB, CS
City Solicitor

cc Bernice Kam
Janine Kovach
Mark Young

MIS.001.009.004


and the McLean-Kerr Legal Opinion, September 24, 2009 (PDF)

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

Mississauga Council presentation on Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest: the McLean & Kerr Report –Setting the Record Straight

February 22nd, 2011  

Today’s Blog is just for the historical record and will be included in the February 23, 2011 Mississauga Council meeting minutes.

MISSISSAUGA CONFLICT OF INTEREST JUDICIAL INQUIRY: HAROLD SHIPP (AGAINST) DONALD BARBER (FOR)

Yesterday, I gave a deputation before City of Mississauga Council and presented a shortened version of the following video.

Because of time constraints, I was not able to include the last 35 second clip of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry involving Elizabeth McIntyre (counsel for Mayor Hazel McCallion) and Ed Sajecki, Mississauga’s Commissioner of Building and Planning to Council yesterday.

The exchange had Ms McIntryre ask Sajecki whether his staff gave any preferential treatment to Peter McCallion’s World Class Developments or whether they, in any way, felt interfered with or influenced around his hotel project.

As always, here is the original-length video —followed the transcript.

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest: the McLean & Kerr Report –Setting the Record Straight (11:07 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]
[Note: Inquiry transcripts or McLean & Kerr sometimes used for accuracy purposes]

Freya Kristjanson, counsel for the Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

Okay. If you could turn to the next page then. And again, this is the McLean Kerr summary of what happened on April 30th. At the commencement of the meeting, Acting Mayor Saito stated — called it to order, saying, “My understanding is that Mayor McCallion had declared last week a conflict of interest on this item. So as Acting Mayor, I’ll call the meeting to order and deal with this.”

She then asked for disclosure. She said,”Seeing none, we will accept the Mayor’s previously disclosed conflict of interest if she comes before the meeting is over.”

Do you recall that interchange, the Acting Mayor reaffirming the — Mayor McCallion’s conflict?

Janice Baker, City Manager (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

Again, I have no specific recollection of it, but if the — the record would be accurate, I’m sure.

Freya Kristjanson, counsel for the Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

And if McLean & Kerr, your legal firm, summarized the DVD as such, you’re prepared to accept that’s what happened?

Janice Baker, City Manager (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

Absolutely.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting February 21, 2011)

And it isn’t an accurate reflection of what happened on April the 30th and that’s what I want to report on today.

What I have here in front of me is the McLean & Kerr report. If you take a look and you start going now to page 33, you see that McLean & Kerr, write here:

“We have reviewed the Minutes of the meetings and the DVD Recordings of those meetings and in particular those portions of those meetings relation to WCD’S involvement in the Property.”

So again, there’s the statement that they have reviewed the minutes and also the DVD.

So you get right away into the April 23rd meeting of Council and they say the following about the minutes of that meeting.

Mayor McCallion disclosed here conflict of interest. Barry Lyons Consultants addressed Council. Councillor Dale made comments relating to the development application. And a resolution to defer to a Special Council Meeting on April the 30th was voted on.

And I have here the April 23, 2008 minutes. There it is. “World Class Developments” and it does show here that there’s a declaration.

The item there, Item I, and it talks about Barry Lyons and it does mention that Councillor Dale had welcomed the development of the application. And then on top of it, a resolution to defer.

So for the April 23rd, 2008 Council, McLean & Kerr’s summary of the Minutes are accurate.

And you check the DVD recording —then they start putting down a transcript of the Mayor had actually said. And then three and a half hours into the meeting, the Mayor had stated the following —the Mayor then left the meeting.

And the DVD shows that Barry Lyons was there and then indeed Councillor Dale had made comments about the “destination” and so on. And then also that the results [sic] is that the motions were carried and so on.

So I went and checked this and McLean & Kerr really did do an accurate reflection of both the minutes and reporting on the DVD. The problem starts with April 30th.

April 30th as you can see here is a Special Meeting of Council. McLean & Kerr had only this to say about the minutes of the meeting.

“The Minutes of the Meeting reflect that there was no disclosure of direct or indirect pecuniary interest.”

However when you go to the minutes of the meeting, the April 30th minutes mention Barry Lyons and also that Councillor Dale had made comments. And that’s a significant amount of information right here.

The minutes say, and McLean & Kerr completely leave this out, that:

Councillor Dale moved the request for deferral and asked if the applicant has been granted an extension from the land owners as it was an important point in getting these documents together. He expressed concern that a lot of staff time by various departments has been spent on the subject application to date so that they could meet a development charges deadline. The Ward Councillor stated that he welcomes the hotel into the City Core, however, now that this deadline was no longer an issue, he hoped that they will proceed with their application in a normal manner and suggested that the Commissioner so advise the applicant, with the expectation that the documents will be available for the May 21st. council meeting.

Again, here’s what McLean & Kerr says the minutes said:

“The Minutes of the Meeting reflect that there was no disclosure of direct or indirect pecuniary interest.”

No mention of any kind of comments by Councillor Dale.

So. Perhaps the DVD recording might make mention of it. And McLean & Kerr says the DVD recording reflects that at the commencement, Pat Saito —Councillor Saito said the following. And that is just a summary of what we’d heard at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, I’m going to call to order the meeting of council. We have a special (council) meeting this morning. My understanding is that—

Freya Kristjanson, counsel for the Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

“My understanding is that Mayor McCallion had declared last week a conflict of interest on this item. So as Acting Mayor, I’ll call the meeting to order and deal with this.”

She then asked for disclosure. She said:

“Seeing none, we will accept the Mayor’s previously disclosed conflict of interest if she comes before the meeting is over.”

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting February 21, 2011)

And then the only other thing that McLean & Kerr mention about the DVD is:

“(2) a motion to refer the matter to the May 21, 2008 council meeting was carried.”

That’s it. But that’s not all that happened at that meeting.

What’s interesting is that when you go on to the next meeting —May 7th, they again go to accurately reporting what the minutes said.

And you go to May 21st and again, there’s the minutes of the meeting —are quite accurate, very thorough, what was said. And down here that the Commissioner of Planning advised the applicant. So again you’re back to accurate reflection of the minutes —and the DVD.

[PUSH RIGHT]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (reporting February 21, 2011)

What I want to do now for the record is to show what my video camera recorded, April 30th 2008 that did not make it into the McLean/Kerr report.

[REVERSE CLOCKWIPE]

Councillor Pat Saito (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

Disclosures of direct or indirect pecuniary interest on the item on today’s Council meeting? Seeing none, we have, yes, will accept the Mayor’s previously disclosed conflict of interest if she comes before the meeting is over.

We have one item on the agenda. This was from last week’s Council meeting —the, Barry Lyons Consultants asked that we put this off until the issue of removal of the holding symbol for World Class Developments Limited —that it be put to a Special Council meeting today to give them time to, I guess, get their ducks in a row, Councillor Dale?

Um, it is an information item that I have on the agenda this morning and —they are basically saying that they are unable to fulfill the approval requirements in time for today’s meeting. 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 regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, 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?

Ed Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

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

Councillor Frank Dale (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

Because I think that’s–

Ed Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, 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 regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, 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 is 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 just 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—

Ed Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

[inaudible] I’ll pass that message on. I do want to also add that [inaudible] 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.

Councillor Pat Saito (Special Council Meeting regarding removal of the “H” Holding Symbol, World Class Developments, April 30, 2008)

Okay. Thank you. Councillor Dale, are you then moving receipt and I guess Madam Clerk, we need to refer it to —oh, you’re writing a motion for it. Thank you, so that will be referred then. The Motion will be referring it to the 21st?

And that’s basically what’s in the Motion? Okay.

Uh, Councillor Dale has moved that Motion then of receipt and referral to the May 21st Council meeting. Receipt of the correspondence that’s in our Agenda. Any questions?

All in favour? Opposed? That carries. Thank you.

[DIP TO BLACK]
[Music:
“Don’t Crash the Ambulance” by Mark Knopfler]

Elizabeth McIntyre, counsel for the Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

Now you have indicated that the WCD did not get any preferential treatment from city staff around this project. Is that right?

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

That’s right.

Elizabeth McIntyre, counsel for the Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

And I understand that you asked your staff directly whether or not they felt that there was any — any interference or influence that they felt, correct?

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

I did ask that question, yes.

Elizabeth McIntyre, counsel for the Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, September 15, 2010)

And what response did you get, sir?

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

They said they did not feel in any way, you know, influenced.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS. LOGO]

Additional Resources

The McLean-Kerr Legal Opinion, September 24, 2009 (PDF)

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

Video: Hazel McCallion’s swanky $350.00 per ticket 90th Birthday Bash sees Sheridan Campus named after her

February 14th, 2011  

There’s been quite the controversy about Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party that’s “not a party”. First there was a leaked email and then the public howl about Mississauga Councillors receiving $700 per couple tickets courtesy of the taxpayer.

Then there was Councillor Ron Starr insisting that McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party was “not a party” but a fund-raiser for Sheridan College.

All that Mayor’s gala-fuss happened in January —which was fine with me because I’d already bought my $350.00 to McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party that’s “not a party” on December 15th!

I know. $350.00 is a lot to shell out for one evening. But I was certain I’d find what I was looking for there. As regular readers know I’ve been researching the roots of youth violence since March 2007 by documenting the Peel Youth Violence Prevention Network and Safe City Mississauga. I was right —I found it. Zero doubt. The Roots of Youth Violence under one convenient glitzy, swanky roof!

And Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party that’s “not a party” was even more than what I expected it to be! If Corruption were a physical force with Mass/Weight, there was enough Corruption at the Derry Road Mississauga Convention Centre to create a substantial black hole.

Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party that’s “not a party” drove MYTHissauga to new depths. So much so that I really don’t have to research anymore.

And I have much of the Party on video! I really had no intention of photographing/videotaping but was told that there was a place at the back of the room for media. Well! Imagine my DELIGHT! I spent most of the evening at the back of the room with the media and ran two cameras dry!

Enough! I produced the first in a series of Hazel-McCallion’s-90th-Birthday-Party-that’s-“not-a-party” videos.

So here’s the video complete with transcript.

Hazel McCallion’s swanky $350.00 per ticket 90th Birthday Bash sees Sheridan Campus named after her! (3:04 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

Elizabeth McIntyre, Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony, September 20, 2010)

Okay. So with respect to the Hotel Conference Centre next to the — next to the Living Arts Centre, aside from the WCD project, which we’re just about to get into, were there any other projects, developers who came forward with a proposal to complete this development?

Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony, September 20, 2010)

No, it was the only one that — the only one that had purchased the land, or was purchasing the land, or purchased the land, to proceed with my vision, and this council’s vision, and the staff’s vision of the — of finally attaining a hotel next to the Living Arts Centre —

[DIP TO WHITE]
Music: Don’t Crash the Ambulance (Mark Knopfler)

Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony, September 20, 2010)

—my vision, and this council’s vision, and the staff’s vision of the — of finally attaining a hotel next to the Living Arts Centre —

Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony, September 20, 2010)

—my vision, and this council’s vision, and the staff’s vision of the — of finally attaining a hotel next to the Living Arts Centre —

Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony, September 20, 2010)

—my vision, and this council’s vision, and the staff’s vision of the — of finally attaining a hotel next to the Living Arts Centre —

Sheridan College President Dr. Jeff Zabudsky (Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday $350.00 a ticket Party, February 12, 2011)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Hazel McCallion Campus!

[949 out of 950 guests. Applause, cheers]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (while videotaping Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday $350.00 a ticket Party, February 12, 2011)

Oh my Gawd!

Oh my Gawd!

Oh my—

Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony, September 20, 2010)

—my vision, and this council’s vision, and the staff’s vision of the — of finally attaining a hotel next to the Living Arts Centre —

Brian Gover, McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony, September 20, 2010)

And to be clear about this, at the time — and now we’re speaking of times; we’re speaking of August 24th, September 11th, and September 15th. Did you believe you were a principal of WCD on any of those occasions?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony, September 20, 2010)

No, I did not.

Brian Gover, McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony, September 20, 2010)

How would you have described yourself at the time, in terms of your relationship with World Class Developments?

Peter McCallion (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony, September 20, 2011)

At the time, I was basically acting as real estate agent and the promoter of the development, visionary.

Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry testimony, September 20, 2010)

—my vision, and this council’s vision, and the staff’s vision of the — of finally attaining a hotel next to the Living Arts Centre —

[DIP TO WHITE]

Mayor Hazel McCallion (Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday $350.00 a ticket Party, February 12, 2011)

Well, it’s been a great evening, I can assure you.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (while videotaping Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday $350.00 a ticket Party, February 12, 2011)

Unbelievable.

Mayor Hazel McCallion (Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday $350.00 a ticket Party, February 12, 2011)

You know, I had a vision—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH  (while videotaping Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday $350.00 a ticket Party, February 12, 2011)

Here it comes.

Mayor Hazel McCallion (Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday $350.00 a ticket Party, February 12, 2011)

—an objective to get Sheridan College back to Mississauga.

[DIP TO BLACK. LOGO]
[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Last, I wasn’t just videotaping on Saturday evening. I kept busy Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party that’s “not a party”.

I’ve cut-and-pasted all Tweets here for the record —with typos cleaned up and the F-word toned down with asterisks.

Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party “that is not a party”! Funny who’ll they let in for 350 BUCKS!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash “that isn’t a party” ! Was just offered wine (red) and drank some. Needs sugar!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting Live from Hazel McCallion’s Birthday Party that “isn’t a party”. As expected Fran Rider (big cheesette in Women’s Hockey) now here.
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th birthday party “that isn’t a party”. Declined offer of Lobster caviar hor’doerve (sp?)
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party. Lotta rich white types with the only Diversity being rich non-whites…
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party. ACCCCK! Just saw the Head-Dude of the Mississauga Board of Trade!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party that “isn’t a party”. City Manager Janice Baker doth arrived…
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th birthday party that’s “not a party”. Dave O’Brien not yet here. Maybe didn’t remember to come…
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’ 90th Birthday Party that’s “not a party”. *WOW*! I wish I had boobs like that!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party that’s “not a party”. EU-REEEEK-A!!!! Michael Nobrega just showed up!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash! OMERS CEO Michael Nobrega here and just recognized another ENERSOURCE Director!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. Only had four sips of this glass of wine…. (where’s the Baby Duck?!)
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. There’s a media area! So I now feel I’m wid my bruddahs!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. McCallion getting standing ovation. I was the only one to remain seated!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. Louroz Mercader just showed up! And THAT raises a question…
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party. Ted Woloshyn is EmCee. On bright side I like John Tory.
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party. Confirming Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell here. Also *PTUI* Mike Harris!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Katie Mahoney’s husband Steve Mahoney here in a skir….kilt!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash! Councillors you’d expect to be here are. Tovey, Fonseca, Starr -Hazel’s Own.
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s Birthday Bash. Harold $$$Shipp$$$ four tables away from me. Like being at the Inquiry –with WINE!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. Want to yell’ “ANYONE HERE FROM MALTON???!!!”
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. If Corruption had Mass/weight, there’d be a HUUUGE black hole here in MYTHissauga!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. Shrimp, filet mignon, asparagus and wine, wine, wine Too bad I don’t really drink!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash! Hmmmmm… I wonder what table Tony DeCicco is at!….
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. Nobrega just gave me a long look. Likely not a person of interest to him tho.
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. Believe this. Judging from conversations, NO ONE’s giving single thought to Poor!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. Haven’t seen David “I can’t recall” O’Brien. Or Peter McCallion!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting from Hazel McCallion’s 90t Birthday Bash. F*** ME! They just named campus after the woman who flogged convention centre!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. What youth wrote in email confirmed. “System is corrupt. No way to fix it!”
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. Orwellian remaking of History this eve. Like Inquiry NEVER happened.
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Party. Best 350-bucks I ever spent! I’ve confirmed the Roots of Youth Violence!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Still Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday Bash. What I witnessed tonight CONFIRMS Hazel McCallion is Above the Law.
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s 90th bash. Sheridan rep just talked to me. Told her it’s absolute perversion to name campus after McC!
Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAMUSE
Tweeting LIVE from Hazel McCallion’s birthday bash. Orwell was right. She Who Controls the past and present guarantees Herstory!

There’s only one image to end all this….

MISSISSAUGA CITY HALL (AMO, OMERS, MYTHissauga Inc) ---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)

Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Commissioner Cunningham asks, “Without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you really think that these large entities would have paid any attention to WCD?”

February 9th, 2011  

Well, yesterday someone finally raised the salient point at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. The good news is that that “someone” was Commissioner J. Douglas Cunningham.

He simply asked “without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor” whether such large pension funds as OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) and AIMCo (Alberta Investment Management Corporation) would have paid any attention to a no-assets no-history “shell” company like World Class Developments.

So here’s the video followed by the transcript. Note, video also features OMERS CEO, Michael Nobrega receiving a congratulatory thank you hug from Mayor Hazel McCallion after his performance at the January 22, 2009 Enersource public meeting.

Mississauga Inquiry 7-Million dollar question “Without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the mayor” (2:30 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

Commissioner J. Douglas Cunningham to Elizabeth McIntyre, Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, Tuesday, February 8, 2011)

Do you think that Mr. Nobrega, OMERS, Oxford would have paid any attention at all to WCD, this shell company, coming out nowhere with no apparent assets and unknown principals, that’s ALS, coming forward with a proposal to develop a hotel convention centre, condominium project, no history of having ever done any of this kind of work previously?

And this isn’t something that OMERS, Oxford, AIMCo had put out for tender. This was something that came out of the blue from this company. Now, Mr. Lax would characterize it as the Mayor having created this one (1) horse race. But putting that aside, without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you really think that these large entities would have paid any attention to WCD?

Elizabeth McIntyre, Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, Tuesday, February 8, 2011)

Well, I –um.

[DIP TO BLACK]
[Music: Mark Knopfler “Don’t Crash the Ambulance”]

Commissioner J. Douglas Cunningham to Elizabeth McIntyre, Hazel McCallion’s lawyer (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, Tuesday, February 8, 2011)

Do you think that Mr. Nobrega, OMERS, Oxford would have paid any attention at all to WCD, this shell company, coming out nowhere with no apparent assets and unknown principals, that’s ALS, coming forward with a proposal to develop a hotel convention centre, condominium project, no history of having ever done any of this kind of work previously?

And this isn’t something that OMERS, Oxford, AIMCo had put out for tender. This was something that came out of the blue from this company. Now, Mr. Lax would characterize it as the Mayor having created this one (1) horse race. But putting that aside, without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you really think that these large entities would have paid any attention to WCD?

[CROSSFADE LOGO]

[TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

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

What follows is a cut-and-paste from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website —and the Closing Submissions by Hazel McCallion’s lawyer, Ms. Elizabeth McIntyre. It’s instructive to examine how Ms. McIntyre successfully avoided answering Commissioner Cunningham’s direct Yes/No question, “Without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you really think that these large entities would have paid any attention to WCD?”

The Mayor’s lawyer counters with a Bullshit-Baffles-Brains approach and in avoiding the Commissioner’s simple Yes/No question even serves up two “the question is” that turn out not to be Cunningham’s question at all!

Unbelievably after four minutes avoiding Cunningham’s question, McIntyre then offers, “So that’s the best I can answer the question”. She then follows that up with “we’ve prepared a chart, which we can — which I plan to — to hand out that — that –” and we never did get her answer to “Without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you really think that these large entities would have paid any attention to WCD?”

Did the Commissioner notice McIntyre’s avoidance strategy?

We submit there’s Hope. Why? Anyone bright enough to ask the salient question, “Without the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you really think that these large entities would have paid any attention to WCD?” with also recognize McIntyre’s four minutes of acrobatics for exactly what it was. Her way of avoiding, “No.”

So here it is. The exchange between the Commissioner and Hazel’s lawyer.

  2                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Do you
  3  think that Mr. Nobrega, OMERS, Oxford would have paid any
  4  attention at all to WCD, this shell company, coming out
  5  nowhere with no apparent assets and unknown principals,
  6  that's ALS, coming forward with a proposal to develop a
  7  hotel convention centre, condominium project, no history
  8  of having ever done any of this kind of work previously?
  9                 And this isn't something that OMERS,
 10  Oxford, AIMCo had put out for tender.  This was something
 11  that came out of the blue from this company.  Now, Mr.
 12  Lax would characterize it as the Mayor having created
 13  this one (1) horse race.  But putting that aside, without
 14  the involvement of Peter McCallion and the Mayor, do you
 15  really think that these large entities would have paid
 16  any attention to WCD?
 17                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   Well, I -- I
 18  would suggest that on the evidence, the -- the hotel
 19  convention centre was something that the owners
 20  recognized was in their best interest.  It was -- it was
 21  a good use of -- of that land.  The hotel convention
 22  centre was -- was something that would be of value to
 23  them, particularly their interest in Square One.
 24                 In terms of it being a corporation that
 25  was set up for that project, I didn't see anything in the

6493

  1  evidence that suggested that -- that that was unusual; it
  2  -- that there be a corporation put together for a single
  3  purpose.  I assume that -- that the owners would put in
  4  place a -- and they did put in place a contractual
  5  arrangement which they saw as protecting their interest.
  6  And, you know, they saw it as something that was of value
  7  both to -- both to themselves and the City.
  8                 I mean, if the question is, what was the
  9  Mayor's role in jump-starting the project, there's -- and
 10  she has acknowledged this, that she encouraged them to
 11  look at it.  She would have encouraged them to look at
 12  any project that came forward that was proposing to -- to
 13  -- to build a hotel, but then once it's -- once they look
 14  at it it's up to, and I think this is the evidence fairly
 15  of the co-owners, it's up to them to do their -- their
 16  due diligence.
 17                 They did, of course, know Mr. Cook.  They
 18  knew that he had some history, and in fact, I think on
 19  the totality of the evidence that -- that -- that the
 20  project, as originally conceived, would have moved
 21  forward and we might have that hotel/convention centre
 22  there today had not the market crashed and the economy
 23  interceded.
 24                 So, you know, the question is, did they
 25  make a wise business deal based on all of the usual

6494

  1  business considerations, and I think the answer to that
  2  is yes.  You know, we don't have any evidence of other
  3  projects that came forward.  There was nothing else on
  4  offer for -- for that property at the time, we know that.
  5                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   M-hm.
  6                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   So that's the
  7  best that I can answer the question.  In terms of
  8  speculating as to whether -- if the Mayor had not made
  9  the phone call she did, that one (1) phone call, is that
 10  what's responsible for everything that then proceeded.  I
 11  think that it's highly speculative to suggest that that
 12  was the only trigger.
 13                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Oh, no,
 14  she did much more, but I'm -- I'm sure you'll touch on
 15  that.
 16                 MS. ELIZABETH MCINTYRE:   Yes.  And in
 17  fact, we've prepared -- we've prepared a chart, which we
 18  can -- which I plan to -- to hand out that -- that --

E MALAMA KAKOU. To Care For All.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

"The TRIUMPH of MYTHissauga" "Justanopinion Aug 12, 2010 6:12 PM Face reality Our mayor could be caught, in the library, with the candlestick in her hand, over the dead body, and she would still win by a landslide! MISSISSAUGA NEWS READERS COMME

MISSISSAUGA NEWS READERS COMMENT:

“Justanopinion Aug 12, 2010 6:12 PM

Face reality Our mayor could be caught, in the library, with the candlestick in her hand, over the dead body, and she would still win by a landslide!

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. 

[DIP TO BLACK]

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.

[CROSS-FADE]

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.

[DIP TO WHITE]

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?

[END]

Yeah, no frikkin’ kidding!

Signed,

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.

QUESTION: Why?

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER TRIES TO GAG TORONTO SUN FROM ASKING MAYOR THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY

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.”

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER TRIES TO GAG TORONTO SUN FROM ASKING MAYOR ABOUT THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY” (4:38 min)

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

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

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.

[CROSS-FADE]

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?

1918

  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):

Yessir.

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):

[inaudible]

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.

[CROSS-FADE]

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.

[HIGH DEFINITION CAMERA ADMIRES THE MAYOR’S HANDLER’S EXPENSIVE SHOES AND PINSTRIPE SUIT]

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

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.

LIVE TWEETS FROM MONDAY’S MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY

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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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


LIVE TWEETS FROM TUESDAY’S MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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 Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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


LIVE TWEETS FROM WEDNESDAY’S MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
CLIFFORD LAX *ROCKS*!                                                                         about 7 hours ago via twidroid

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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
CLIFFORD LAX *ROCKS*1                                                                         about 5 hours ago via twidroid

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

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

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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAMUSE
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

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MISSISSAUGAWATCH ATTENDS "SHARPEN YOUR TEETH III" CONFERENCE/WORKSHOP ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE  (December 2, 2009 am)

LAST. FROM THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS WEBSITE…  Judicial inquiry coverage

Below is our coverage of the judicial inquiry to date.

Mayor signed loan agreement
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/861983–mayor-signed-loan-agreement

Mayor kept calling: Nobrega
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/861875–mayor-kept-calling-nobrega

Help son’s company: Mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/861460–help-son-s-company-mayor

Witnesses announced
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/860960–next-week-s-witnesses-announced

Inquiry: Myth and facts
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/860441–inquiry-myths-and-facts

Inquiry report unlikely before vote
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/859008–inquiry-report-unlikely-before-vote

Obvious bias
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/858990–obvious-bias

No worries about Hazel: O’Brien
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/859808–no-worries-about-hazel-o-brien

One opinion counts
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/857139–one-opinion-counts

Kudos
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/857136–kudos

O’Brien engineered $4-million buyout
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/859620–o-brien-engineered-4-million-buyout

Mayor was ‘in a conflict situation’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/858706–mayor-was-in-a-conflict-situation

WCD bid skirted usual fees
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/858489–wcd-bid-skirted-usual-fees

Minutes not altered: witness
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/858318–minutes-not-altered-witness
Consultant didn’t deal with McCallions
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/858089–consultant-denies-dealings-with-mccallions

Inquiry resumes next week
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/857352–inquiry-resumes-next-week

City may sue mayor’s son for $150,000
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/856831–city-may-sue-mayor-s-son-for-150-000

Council okays $250,000 more for mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/856578–council-okays-250-000-more-for-mayor

What price truth?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/855846–what-price-truth

Mayor should step down
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/855844–mayor-should-step-down

McCallions’ inquiry tab could top $500,000
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855622–mccallions-inquiry-tab-could-top-500-000

Mayor not helped by son’s testimony
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855587–mayor-not-helped-by-son-s-testimony

McCallion should pay: Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855047–mccallion-should-pay-parrish

‘I did nothing wrong’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854557–i-did-nothing-wrong

Firm thought McCallion was a real estate agent, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854348–firm-thought-mccallion-was-a-real-estate-agent-inquiry-told

City wasn’t fleeced in land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854255–city-wasn-t-fleeced-in-land-deal

Son misled mayor, lawyer suggests
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853946–son-misled-mayor-lawyer-suggests

McCallion sticks up for mom
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853823–mccallion-sticks-up-for-mom

McCallion’s memory tested
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853442–mccallion-s-memory-tested

Mayor pushed her son’s project
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853143–mayor-pushed-her-son-s-project

Mayor’s son on the hot seat
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853105–mayor-s-son-on-the-hot-seat

Not a principal: McCallion
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852904–not-a-principal-mccallion

McCallion co-signed loan
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852871–mccallion-co-signed-loan

Mayor an ’emissary’ for son’s company: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852774–mayor-an-emissary-for-son-s-company-lawyer

O’Brien was also involved in Sheridan deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852668–o-brien-was-also-involved-in-sheridan-deal

Lawyers prepare for battle at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852401–lawyers-prepare-for-battle-at-inquiry

Hazel vouched for son’s partner
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852375–hazel-vouched-for-son-s-partner

Mayor’s son to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852244–mayor-s-son-to-testify

OMERS denies inflating land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/848667–omers-denies-inflating-land-deal

Code needed at City
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/847289–code-needed-at-city

Company received $4M payout
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/847088–company-received-4m-payout

City seeks public review of ethics code
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846865–city-seeks-public-review-of-ethics-code

Company received $4M pay-out over hotel deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846702–company-received-4m-pay-out-over-hotel-deal

Voters will decide
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/845495–voters-will-decide

Process can’t be muzzled
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/845494–process-can-t-be-muzzled

Mayor pushed deal, Inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845386–mayor-pushed-deal-inquiry-told

Mayor linked to meeting
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845348–mayor-linked-to-meeting

Mayor pushed for hotel in City Centre
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845305–mayor-pushed-for-hotel-in-city-centre

Judge shoots down mayor’s request
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844957–judge-shoots-down-mayor-s-request

Was it legal?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/844106–was-it-legal

Mayor cries foul at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844048–mayor-cries-foul-at-inquiry

Inquiry hits another roadblock
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/842350–inquiry-hits-another-roadblock

Questions remain
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/841093–questions-remain

Inquiry costs now expected to hit $5 million
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/840203–inquiry-costs-now-expected-to-hit-5-million

Inquiry may hurt Enersource: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/839993–inquiry-may-hurt-enersource-lawyer

‘I am not stepping down’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838087–i-am-not-stepping-down

Inquiry’s second phase begins in July
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838006–inquiry-s-second-phase-begins-in-july

‘I forget‚’ doesn’t cut it
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/837377–i-forget-doesn-t-cut-it

Council told of veto: Mahoney
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833782–council-told-of-veto-mahoney

Mahoney set to testify at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833374–mahoney-set-to-testify-at-inquiry

Mahoney called to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/832789–mahoney-called-to-testify

Councillor asks for fees
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831724–councillor-asks-for-fees

Mayor’s legal fees capped
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831432–mayor-s-legal-fees-capped

Inquiry costs climb
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/830589–inquiry-costs-climb

Lawyers want more to represent mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/829779–lawyers-want-more-to-represent-mayor

McCallion calls out Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/828112–mccallion-calls-out-parrish

Mayor denies knowing of veto
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/827766–mayor-denies-knowing-of-veto

Deal negotiated improperly, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/826715–deal-negotiated-improperly-inquiry-hears

Mayor on stand tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823922–mayor-on-stand-tomorrow

Enersource deal ‘terrific’ for Mississauga
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823722–enersource-deal-terrific-for-mississauga

Enersource deal nixed by inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823414–enersource-deal-nixed-by-inquiry

We’ll all pay a share
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/822510–we-ll-all-pay-a-share

Former City manager vague in details
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/822193–former-city-manager-vague-in-details

Councillors should have known about veto, deal maker says
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821795–councillors-should-have-known-about-veto-deal-maker-says

Files stay sealed
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821442–files-stay-sealed

City set to approve full funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821229–city-set-to-approve-full-funding-for-mayor-s-son

City key to OMERS, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821186–city-key-to-omers-inquiry-told

No common sense
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/821055–no-common-sense

High stakes drama
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/821054–high-stakes-drama

Enersource powers ‘changed’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820981–enersource-powers-changed

Hydro deal took years to probe, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820827–hydro-deal-took-years-to-probe-inquiry-hears

Judicial inquiry starts today
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820606–judicial-inquiry-starts-today

Inquiry starts tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820581–inquiry-starts-tomorrow

Mayor to testify June 2
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818995–mayor-to-testify-june-2

Councillors consider code of ethics
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818976–councillors-consider-code-of-ethics

Council code of conduct on agenda
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818368–council-code-of-conduct-on-agenda

More money for Mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817504–more-money-for-mayor-s-son

Commissioner to rule on funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817197–commissioner-to-rule-on-funding-for-mayor-s-son

Inquiry costs at $1.5M and rising
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/815604–inquiry-costs-at-1-5m-and-rising

Lawyer wrong about campaign, mayor says
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/812946–lawyer-wrong-about-campaign-mayor-says

Inquiry schedule released
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/808796–inquiry-schedule-released

Inquiry will hurt campaign: Lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/808205–inquiry-will-hurt-campaign-lawyer

The News makes motion at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/808197–the-news-makes-motion-at-inquiry

Keep inquiry open
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/806192–keep-inquiry-open

No go for ‘citizen journalists’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/806075–no-go-for-citizen-journalists

The News wants affidavit made public
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/805668–the-news-wants-affidavit-made-public

Split decision for citizen journalists
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/805386–split-decision-for-citizen-journalists

Council nixes legal fees for councillors
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/801673–council-nixes-legal-fees-for-councillors

‘Layers’ of land deal probed
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/704572–layers-of-land-deal-probed

Inquiry to hear from ‘citizen journalists’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/661747–inquiry-to-hear-from-citizen-journalists

Judicial inquiry costs continue to grow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/658728–judicial-inquiry-costs-continue-to-grow

Mayor submits documents
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/650744–mayor-submits-documents

Someone should pay
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/650294–someone-should-pay

Mayor’s record-keeping under scrutiny
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/650221–mayor-s-record-keeping-under-scrutiny

Cut off the cash
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/647500–cut-off-the-cash

Inquiry searches for paper trail
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/627010–inquiry-searches-for-paper-trail

City ‘targeting’ mayor’s son?
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/626648–city-targeting-mayor-s-son

No apologies
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/625718–no-apologies

Mayor’s son to ask for more public money
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/625569–mayor-s-son-to-ask-for-more-public-money

Delay sparks speculation
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/625357–delay-sparks-speculation

Councillors rethinking legal fees for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/621333–councillors-rethinking-legal-fees-for-mayor-s-son

Inquiry to begin May 17
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/620801–inquiry-to-begin-may-17

Taxpayers shoulder Mayor’s legal bill
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/607170–taxpayers-shoulder-mayor-s-legal-bill

Stand up and vote

http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/603522–stand-up-and-vote

Costs mounting at judicial inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/507888–costs-mounting-at-judicial-inquiry

Inquiry probe ‘going well’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/412749–inquiry-probe-going-well

Ground broken for college campus
http://www.mississauga.com/news/local/article/244665–ground-broken-for-college-campus

City asked to foot legal bills

http://www.mississauga.com/news/local/article/244243–city-asked-to-foot-legal-bills

Judicial inquiry begins
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/230647–judicial-inquiry-begins

Judicial inquiry gets underway
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/230043–judicial-inquiry-gets-underway

Hundreds back mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/219491–hundreds-back-mayor

McCallion accused of negotiating commissions
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/218099–mccallion-accused-of-negotiating-commissions

Duty bound
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/217940–duty-bound

Matter of priorities
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/217379–matter-of-priorities

‘Support Hazel’ rally planned
http://www.mississauga.com/news/local/article/217336–support-hazel-rally-planned

Optics over ethics
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/216653–optics-over-ethics

Don’t ease up
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/216174–don-t-ease-up

Stay on point
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/216171–stay-on-point

Letter of the week
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/162030–letter-of-the-week

Judge picked for inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/161865–judge-picked-for-inquiry

Council votes to limit judicial probe
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/161601–council-votes-to-limit-judicial-probe

Petition aims to cancel judicial probe
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/161286–petition-aims-to-cancel-judicial-probe

Call to account
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/160097–call-to-account

Scrap the inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/159468–scrap-the-inquiry

Road cleared for City probe
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/157939–road-cleared-for-city-probe

Wide net cast for judicial inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/157162–wide-net-cast-for-judicial-inquiry

Needs review
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/154742–needs-review

Judicial inquiry ‘extraordinary’: Solicitor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/154725–judicial-inquiry-extraordinary-solicitor

Parameters for inquiry in the works
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/152884–parameters-for-inquiry-in-the-works

Investigation or witch hunt?
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/152614–investigation-or-witch-hunt

Inquiry the only choice
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/152584–inquiry-the-only-choice

Mayor could face inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/152355–mayor-could-face-inquiry

Hazel McCallion. Michael Nobrega. WCD. WHO wanted the court file SEALED? “–the Mayor did have a much tighter relationship with the Oxford group than they did with us.”

August 12th, 2010  

We’ve got a unique one for you today!

Video combining August 11, 2010 Inquiry testimony by Craig Coleman, former president of 156 Square One and Hawthorne Realty Advisors (AIMCo rep), with video from the January 22, 2009 meticulousy-orchestrated Enersource public information meeting.

So how meticulously-orchestrated was it?

It was so meticulously-orchestrated that Hazel McCallion did not invite former city manager (and key negotiator) Dave O’Brien to the meeting.

Truer words were never spoken than Mr. Coleman’s August 11th comment about Hazel McCallion, Michael Nobrega/Dave O’Brien OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees’ Retirement System):

— the Mayor did have a much tighter relationship with the Oxford group than they did with us.

Here’s video confirming AIMCo’s terrific instincts!

And the court transcript!

Video: Hazel McCallion. Michael Nobrega. WCD. WHO wanted the court file SEALED? (4:04 min)

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

COURT TRANSCRIPT BEGINS
“Q” is William McDowell, “A” is Craig Coleman

 16                 Q:   Now, let's look at Exhibit 380.  So
 17  this is September 11th, 2009.  There's an offer to settle
 18  that's been received by Mr. Smart, and he's emailed you.
 19                 A:   Correct.
 20                 Q:   When did you learn that the
 21  litigation had in fact been settled?
 22                 A:   It would have been later that day.  I
 23  was out of the office and actually not receiving phone
 24  calls or emails.  And it would have been around four
 25  o'clock that evening that I had -- when I -- when I kind

2856

  1  of got in an area where my Blackberry was working, all of
  2  sudden a number of emails and phone messages popped up,
  3  and we had learned that Oxford wanted to settle.
  4                 Q:   Okay.  Let's look at Exhibit 382.
  5  This is the offer that Mr. Smart's referring to, I take
  6  it?
  7                 A:   Yes.
  8                 Q:   Let's scroll down.  So the number
  9  we've heard in other evidence is $4 million.  And then if
 10  you look at the third paragraph there:
 11                   "The parties will consent to an order
 12                   to remove all the application and
 13                   counter-application materials from the
 14                   court file or to seal the court file."
 15                 Was the genesis of that notion of sealing
 16  the file WCD?
 17                 A:   I -- I don't know.
 18                 Q:   You don't know.  Then let's look at
 19  Exhibit 383.  So Mr. Charles reporting to you, John, and
 20  Gawain -- Mr. Filipetti and Mr. Smart, I take it?
 21                 A:   Yes.
 22                 Q:
 23                   "They have been instructed to accept
 24                   the settlement offer from WCD at the
 25                   cost of 4.0 million.  They indicated

2857

  1                   that due to a larger OMERS relationship
  2                   with the City of Mississauga, they are
  3                   willing to accept the settlement."
  4                 This, I gather, didn't sit well with --
  5  with your clients, AIMCo?
  6                 A:   We weren't consulted --
  7                 Q:   Right.
  8                 A:   -- with respect to the settlement.
  9  We weren't aware that people were even negotiating a
 10  settlement.
 11                 Q:   M-hm.
 12                 A:   We were comfortable with our position
 13  with respect to the litigation.
 14                 Q:   M-hm.
 15                 A:   So this come -- this really -- this
 16  settlement came out of the blue.
 17                 Q:   Did you understand that you had an
 18  opportunity to veto the settlement?
 19                 A:   From our perspective at this point in
 20  time, we believed it was a done -- it was effectively a
 21  done deal.
 22                 Q:   Right.  So that --
 23                 A:   It's been done.  Our understanding is
 24  it's been done at a higher level.  And quite frankly,
 25  Oxford's there to get it papered and get it done.

2858

  1                 Q:   Did you speak to Mr. Smart about the
  2  settlement personally?
  3                 A:   Yes.
  4                 Q:   Tell us about that discussion.
  5                 A:   Well, again, we weren't happy.  We
  6  were trying to understand why.  We were con -- we were
  7  concerned about -- we were concerned in that we -- we
  8  don't know why this settlement happened; we don't know
  9  the details of the settlement; we don't know what the
 10  impetus to the settlement was; and I relayed all that
 11  Gawain, and quite frankly, was concerned that -- we were
 12  concerned with our position.
 13                 Q:   Did you appreciate that -- that he
 14  had been out of the loop in the settlement discussions as
 15  well?
 16                 A:   It seemed to maybe catch him a bit
 17  off guard as well.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH alternate logo. "We don't call it MYTHissauga for nothing!"

Lawyer’s conclusion: That Peter McCallion could not be considered to be the son of the Mayor (Hazel McCallion)

August 10th, 2010  

Yes, just the video and transcript again today.  You won’t believe it. The City got a legal opinion from Stanley Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers) concluding that Peter McCallion, for material purposes, was not actually the son of the Mayor, Hazel McCallion.

Yep.

And so here’s the video of that exchange —followed by the court transcript.

Video: Peter McCallion could not be considered to be the son of Mayor Hazel McCallion (2:31 min)

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

August 10, 2010 VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS
[note: “he” refers to Stanley Makuch Cassels Brock Lawyers]


WILLIAM MCDOWELL (Commission Counsel):

—And then you’ll see, going down that page, that he comes to the conclusion that Peter McCallion, for material purposes, was not actually the son of the Mayor.

MARY ELLEN BENCH (City Solicitor, City of Mississauga):

Yeah.

WILLIAM MCDOWELL (Commission Counsel):

Go to the next page, page 7. He came to the view, I gather, that unless there was a financially dependent relationship that Peter McCallion could not be considered to be the son of the Mayor?

MARY ELLEN BENCH (City Solicitor, City of Mississauga):

That’s correct.

WILLIAM MCDOWELL (Commission Counsel):

All right. Apart from this letter, did he ever offer any authority for that view?

MARY ELLEN BENCH (City Solicitor, City of Mississauga):

He never offered an explanation at all. And it’s contrary to the case he cited and it’s contrary to the definition of child in the lac — in the Act, so…

WILLIAM MCDOWELL (Commission Counsel):

Right. And — and I guess we could add out of that, I take it that he was not aware that the Mayor was one of the trustees of a trust to provide for the benefit of Peter McCallion?

MARY ELLEN BENCH (City Solicitor, City of Mississauga):

I certainly would not have provided that information to him —

WILLIAM MCDOWELL (Commission Counsel):

Right. So — so as far as we know he didn’t know that either?

MARY ELLEN BENCH (City Solicitor, City of Mississauga):

That is correct.

[CROSSZOOM]

Part Two. The above exchange is repeated and pairs video of Peter McCallion and Not-his-Mom Mayor Hazel McCallion at the January 1, 2009 Mayor’s New Year’s Levee at Mississauga Council Chambers. Orphan Peter also talks story with Councillor Katie “Friends of Hazel” Mahoney and her hubbie Steve Mahoney. Complete with music!

Last, here is the Stanley Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers) report, “Conflict of Interest – Ltr November 11, 2009 – from Mary Ellen Bench To Stanley Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers)“.

THE MISSISSAUGA MUSE (MISSISSAUGAWATCH)

Below is Mississauga News coverage of the judicial inquiry to date.

Mayor was ‘in a conflict situation’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/858706–mayor-was-in-a-conflict-situation

WCD bid skirted usual fees
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/858489–wcd-bid-skirted-usual-fees

Minutes not altered: witness
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/858318–minutes-not-altered-witness

Consultant didn’t deal with McCallions
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/858089–consultant-denies-dealings-with-mccallions

Inquiry resumes next week
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/857352–inquiry-resumes-next-week

City may sue mayor’s son for $150,000
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/856831–city-may-sue-mayor-s-son-for-150-000

Council okays $250,000 more for mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/856578–council-okays-250-000-more-for-mayor

What price truth?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/855846–what-price-truth

Mayor should step down
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/855844–mayor-should-step-down

McCallions’ inquiry tab could top $500,000
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855622–mccallions-inquiry-tab-could-top-500-000

Mayor not helped by son’s testimony
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855587–mayor-not-helped-by-son-s-testimony

McCallion should pay: Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855047–mccallion-should-pay-parrish

‘I did nothing wrong’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854557–i-did-nothing-wrong

Firm thought McCallion was a real estate agent, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854348–firm-thought-mccallion-was-a-real-estate-agent-inquiry-told

City wasn’t fleeced in land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854255–city-wasn-t-fleeced-in-land-deal

Son misled mayor, lawyer suggests
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853946–son-misled-mayor-lawyer-suggests

McCallion sticks up for mom
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853823–mccallion-sticks-up-for-mom

McCallion’s memory tested
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853442–mccallion-s-memory-tested

Mayor pushed her son’s project
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853143–mayor-pushed-her-son-s-project

Mayor’s son on the hot seat
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853105–mayor-s-son-on-the-hot-seat

Not a principal: McCallion
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852904–not-a-principal-mccallion

McCallion co-signed loan
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852871–mccallion-co-signed-loan

Mayor an ’emissary’ for son’s company: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852774–mayor-an-emissary-for-son-s-company-lawyer

O’Brien was also involved in Sheridan deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852668–o-brien-was-also-involved-in-sheridan-deal

Lawyers prepare for battle at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852401–lawyers-prepare-for-battle-at-inquiry

Hazel vouched for son’s partner
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852375–hazel-vouched-for-son-s-partner

Mayor’s son to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852244–mayor-s-son-to-testify

OMERS denies inflating land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/848667–omers-denies-inflating-land-deal

Code needed at City
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/847289–code-needed-at-city

Company received $4M payout
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/847088–company-received-4m-payout

City seeks public review of ethics code
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846865–city-seeks-public-review-of-ethics-code

Company received $4M pay-out over hotel deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846702–company-received-4m-pay-out-over-hotel-deal

Voters will decide
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/845495–voters-will-decide

Process can’t be muzzled
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/845494–process-can-t-be-muzzled

Mayor pushed deal, Inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845386–mayor-pushed-deal-inquiry-told

Mayor linked to meeting
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845348–mayor-linked-to-meeting

Mayor pushed for hotel in City Centre
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845305–mayor-pushed-for-hotel-in-city-centre

Judge shoots down mayor’s request
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844957–judge-shoots-down-mayor-s-request

Was it legal?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/844106–was-it-legal

Mayor cries foul at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844048–mayor-cries-foul-at-inquiry

Inquiry hits another roadblock
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/842350–inquiry-hits-another-roadblock

Questions remain
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/841093–questions-remain

Inquiry costs now expected to hit $5 million
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/840203–inquiry-costs-now-expected-to-hit-5-million

Inquiry may hurt Enersource: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/839993–inquiry-may-hurt-enersource-lawyer

‘I am not stepping down’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838087–i-am-not-stepping-down

Inquiry’s second phase begins in July
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838006–inquiry-s-second-phase-begins-in-july

‘I forget‚’ doesn’t cut it
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/837377–i-forget-doesn-t-cut-it

Council told of veto: Mahoney
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833782–council-told-of-veto-mahoney

Mahoney set to testify at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833374–mahoney-set-to-testify-at-inquiry

Mahoney called to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/832789–mahoney-called-to-testify

Councillor asks for fees
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831724–councillor-asks-for-fees

Mayor’s legal fees capped
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831432–mayor-s-legal-fees-capped

Inquiry costs climb
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/830589–inquiry-costs-climb

Lawyers want more to represent mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/829779–lawyers-want-more-to-represent-mayor

McCallion calls out Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/828112–mccallion-calls-out-parrish

Mayor denies knowing of veto
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/827766–mayor-denies-knowing-of-veto

Deal negotiated improperly, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/826715–deal-negotiated-improperly-inquiry-hears

Mayor on stand tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823922–mayor-on-stand-tomorrow

Enersource deal ‘terrific’ for Mississauga
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823722–enersource-deal-terrific-for-mississauga

Enersource deal nixed by inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823414–enersource-deal-nixed-by-inquiry

We’ll all pay a share
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/822510–we-ll-all-pay-a-share

Former City manager vague in details
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/822193–former-city-manager-vague-in-details

Councillors should have known about veto, deal maker says
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821795–councillors-should-have-known-about-veto-deal-maker-says

Files stay sealed
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821442–files-stay-sealed

City set to approve full funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821229–city-set-to-approve-full-funding-for-mayor-s-son

City key to OMERS, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821186–city-key-to-omers-inquiry-told

No common sense
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/821055–no-common-sense

High stakes drama
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/821054–high-stakes-drama

Enersource powers ‘changed’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820981–enersource-powers-changed

Hydro deal took years to probe, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820827–hydro-deal-took-years-to-probe-inquiry-hears

Judicial inquiry starts today
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820606–judicial-inquiry-starts-today

Inquiry starts tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820581–inquiry-starts-tomorrow

Mayor to testify June 2
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818995–mayor-to-testify-june-2

Councillors consider code of ethics
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818976–councillors-consider-code-of-ethics

Council code of conduct on agenda
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818368–council-code-of-conduct-on-agenda

More money for Mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817504–more-money-for-mayor-s-son

Commissioner to rule on funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817197–commissioner-to-rule-on-funding-for-mayor-s-son

Inquiry costs at $1.5M and rising
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/815604–inquiry-costs-at-1-5m-and-rising

Lawyer wrong about campaign, mayor says
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/812946–lawyer-wrong-about-campaign-mayor-says

Inquiry schedule released
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/808796–inquiry-schedule-released

Inquiry will hurt campaign: Lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/808205–inquiry-will-hurt-campaign-lawyer

The News makes motion at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/808197–the-news-makes-motion-at-inquiry

Keep inquiry open
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/806192–keep-inquiry-open

No go for ‘citizen journalists’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/806075–no-go-for-citizen-journalists

The News wants affidavit made public
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/805668–the-news-wants-affidavit-made-public

Split decision for citizen journalists
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/805386–split-decision-for-citizen-journalists

Council nixes legal fees for councillors
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/801673–council-nixes-legal-fees-for-councillors

‘Layers’ of land deal probed
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/704572–layers-of-land-deal-probed

Inquiry to hear from ‘citizen journalists’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/661747–inquiry-to-hear-from-citizen-journalists

Judicial inquiry costs continue to grow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/658728–judicial-inquiry-costs-continue-to-grow

Mayor submits documents
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/650744–mayor-submits-documents

Someone should pay
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/650294–someone-should-pay

Mayor’s record-keeping under scrutiny
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/650221–mayor-s-record-keeping-under-scrutiny

Cut off the cash
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/647500–cut-off-the-cash

Inquiry searches for paper trail
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/627010–inquiry-searches-for-paper-trail

City ‘targeting’ mayor’s son?
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/626648–city-targeting-mayor-s-son

No apologies
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/625718–no-apologies

Mayor’s son to ask for more public money
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/625569–mayor-s-son-to-ask-for-more-public-money

Delay sparks speculation
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/625357–delay-sparks-speculation

Councillors rethinking legal fees for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/621333–councillors-rethinking-legal-fees-for-mayor-s-son

Inquiry to begin May 17
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/620801–inquiry-to-begin-may-17

Taxpayers shoulder Mayor’s legal bill
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/607170–taxpayers-shoulder-mayor-s-legal-bill

Stand up and vote

http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/603522–stand-up-and-vote

Costs mounting at judicial inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/507888–costs-mounting-at-judicial-inquiry

Inquiry probe ‘going well’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/412749–inquiry-probe-going-well

Ground broken for college campus
http://www.mississauga.com/news/local/article/244665–ground-broken-for-college-campus

City asked to foot legal bills

http://www.mississauga.com/news/local/article/244243–city-asked-to-foot-legal-bills

Judicial inquiry begins
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/230647–judicial-inquiry-begins

Judicial inquiry gets underway
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/230043–judicial-inquiry-gets-underway

Hundreds back mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/219491–hundreds-back-mayor

McCallion accused of negotiating commissions
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/218099–mccallion-accused-of-negotiating-commissions

Duty bound
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/217940–duty-bound

Matter of priorities
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/217379–matter-of-priorities

‘Support Hazel’ rally planned
http://www.mississauga.com/news/local/article/217336–support-hazel-rally-planned

Optics over ethics
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/216653–optics-over-ethics

Don’t ease up
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/216174–don-t-ease-up

Stay on point
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/216171–stay-on-point

Letter of the week
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/162030–letter-of-the-week

Judge picked for inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/161865–judge-picked-for-inquiry

Council votes to limit judicial probe
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/161601–council-votes-to-limit-judicial-probe

Petition aims to cancel judicial probe
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/161286–petition-aims-to-cancel-judicial-probe

Call to account
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/160097–call-to-account

Scrap the inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/159468–scrap-the-inquiry

Road cleared for City probe
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/157939–road-cleared-for-city-probe

Wide net cast for judicial inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/157162–wide-net-cast-for-judicial-inquiry

Needs review
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/154742–needs-review

Judicial inquiry ‘extraordinary’: Solicitor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/154725–judicial-inquiry-extraordinary-solicitor

Parameters for inquiry in the works
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/152884–parameters-for-inquiry-in-the-works

Investigation or witch hunt?
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/152614–investigation-or-witch-hunt

Inquiry the only choice
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/152584–inquiry-the-only-choice

Mayor could face inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/152355–mayor-could-face-inquiry

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

August 6th, 2010  

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

Quote:

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

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

And so the video and of course, the transcript.

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

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

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

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

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

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

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

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

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

That’s right.

CITY SOLICITOR MARY ELLEN BENCH:

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

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

COUNCILLOR CAROLYN PARRISH:

Thank you.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

Good.

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS:

"MISSISSAUGA  CONFLICT OF INTEREST JUDICIAL INQUIRY OCTOBER 28" "2009 COUNCIL MEETING (Audience AGAINST the Review)"

Judicial inquiry coverage

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

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

Related Stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is our coverage of the judicial inquiry to date.

Council okays $250,000 more for mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/856578–council-okays-250-000-more-for-mayor

What price truth?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/855846–what-price-truth

Mayor should step down
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/855844–mayor-should-step-down

McCallions’ inquiry tab could top $500,000
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855622–mccallions-inquiry-tab-could-top-500-000

Mayor not helped by son’s testimony
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855587–mayor-not-helped-by-son-s-testimony

McCallion should pay: Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855047–mccallion-should-pay-parrish

‘I did nothing wrong’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854557–i-did-nothing-wrong

Firm thought McCallion was a real estate agent, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854348–firm-thought-mccallion-was-a-real-estate-agent-inquiry-told

City wasn’t fleeced in land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854255–city-wasn-t-fleeced-in-land-deal

Son misled mayor, lawyer suggests
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853946–son-misled-mayor-lawyer-suggests

McCallion sticks up for mom
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853823–mccallion-sticks-up-for-mom

McCallion’s memory tested
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853442–mccallion-s-memory-tested

Mayor pushed her son’s project
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853143–mayor-pushed-her-son-s-project

Mayor’s son on the hot seat
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853105–mayor-s-son-on-the-hot-seat

Not a principal: McCallion
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852904–not-a-principal-mccallion

McCallion co-signed loan
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852871–mccallion-co-signed-loan

Mayor an ’emissary’ for son’s company: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852774–mayor-an-emissary-for-son-s-company-lawyer

O’Brien was also involved in Sheridan deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852668–o-brien-was-also-involved-in-sheridan-deal

Lawyers prepare for battle at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852401–lawyers-prepare-for-battle-at-inquiry

Hazel vouched for son’s partner
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852375–hazel-vouched-for-son-s-partner

Mayor’s son to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852244–mayor-s-son-to-testify

OMERS denies inflating land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/848667–omers-denies-inflating-land-deal

Code needed at City
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/847289–code-needed-at-city

Company received $4M payout
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/847088–company-received-4m-payout

City seeks public review of ethics code
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846865–city-seeks-public-review-of-ethics-code

Company received $4M pay-out over hotel deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846702–company-received-4m-pay-out-over-hotel-deal

Voters will decide
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/845495–voters-will-decide

Process can’t be muzzled
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/845494–process-can-t-be-muzzled

Mayor pushed deal, Inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845386–mayor-pushed-deal-inquiry-told

Mayor linked to meeting
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845348–mayor-linked-to-meeting

Mayor pushed for hotel in City Centre
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845305–mayor-pushed-for-hotel-in-city-centre

Judge shoots down mayor’s request
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844957–judge-shoots-down-mayor-s-request

Was it legal?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/844106–was-it-legal

Mayor cries foul at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844048–mayor-cries-foul-at-inquiry

Inquiry hits another roadblock
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/842350–inquiry-hits-another-roadblock

Questions remain
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/841093–questions-remain

Inquiry costs now expected to hit $5 million
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/840203–inquiry-costs-now-expected-to-hit-5-million

Inquiry may hurt Enersource: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/839993–inquiry-may-hurt-enersource-lawyer

‘I am not stepping down’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838087–i-am-not-stepping-down

Inquiry’s second phase begins in July
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838006–inquiry-s-second-phase-begins-in-july

‘I forget‚’ doesn’t cut it
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/837377–i-forget-doesn-t-cut-it

Council told of veto: Mahoney
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833782–council-told-of-veto-mahoney

Mahoney set to testify at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833374–mahoney-set-to-testify-at-inquiry

Mahoney called to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/832789–mahoney-called-to-testify

Councillor asks for fees
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831724–councillor-asks-for-fees

Mayor’s legal fees capped
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831432–mayor-s-legal-fees-capped

Inquiry costs climb
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/830589–inquiry-costs-climb

Lawyers want more to represent mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/829779–lawyers-want-more-to-represent-mayor

McCallion calls out Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/828112–mccallion-calls-out-parrish

Mayor denies knowing of veto
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/827766–mayor-denies-knowing-of-veto

Deal negotiated improperly, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/826715–deal-negotiated-improperly-inquiry-hears

Mayor on stand tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823922–mayor-on-stand-tomorrow

Enersource deal ‘terrific’ for Mississauga
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823722–enersource-deal-terrific-for-mississauga

Enersource deal nixed by inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823414–enersource-deal-nixed-by-inquiry

We’ll all pay a share
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/822510–we-ll-all-pay-a-share

Former City manager vague in details
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/822193–former-city-manager-vague-in-details

Councillors should have known about veto, deal maker says
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821795–councillors-should-have-known-about-veto-deal-maker-says

Files stay sealed
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821442–files-stay-sealed

City set to approve full funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821229–city-set-to-approve-full-funding-for-mayor-s-son

City key to OMERS, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821186–city-key-to-omers-inquiry-told

No common sense
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/821055–no-common-sense

High stakes drama
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/821054–high-stakes-drama

Enersource powers ‘changed’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820981–enersource-powers-changed

Hydro deal took years to probe, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820827–hydro-deal-took-years-to-probe-inquiry-hears

Judicial inquiry starts today
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820606–judicial-inquiry-starts-today

Inquiry starts tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820581–inquiry-starts-tomorrow

Mayor to testify June 2
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818995–mayor-to-testify-june-2

Councillors consider code of ethics
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818976–councillors-consider-code-of-ethics

Council code of conduct on agenda
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818368–council-code-of-conduct-on-agenda

More money for Mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817504–more-money-for-mayor-s-son

Commissioner to rule on funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817197–commissioner-to-rule-on-funding-for-mayor-s-son

Inquiry costs at $1.5M and rising
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/815604–inquiry-costs-at-1-5m-and-rising

Mississauga Council okays $250,000 more for Hazel McCallion’s lawyers fees. (Video of debate highlights)

August 5th, 2010  

Thanks to the Toronto Star and Mississauga News for the following.

Torstar Network
Aug 04, 2010 – 5:46 PM

Council okays $250,000 more for mayor

More for the Mayor. Mississauga councillors voted today to give another $250,000 to Mayor Hazel McCallion to cover her legal bills during the judicial inquiry. File photo

After a 40-minute debate, Mississauga city councillors voted today to give another $250,000 of taxpayers’ money to Mayor Hazel McCallion to cover her legal bills during the ongoing judicial inquiry.

The motion was tabled by Councillor Sue McFadden and passed unanimously by Council. The mayor excused herself from the vote just ahead of the motion.

Ward 6 Councillor Carolyn Parrish, a vocal critic of the mayor, raised some vital questions about soaring costs at the inquiry, but acknowledged that “we have no choice but to accept it.”

She said councillors are caught between a rock and hard place, “but the mayor will have to explain it to the taxpayers.”… the rest, please see Council okays $250,000 more for mayor

Now for video of this discussion.

What follows is an excerpt of today’s Mississauga Council debate on covering the Mayor’s legal bills. We highlight the words of Councillor Nando Iannicca and his exchange with City Solicitor Mary Ellen Bench. And of course, the transcript.

Video: Mississauga Council debates lawyers’ fees for Mayor Hazel McCallion (Judicial Inquiry)  (3:55 min)

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

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS:

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON (Acting Mayor):

Councillor Iannicca.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA:

Thank you. I have just a couple of quick thoughts. Councillor Parrish touched upon it. I am concerned the extent to which, you know, we might need $400,000 more. And then she said that immediately becomes a target waiting at the finish line. It’s not an [inaudible] limit. So you know you’re in. And that concerns me.

And the fact that it wasn’t articulated or demonstrated in a little bit more fulsome manner. But be that as it may.

The other part as it relates to the costs. Certainly on my behalf and on behalf of my constituents, you know it’s the classic “It Is What It Is”. I mean when I supported the Inquiry, I said to myself, I’m not asking for a fixed amount of justice. We’re asking for justice and a proper inquiry.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispers into camera:

Yes..

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA:

It’s very tough under that circumstance to say we rolled up and said give me twenty bucks worth of gas. You’ve got to say Fill it Up. Wherever that journey takes you.

And so I’m a little disappointed in the sense that we look at these reports and this is what it costs and it’s costing you 40 hours of work. What is somebody thinking? That if you come back and say that we’ve reached five million, we’re going to say Stop?

I mean, and especially in the circumstances that we’re describing, where it’s to seek justice where politicians are involved. And one of us has the courage to say here “stop now”? You know, I think our public deserves better than that.

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

I think in that regard as well, I think the costs are what they are and I think this needs to be said —because we’ve bent over backwards as a Council to be fair to everybody involved. I would think. I don’t what else we could have done to all of the participants, recognizing and respecting their rights, and to be represented appropriately and I fully support that as well.

The only other point that I will raise and I do want to give the Commissioner and the Counsel the chance to work through the process, because it’s by far the most common question being asked of me is, if Mr. McCallion, whether he knew it or not had certain assets and he was given certain funds thinking he did not have assets for legal fees, what is the recourse, can that come back and the Commissioner —the Justice can revisit it. And perhaps you could speak to that or whether that’s something that the Justice has the right to revisit at a later date or at some appropriate time.

CITY SOLICITOR MARY ELLEN BENCH:

The purpose of the Inquiry will be to —for the Commissioner to make certain findings as to fact and he will make recommendations but you have to remember, it’s not a court of law. So he will not have the power sitting in this forum, to require repayment or anything of that nature.

I think at the end of this process, when we do have his recommendations, it’s appropriate to look at them and assess the evidence and determine what actions City needs to take moving forward.

And based on previous inquiries in Waterloo and in Toronto, legal action was taken where it was appropriate. In other cases, like the bulk of the changes were administrative process changes and the Commissioner in this case will do the same.

He will make recommendations that he thinks are appropriate based on the totality of the evidence he has. And right now we’re at that awkward spot where we’ve got part of the evidence but there’s still at least two more weeks to go.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA:

Yeah, thank you. What I take from that —and not as eloquently as you but I hope I’m saying what you’re saying in different words. What I’ve told any constituent is, let’s let the process run its course. Let’s let the reasons that we’re here be answered. Let’s let the Justice do his work and we will revisit those or visit those afterwards.

That’s a fair way of putting it.

CITY SOLICITOR MARY ELLEN BENCH:

That’s correct.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA:

And I don’t know where that takes us but I think people want some indication that there’s more to play out on that front. Certainly that’s what I’m telling them. Thank you Madam Chair.

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS

ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN BALL CAP MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL

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

Judicial inquiry coverage

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

Related Stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is our coverage of the judicial inquiry to date.

Council okays $250,000 more for mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/856578–council-okays-250-000-more-for-mayor

What price truth?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/855846–what-price-truth

Mayor should step down
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/855844–mayor-should-step-down

McCallions’ inquiry tab could top $500,000
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855622–mccallions-inquiry-tab-could-top-500-000

Mayor not helped by son’s testimony
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855587–mayor-not-helped-by-son-s-testimony

McCallion should pay: Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/855047–mccallion-should-pay-parrish

‘I did nothing wrong’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854557–i-did-nothing-wrong

Firm thought McCallion was a real estate agent, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854348–firm-thought-mccallion-was-a-real-estate-agent-inquiry-told

City wasn’t fleeced in land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/854255–city-wasn-t-fleeced-in-land-deal

Son misled mayor, lawyer suggests
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853946–son-misled-mayor-lawyer-suggests

McCallion sticks up for mom
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853823–mccallion-sticks-up-for-mom

McCallion’s memory tested
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853442–mccallion-s-memory-tested

Mayor pushed her son’s project
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853143–mayor-pushed-her-son-s-project

Mayor’s son on the hot seat
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/853105–mayor-s-son-on-the-hot-seat

Not a principal: McCallion
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852904–not-a-principal-mccallion

McCallion co-signed loan
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852871–mccallion-co-signed-loan

Mayor an ’emissary’ for son’s company: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852774–mayor-an-emissary-for-son-s-company-lawyer

O’Brien was also involved in Sheridan deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852668–o-brien-was-also-involved-in-sheridan-deal

Lawyers prepare for battle at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852401–lawyers-prepare-for-battle-at-inquiry

Hazel vouched for son’s partner
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852375–hazel-vouched-for-son-s-partner

Mayor’s son to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/852244–mayor-s-son-to-testify

OMERS denies inflating land deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/848667–omers-denies-inflating-land-deal

Code needed at City
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/847289–code-needed-at-city

Company received $4M payout
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/847088–company-received-4m-payout

City seeks public review of ethics code
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846865–city-seeks-public-review-of-ethics-code

Company received $4M pay-out over hotel deal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/846702–company-received-4m-pay-out-over-hotel-deal

Voters will decide
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/845495–voters-will-decide

Process can’t be muzzled
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/845494–process-can-t-be-muzzled

Mayor pushed deal, Inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845386–mayor-pushed-deal-inquiry-told

Mayor linked to meeting
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845348–mayor-linked-to-meeting

Mayor pushed for hotel in City Centre
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/845305–mayor-pushed-for-hotel-in-city-centre

Judge shoots down mayor’s request
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844957–judge-shoots-down-mayor-s-request

Was it legal?
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/844106–was-it-legal

Mayor cries foul at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/844048–mayor-cries-foul-at-inquiry

Inquiry hits another roadblock
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/842350–inquiry-hits-another-roadblock

Questions remain
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/841093–questions-remain

Inquiry costs now expected to hit $5 million
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/840203–inquiry-costs-now-expected-to-hit-5-million

Inquiry may hurt Enersource: lawyer
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/839993–inquiry-may-hurt-enersource-lawyer

‘I am not stepping down’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838087–i-am-not-stepping-down

Inquiry’s second phase begins in July
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/838006–inquiry-s-second-phase-begins-in-july

‘I forget‚’ doesn’t cut it
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/837377–i-forget-doesn-t-cut-it

Council told of veto: Mahoney
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833782–council-told-of-veto-mahoney

Mahoney set to testify at inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/833374–mahoney-set-to-testify-at-inquiry

Mahoney called to testify
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/832789–mahoney-called-to-testify

Councillor asks for fees
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831724–councillor-asks-for-fees

Mayor’s legal fees capped
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/831432–mayor-s-legal-fees-capped

Inquiry costs climb
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/830589–inquiry-costs-climb

Lawyers want more to represent mayor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/829779–lawyers-want-more-to-represent-mayor

McCallion calls out Parrish
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/828112–mccallion-calls-out-parrish

Mayor denies knowing of veto
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/827766–mayor-denies-knowing-of-veto

Deal negotiated improperly, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/826715–deal-negotiated-improperly-inquiry-hears

Mayor on stand tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823922–mayor-on-stand-tomorrow

Enersource deal ‘terrific’ for Mississauga
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823722–enersource-deal-terrific-for-mississauga

Enersource deal nixed by inquiry
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/823414–enersource-deal-nixed-by-inquiry

We’ll all pay a share
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/822510–we-ll-all-pay-a-share

Former City manager vague in details
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/822193–former-city-manager-vague-in-details

Councillors should have known about veto, deal maker says
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821795–councillors-should-have-known-about-veto-deal-maker-says

Files stay sealed
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821442–files-stay-sealed

City set to approve full funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821229–city-set-to-approve-full-funding-for-mayor-s-son

City key to OMERS, inquiry told
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/821186–city-key-to-omers-inquiry-told

No common sense
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/letters/article/821055–no-common-sense

High stakes drama
http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/editorial/article/821054–high-stakes-drama

Enersource powers ‘changed’
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820981–enersource-powers-changed

Hydro deal took years to probe, inquiry hears
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820827–hydro-deal-took-years-to-probe-inquiry-hears

Judicial inquiry starts today
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820606–judicial-inquiry-starts-today

Inquiry starts tomorrow
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/820581–inquiry-starts-tomorrow

Mayor to testify June 2
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818995–mayor-to-testify-june-2

Councillors consider code of ethics
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818976–councillors-consider-code-of-ethics

Council code of conduct on agenda
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/818368–council-code-of-conduct-on-agenda

More money for Mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817504–more-money-for-mayor-s-son

Commissioner to rule on funding for mayor’s son
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/817197–commissioner-to-rule-on-funding-for-mayor-s-son

Inquiry costs at $1.5M and rising
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/815604–inquiry-costs-at-1-5m-and-rising

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
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

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.

MISSISSAUGA NEWS

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

2005

  1
  2
  3
  4                 MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9  Before:        Associate Chief Mr. Justice J. Douglas
 10                 Cunningham
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19  HELD AT:
 20                    Provincial Offence Court
 21                       Mississauga, Ontario
 22                          July 28, 2010
 23
 24                       Pages 2005 to 2261
 25

2006

  1                        APPEARANCES
  2  William McDowell                  )Commission Counsel
  3  Naomi Loewith                     )
  4  Yashada Ranganathan               )
  5
  6  Freya Kristjanson  (np)           )For Mayor Hazel McCallion
  7  Elizabeth McIntrye                )
  8  Adrianne Telford   (np)           )
  9  Pavle Masic                      )
 10
 11  Brian Gover                      ) For Peter McCallion
 12  Luisa Ritacca                    )
 13
 14  Clifford Lax, Q.C.                )For City of Mississauga
 15  Tracy Wynne                       )
 16  James Renihan                    )
 17  David Schwartz    (np)           )
 18
 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)            )

2007

  1                   APPEARANCES (Cont'd)
  2  Alan Mark          (np)          )For Enersource
  3  Kelly Friedman    (np)           )
  4
  5  Don Jack                          ) For 156 Square One
  6  Adam Goodman                      )
  7
  8  Gerarda Mazza     (np)           ) For Mr. Leo Couprie
  9
 10  Michael Cohen     (np)           ) For Mr. Murray Cook
 11
 12  Jean-Claude Killey (np)           ) For Mr. Tony DeCicco
 13  Linda Rothstein                   )
 14
 15  Patrick Eighenberg (np)           ) For Mr. Jonathan Toll
 16
 17  Peter Cavanagh    (np)           ) For Mr. William Houston
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25

2008

  1                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  2                                                       Page No.
  3  Exhibit List                                             2009
  4
  5  PETER MCCALLION, Resumed
  6   Continued Cross-examination by Mr. Clifford Lax         2015
  7
  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
 14
 15  PETER MCCALLION, Resumed
 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
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25

2009

  1                 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't)
  2                                                       Page
  3  No.
  4  ROBERT MICHAEL LATIMER, Sworn
  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
 11
 12  Certificate of transcript                               2261
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25

2010

  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

2011

  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

2012

  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
 25

2013

  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
 24
 25

2014

  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
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25  --- Upon commencing at 10:30 a.m.

2015

  1                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order in the courtroom.
  2  All rise, please.  This Inquiry is now in session.
  3  Please be seated.
  4                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Good
  5  morning.
  6
  7                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  8
  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).
 15
 16  --- EXHIBIT NO. 289:       Transcript of the cross-
 17                             examination of Peter
 18                             McCallion
 19
 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

2016

  1  -- it may not.
  2                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   All
  3  right, that's fine.  Mr. McCallion, you're still under
  4  oath.  Good morning.
  5
  6                 PETER MCCALLION, Resumed
  7
  8                 THE WITNESS:   Good morning.
  9
 10  CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX:
 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.
 18
 19  CONTINUED BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX:
 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?

2017

  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?

2018

  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.

2019

  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?

2020

  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.

2021

  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?

2022

  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.

2023

  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?

2024

  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

2025

  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

2026

  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

2027

  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.

2028

  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.

2029

  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

2030

  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

2031

  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.
  4
  5                      (BRIEF PAUSE)
  6
  7                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Thank you, sir.
  8
  9                      (BRIEF PAUSE)
 10
 11  CONTINUED BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX:
 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

2032

  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?

2033

  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.

2034

  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

2035

  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.
 19                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   It
 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.
 25

2036

  1  CONTINUED BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX:
  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.
 19
 20                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21
 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.

2037

  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.

2038

  1
  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

2039

  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.
 24
 25                       (BRIEF PAUSE)

2040

  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.
  8
  9                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 10
 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

2041

  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

2042

  1  issue of the mortgage and sale of his house later on.
  2
  3                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  4
  5  CONTINUED BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX:
  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

2043

  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.
 11
 12                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 13  
 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.

2044

  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,

2045

  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.
 18
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 20
 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.

2046

  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.

2047

  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.
 18
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 20
 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.

2048

  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.

2049

  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  2
  3                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Just -- just give me a
  4  moment, Mr. Commissioner.
  5
  6                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  7
  8                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   Just a moment, I'll...
  9
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 11
 12  CONTINUED BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX:
 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?

2050

  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)
 14
 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.

2051

  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.

2052

  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?

2053

  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.
  6
  7  CONTINUED BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX:
  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.

2054

  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?
 11                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   All
 12  right.  Fifteen (15) minutes.
 13                 THE COURT CLERK:   Order.  All rise,
 14  please.  This Inquiry stands recessed fifteen (15)
 15  minutes.
 16
 17  --- Upon recessing at 11:22 a.m.
 18  --- Upon resuming at 11:41 a.m.
 19
 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.

2055

  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  2
  3  CONTINUED BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX: 
  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...
 19
 20                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 21
 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

2056

  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.
  5
  6                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  7
  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 --
 19                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   All
 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.
 23                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Has
 24  this letter been marked?
 25                 MR. CLIFFORD LAX:   No, but the way -- I

2057

  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.
  6                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   All
  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.
 11
 12  --- EXHIBIT NO. 291:       COM001002766 - letter - World
 13                             Class Developments Limited -
 14                             corporate matters dated
 15                             November 20, 2006
 16
 17  CONTINUED BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX:
 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.

2058

  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

2059

  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)

2060

  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.

2061

  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.

2062

  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?

2063

  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.
 14
 15  CONTINUED BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX:
 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?

2064

  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

2065

  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?

2066

  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?

2067

  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.

2068

  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

2069

  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.

2070

  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...
  7
  8                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  9
 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.
 18
 19                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 20  
 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?

2071

  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...
  6
  7                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  8
  9  CONTINUED BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX:  
 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

2072

  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

2073

  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

2074

  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

2075

  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.

2076

  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

2077

  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

2078

  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:

2079

  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?

2080

  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

2081

  1  being -- get -- convincing Murray Cook to enter in to the
  2  agreement that terminated the share -- the call on your
  3  shares?
  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

2082

  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.

2083

  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.
 11                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   All
 12  right.
 13
 14  CONTINUED BY MR. CLIFFORD LAX: 
 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

2084

  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

2085

  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.
 20
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 22
 23                 Q:   That's not correct.  I'm sorry.  I've
 24  given you the wrong number.
 25

2086

  1                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  2
  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

2087

  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

2088

  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.

2089

  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

2090

  1  was not WCD.
  2                 Q:   All right.
  3
  4                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  5
  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.

2091

  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.
 20
 21                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 22  
 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

2092

  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.

2093

  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?

2094

  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

2095

  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

2096

  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.

2097

  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?

2098

  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:

2099

  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.

2100

  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.
  9
 10                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 11
 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.
 22
 23                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
 24
 25                 Q:   The -- the note says:

2101

  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