City of Mississauga; 2001 ********* 000018-2001 When you read this do not forget I was acting as the FOI requester for the the Friends of the Cawthra Bush & Greater Mississauga Area (FCB) and The Cawthra Ratepayers' and Residents' Association (CRRA), community groups and making every effort I could to play by the rules. The majority of this matter has not been posted but one letter to the IPC is posted below as it deals with a key issue - reasons for conflict of interest & evidence of political interference regarding City of Mississauga staff, Joan LeFeuvre, FOI Coordinator and Arthur Grannum, Clerk. This letter was 29 pages long + enclosures * The start of my letter, outline of issues & list of sub-sections. * The City has been informed about my concerns regard Conflict of * Dec. 13/00 Council, the censorship of official records. * The signing of a false affidavit or oath by Joan LeFeuvre. * The July 19/94 meeting that unlawfully shut down my legal right to access * How my FOI Requests were handled in 94/95, before and after the * A list of 14 FOI requests and many were INTERFERED with by the Mayor * Important background information regarding the Mayor of Mississauga, * Background information regarding the 2000 and past elections. * The below oath that was filled out and sworn to regarding this letter. The Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario ATTN: Giselle Basanta. ATTN: 80 Bloor Street W., Suite 1700, Toronto Ont. M5S 2V1 RE: FOI Appeal 000018-2001 - City of Mississauga - reasons for conflict of Dear Sir: May 21, 2001 I am formally requesting that the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (IPC), review the facts regarding Joan LeFeuvre, FOI Coordinator and Arthur Grannum, Clerk, with respect to how they are carrying out their duties and their involvement in handling my FOI Request/Appeal Meditation. As there are grounds to show they are in a conflict of interest and therefore should not be handling/involved in my FOI Requests/Appeals, Meditation and IPC Inquiries. This matter should be dealt with before Inquiry as proper meditation should come before Inquiry. And that if any finding of a conflict of interest is made, the City of Mississauga should be told to provide an expert or agree to an outside individual (which I would prefer), knowledgeable of this computer filing system, who is impartial and agreeable to all parties. To review the City's files, the City's filing methods and search for records. Given the facts and pattern of conduct by two senior City of Mississauga staff, what they have done and over the number of years they have been doing it, as well as the surrounding corporate culture, the IPC must make very sure this Appeal is totally fair and un-bias. Especially given the fact the City will try to claim my FOI request was vexatious in its effort to deny me my right to make FOI request (including this request for my personal information), for a year or longer as well as my right to make corrections/additions to my personal records. The following - from the Information and Privacy Commission, Order M-1091 (one of many with similar wording); "It is a well-established principle of natural justice that a decision-maker must not be biased as "no one shall be a judge in his own cause". In other words, an individual with a personal interest in the disclosure or non-disclosure of a record must not be the decision-maker who makes the determination with respect to disclosure. A breach of this fundamental rule of fairness will cause a statutory delegate, such as a delegated head under the Act, to lose jurisdiction. The result of this loss of jurisdiction is to render his or her decision void." and "The following questions in order to assist in determining whether a breach of the rule against bias has occurred: 1. Did the decision-maker have any kind of personal or special interest in 2. Would a well-informed person reasonably perceive bias on the part of the Upon reviewing the contents of this letter, would a reasonable, well-informed and fair-minded person, perceive a bias or great concern that there is a conflict of interest on the part of the Joan LeFeuvre and Arthur Grannum regarding the decision made involving my FOI requests and generally their conduct impacting on my efforts to gain access to City records. The answer is yes. I have noted to the City my concerns about their conflict of interest but the City would not properly address the issue. I even gave the J. LeFeuvre the chance to deliver the service she was withholding in order to prove that she was not in a conflict of interest but she would not. There maybe fewer examples of conflict of interest regarding A. Grannum but as it can be shown they both take unlawful direction from the Mayor and that he is J. LeFeuvre supervisor, who shows no interest in ensuring I receive professional and un-bias service, his inactions as well as his actions support my case. In a letter dated Jan. 24/96, from the Mayor she openly admits she is interfering with the FOI process and violating City By-law 53-91 - open admission of guilty - but no where do I see either J. LeFeuvre or A. Grannum, telling the Mayor she legally can't be involved the FOI process. As J. LeFeuvre has in the past made false and miss-leading statements regarding the nature and how the City's files operate, in order to keep the Mayor's promise to withhold records. And that it is more then likely she even signed an affidavit to back up her statements. Her current statements about security records only being filed by date with no cross references regarding the content of the records should be viewed as a false statement. Also that the facts she is withholding service from the requesters and making a claim of a vexatious request because she refuses to work with the requester to sort out issues, should also be viewed as J. LeFeuvre's keeping Hazel McCallions promise. As I don't structure my letters very well, this whole letter must be read very carefully to get all my points regarding J. LeFeuvre's and A. Grannum's bias, personal/special interests that puts them in a conflict of interest and the examples/evidence of this bias/conflict of interest. A general of summary is; A). The threat to their careers for not obeying the Mayor's orders, must be B). The lawsuit by the J. LeFeuvre and A. Grannum clearly puts them in a C). The City non-effort to enforce its own Conflict of Interest Policy or its D). A clear pattern (over the years), by City staff to openly violate provincial E). That the Mayor has a background including conflict of interest in how she Sub-sections; * The City has been informed about my concerns regard Conflict of Interest. * Dec. 13/00 Council, the censorship of official records. * The signing of a false affidavit or oath by Joan LeFeuvre. * The July 19/94 meeting that unlawfully shut down my legal right to access * How my FOI Requests were handled in 94/95, before and after the * Important background information regarding the Mayor of Mississauga, * Background information regarding the 2000 and past elections. Some of the wording is from my letter dated Nov. 9, 2000, to a number of people regarding my concerns and the 2000 election. RE: A formal request for police and the province to participant in the City of Mississauga's municipal election and for two members of City of Mississauga to be removed from participating in the municipal election. The full letter can be found on my web-site http://home.eol.ca/~donbar/elections/Formal-request.htm The City has been informed about my concerns regard Conflict of Interest. Not all letters are noted or enclosed with this letter.. * Dec. 5/00, a request for my personal records in the City's corporate security office was made. * Dec. 15/00, J. LeFeuvre informs me that security records are not stored in a fashion that allows them to be searched by just my name. That I must supply details like dates, time and location. * Jan. 8/01, a letter form J. LeFeuvre's and A. Grannum's lawyer stating their intentions for a "lawsuit to be brought against you for recovery of substantial damages and costs." They are going after me for more then just the cost of the lawsuit, they want to profit from it at my expense! Or further profit from wrong doing. * Jan. 9/01, a letter to J. LeFeuvre about her claim to need all the dates etc., before she can search for records. * Jan. 15/01, J. LeFeuvre writes saying security records are "filed by month of occurrence.", that I must supply dates, etc. * Jan. 15/01, a letter to J. LeFeuvre and Janice M. Baker, Commissioner of Corporate Service, that J. LeFeuvre and A. Grannum, in my opinion, are treating me very badly and hoping to unlawfully gain from it. * Jan. 16/01, I supplied other areas in the City that my personal information could be found, that would respond to my request or help find records in the security. It was also noted that on Nov. 16/00, A. Grannum, called security and two guards forced me out of the building, for no apparent reason or any warning. I had to ask for escort from the Mayor's assistant to make sure the guards didn't try anything fun. * Jan. 17/01, J.M. Baker says she doesn't like the tone of my Jan. 15/01, letter and threats me with the City's Workplace Harassment policy and "the City will take steps to prohibit your entry, as may be required, pursuant to the Trespass to Property Act." At no time does she show any concern about the subject of my letter, that J. LeFeuvre could be in a conflict of interest regarding handling my FOI request and at the same time taking legal action against me. Clearly this J.M. Baker has done no investigation of the facts or show a proper and professional concern for a situation that is far from typical and one in which staff that she is responsible for could be violating City policies. It appears that J. Lefeuvre has made no effort to informed her superior about the facts either. * Jan. 18/01, J. LeFeuvre writes "Your statements attacking my integrity are completely unfounded and I insist that you refrain from making any such further libellous comments." She goes to try and "refresh" my memory by claiming that she and her staff are carrying out their "responsibilities" in compliance with a certain IPC Order. One that doesn't say a FOI Coordinator should withhold service or records for their own gain and file lawsuit against those who stand up for democracy. What is most interesting is J. LeFeuvre is all gun ho to carry out the FOI Act when it serves her purpose but as I have shown else where in this letter she does not care to when it does not serve certain politicians agendas. * Jan. 19/01, a letter was sent off to both J. LeFeuvre and A. Grannum specifically challenging them to state, in writing that they had not "violated provincial legislation and violated a City By-Law" (A. Grannum) or "violated provincial legislation, violated a City By-Law and signed a false affidavit" (J. LeFeuvre). They did not respond. * Jan. 19/01, a letter to the Mayor, City Manager, J.M. Baker and the Councillor for Ward 1, requesting that J. LeFeuvre not handle my FOI requests. I note the IPC's Order M-1091 regarding how to judge a Conflict of interest and J. LeFeuvre is in one. * Jan. 23/01, to the FOI Coordinator (hoping it is not still J. LeFeuvre), noting I have not received a decision letter yet and no response to my efforts to clarify my request. * Jan. 23/01, a letter to the Mayor, City Manager and J.M. Baker, again requesting that J. LeFeuvre not handle my FOI requests. This time including the City's own Corporate Policy and Procedure for Conflict of Interest and the letter from J. LeFeuvre's and A. Grannum's lawyer. * Jan. 23/01, this is a very important letter from J. LeFeuvre, as the events I noted in my Jan. 16/01, letter that involved A. Grannum and City security, J. LeFeuvre states no records exist! I would point to this as clear evidence that in handling my FOI requests J. LeFeuvre is not finding specific records that rightfully should exist and involve the other person in the lawsuit against me, A. Grannum. And general would show wrong doing by the City. She is using her position as the FOI Coordinator to make decisions that are bias. J. LeFeuvre and A. Grannum are covering for each other. * Jan. 24/01, letter from J.M. Baker saying "your request regarding Mr. Grannum and Mrs. LeFeuvre is denied.", no reason or real investigation. So easy to deal with Canadian peasants, is it not? She goes on to try and threaten/scare me, yad, yad, yad. * Jan. 29/01, I inform the City that I am forced to terminate my FOI request due to their lack of service and actions. * I understand J. LeFeuvre and A. Grannum have not informed or did not inform either the City the IPC about their lawsuit against me. It was up to me to bring it forward. They appear to be hiding the fact they are in or could be a conflict of interest. When their duty is clear to at least inform the involved parties of that fact. * The City's Standard of Behaviour policy, which is also included, states "City of Mississauga employees are expected to conduct themselves and perform their duties in a responsible and professional manner." and failure to disclose a conflict of interest is listed as unacceptable behaviour. Dec. 13/00 Council, the censorship of official records. The following is from my transcription of the video tape made of the Dec. 13/2000, City Council meeting. It can be clearly noted I was presenting concerns about the City's plans that were of a legal nature and the City treated them improperly. The official minutes of this meeting as enclosed and all reference to the Jefferson Salamander and all other references to the Cawthra Bush as being an environmentally significant area have been censored from the record. A cover up by City staff, to try and avoid the legal consequences of its actions. Again, a reasonable and fair minded person would see a pattern in the City's actions. That City staff are help delete from the official record (create a false record), the actions of politicians so the politicians can undertake their legally questionable plans with little fear of being held accountable. The below is from the Video, DB is Me & M is the Mayor; DB. That the Jeffersons' in the Cawthra Bush are likely the last population in Mississauga and it is deemed to be important to monitor the population in Mississauga. And this study has been withheld from UFMAC and Heritage Advisory Committee that are making decisions about the future of the Cawthra Bush. So on that note I have a major announcement; COSEWIC - The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, as of Nov. 30/2000, has formally listed the Jefferson salamander as being a THREATENED species in Canada. Granting it a higher level of protection. COSEWIC is a organization set up by Federal, Provincial and Territories Wildlife Directors to use solid scientific methods to evaluate and determine the national status of species, as to what degree they are at risk of becoming extinct. This independent organization is composed of the top experts that Canada has to offer in wildlife studies from universities, museums, conservation organizations and four federal government agencies. With over twenty years of experience, the findings of COSEWIC are well respected and are accorded special consideration by jurisdictions in which the species are found and in environmental impact assessments of projects. In addition, under the accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments have agreed to recognize COSEWIC as the source of independent advice on the status of species at risk nationally, and to work together to protect these species. A threatened wildlife species is one notch below endangered but something that if don't take measures to reverse what id going on, then it faces extinction. And in Mississauga the Jeffersons' is very much at risk of becoming extinct. Under Provincial Policy statements regrading land use and the official plans for both the City of Mississauga and the Region of Peel - threatened species, their habitat and significant wetlands, have special protection's. The City has not yet given consideration to carrying out its lawful duties. The Province states, Authorities "shall have regard to" policy statements issued under the Act. Shall means MUST. Compressing what it says, Section 2.3.1 - site alteration will not be permitted in: significant wetlands and habitat of endangered and threatened species. But if you wish to try, it has to be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or the ecological functions for which the area is identified. Under section, "2.5.1 Significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes will be conserved.", it should be noted no one has stated how rare or significant the Cawthra Walled garden is, THEREFORE it should not be touched until that is known for a fact. Is there only one Walled garden in Ontario or one in Canada? This is also Mississauga's only heritage site in a wetlands, we should take special care to get this right the first time. Under the official plans for Mississauga and the Region of Peel, it is often stated development only if "no adverse environmental impacts would result". Under wetlands the City policies it calls for the Provincial government to help the City review activities in a Provincially Significant Wetland. It goes on here, 4.2.2.1 (s) "The recreational potential of natural areas will be restricted in order to protect their viability.", so in this case you can restrict access to certain parts of the Cawthra Bush, such as the Walled garden which you call unsafe. 4.2.2.6 - regarding areas with threatened species, it states, The City and the Province will determine through a review process what policies apply. Further more, as the City is in the middle of rezoning the Cawthra Bush no site or habitat alterations should be carried out because the final zoning, that will be there to protect the natural features and wildlife in any given area, has not yet been decided. Therefore we should not put any of our natural heritage at risk by acting too soon. Zoning will deal with the size and dimension of the wetlands and the region of Peel has informed me that they consider the whole forest to be a wetlands, significant one, M. Thank you, Mr. Barber you had your opportunity, DB. No, you have not asked staff to comment, I would very much ask for them to go on the record, so that we can know because this is the time to make the decision before you go out there and this is, is it legal? I have given you evidence that it is not legal, now staff should tell you whether it is legal or not. M. I have a motion to receive the deputation and to refer it to staff for comments, all in favor. Any opposed? Carried. More on my web-site http://home.eol.ca/~donbar/ Under the Walled Garden The signing of a false affidavit or oath by Joan LeFeuvre. As a part of the Official plan process, I addressed the Planning and Development committee, Aug. 4/98. A committee made of elected members of Council. The minutes taken didn't factually represent the concerns I expressed at the meeting. Again, City staff created a false record of events. Joan LeFeuvre signs an oath, that a copy of ALL written submissions are being passed on to the approving body (the Region of Peel), as a part of the City's Official plan process. All but mine. When she is informed that she had not done so, she came up with this very creative line of reasoning. Claimed my letter was just a request for information. Note that my letter (dated Aug. 7/98), is clearly marked that it is the requested, by the City's committee coordinator and notes of my deputation. There were a few questions at the back page but Mrs. LeFeuvre is the Freedom of Information Coordinator for the City and is claiming not to know how to use a photocopy machine! Photocopiers can make copies of letters, so they can go to two or more locations at once. After all the Planning Act, that she has signed an oath for, comes first. Any reasonable person can easily see copies can be made to be sent to a number of places at the same time. Even after it has been pointed out to her that she have failed to live up to conditions of the affidavit she has signed, that the City's minutes of meeting don't accurately records all my concerns and I asked her to forward a copy to Peel Region, she would not obey the law and send a copy to the Region of Peel. It shows how little she feels the obligation to carry out both the letter and the intent of the law. It is important to note I went directly to the Region of Peel and they listened to my concerns. The City's Official plan was changed but the City did try to keep a community representative out of the an official process by unlawful practises. Including creating a false record of events by City staff and signing a false affidavit or oath by J. LeFeuvre. A pattern. The July 19/94 meeting that unlawfully shut down my legal right to access City records. On July 19/94, a meeting was held at Mississauga City Hall that included Hazel McCallion, the Mayor, Arthur Grannum, acting Duty City Clerk, Joan LeFeuvre, Manager of Administration & Records/Freedom of Information Co-ordinator and myself. At this meeting Hazel McCallion gave directs to Arthur Grannum and Joan LeFeuvre to violated the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and they did. Hazel McCallion gave directs to Arthur Grannum and Joan LeFeuvre to violate City By-law 53-91 and they did. Neither protested or even commented that there was the chance their actions could legally questionable (and why should they, they work for Hazel McCallion). J. LeFeuvre and the Mayor refused to put their decisions in writing and this ment I couldn't Appeal it to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. This is an abuse of process designed to deny me my rights as a Canadian citizens to due process. As there was no decision letter from J. LeFeuvre and the Mayor this violates not just the letter of the law but also its intent and spirit. They know the law and they knew what they were doing was wrong. Their wish was to avoid the rules of law, to cover up their actions and this shows their willingness to do so for their own advantage. Their actions are also to deny the public, in an election year, the proof the Mayor had acted unlawfully. To maximize their efforts to deny me City records and delay both the FOI process and my ever getting the records. The act of not putting not putting the Mayor's and J. LeFeuvre's decision in writing, even after being asked for it, should be seen as there was pre-mediation involved in violate the laws of the Ontario that should bind them. At no time during the July 19/94, meeting did any City staff make mention of there being problem with my FOI requests. In fact they stated they were charging fees under the FOI Act. How can they do that and still claim my requests are not FOI requests? Please refer to the Compliance Complaint Investigation - I95-091M, for further details. At this meeting a request was given directly to J. LeFeuvre and she pasted it directly on to the Mayor. Freedom of Information is a key aspect of democracy, taxpayers can't make informed decision unless that have all the facts. The goal of my requests, was to provide to Mississaugans with City records, gained by the Freedom of Information process, so they could be used for decision making. Other details that are documented. The shutting down of the Freedom of Information lasted till Dec. 94/Jan 95. It can be said the Mayor gave these directions to J. LeFeuvre, so to keep City files from being presented at the upcoming election, that would have exposed the fact City staff had mislead taxpayers. Therefore Hazel McCallion had unlawfully used her power over City staff to control the public's access to City records for her own political gain (re-election). A request originally submitted June 24/94, receives an official response from J. LeFeuvre dated Dec. 8/94, stating "the request will be dealt with as quickly as possible". The FOI Act requires a decision letter in 30 days. A reasonable and fair minded person can easily see that after the Mayor becomes involved, the rules have changed. The Mayor's promise to "not be providing you with the information, that you are requesting", (this quote is on my web-site http://home.eol.ca/~donbar as a sound bite), was one that J. LeFeuvre continues to carry out over the years, to disregard the FOI Act by not responding as required by law and/or processing my FOI requests in a unprofessional fashion. The July 19/94, meeting was tape recorded with the permission of the Mayor and below are some of the quotes from the transcript. Mayor. ... So, I just want to make that clear. Uhm I don't see time as important in this regard, I think that, we are going the right way, we are going the responsible way and therefore I have to tell you, we will not be providing you with the information, that you are requesting. Mayor . O.K. uhm, I eh, I am assuming the responsible for all this now and therefore you will be dealing with the Mayor and any visits to City Hall you come to the Mayors office. uhm, to request whatever you want, otherwise I just can't according to the staff, they have informed me, that uhm, that uhm the time involved is considerable, and that is their opinion, and therefore I would appreciate if you... Mayor. ... So eh, we will deal with you, you put your request to me, and I would ask not contact the staff at City Hall and you contact the Mayors office and I will be in touch with the staff, if I see fit, that the requests you are making is reasonable and acceptable to me as Mayor. Don. Oh, your welcome, but no (decision), letter right? * Apr. 11/01, in City Council, the Mayor stated she never directed J. LeFeuvre to do anything, in regards to the July 19/94, meeting. From the Mayor, "And I have never given direction to the Freedom of Information Clark, Clerk to do anything. Never! And will never. And it is not my place to do it. And I want to make it clear" Either her mind/memory is failing her or she is willing to totally lie about the facts. She has been a political for more the 30 years and we all know what politicians are. More on my web-site web-site http://home.eol.ca/~donbar/flash/Newest.htm How my FOI Requests were handled in 94/95, before and after the Mayor intervened, as well as general notes about how J. LeFeuvre has treated my FOI requests. * It should be noted that before my first request to the City, I had never made a FOI request before and the FOI Act was still very new. That the reason many of my early letters are unsigned is that I didn't know I should store only signed letters and didn't fore see that things would get so out of hand or that it would go on for years. * As there was an election in 1994, Nov. 13, the records that would show City staff had miss-led the public regarding the logging and tree farming in the Cawthra Bush, were being withheld till after the election. A political agenda. * Due to environmentally concerns about the watermain that was going to be installed down the east side of the Cawthra Bush, in the winter of 1994/95, it was hoped FOI requests could be made to review the City's records. As the Mayor shut down FOI requests regarding the Cawthra Bush this could not be done and the community was denied their right review government records. A video tape showing thousands of gallons of water, per-day, flowing in the trench that the watermain sits in, activity covered up by City politicians and staff. * After my first FOI request it was agreed to between J. LeFeuvre and me that I would be submitting FOI request in letter form. These letters failed to specifically state that the request is under the FOI Act. None the less, J. LeFeuvre processed the requests as FOI requests, under the FOI Act and the IPC often treated them as FOI requests. The claim that my requests were not FOI request due to that detail doesn't stand up to the facts or Canadian law. It would be unprofessional for her to delay any of my requests claiming that reason and especially given the fact she had not inform me in writing, that was a problem. Further more even after this issue was raised in regards to why my requests were not being processing under the FOI Act, she continues to process these so-called non-FOI requests, under the FOI Act rules! Most importantly, J. LeFeuvre refused to properly process FOI requests that clearly stated they were FOI request. How is it reasonable to expected that I would know how to deal with the City staff and treat them like they were honest, competent, professionals, with this going on? How could anyone? Without a lawyer that is. * She has stated in official City letters, in writing and signed by her, that my requests would be dealt with "pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act" or otherwise under the FOI Act. She then goes on to break her word/promise, often without given cause or written notice, proving to me that she has no professional integrity or honour. * J. LeFeuvre's and A. Grannum's job was and by the power invested/delegated to them by City Council (City By-Law 53-91), to carry out the FOI Act impartiality and free of political bias. Instead they both showed how bias and prejudice they are toward aiding politicians who can further their careers and increasing their pay cheques. * She, under the direction of the Mayor, uses various methods to delay and deny access to City records, including 12 DEEMED REFUSALS (also counted the first time a request was not responded to). * In the letter from the IPC, dated Dec. 21/94, it notes "I acknowledged that there was some justification for your view that the City should have clearly indicated to you that it would no longer be processing your requests without a specific reference to the Act." A clear statement of fact that the City changed the method it was dealing with my requests without proper notice to me. Right after the July 19/94, meeting the rules changed regarding my FOI requests. This was done to keep the Mayor's promise to not provide the records, by firstly unlawfully shutting down the FOI process and requiring all requests to her office. Secondly, not putting in writing why, so I could not use legal methods to challenge their actions or inform the public of her actions. Thirdly, by denying me service to ensure I would not find other ways to purse my FOI requests. This is all designed to increase the delay in accessing records. It is a totally unprofessional to suddenly change your mind without notice, especially as both the City and the IPC were treating my requests as official FOI requests. It was also stated in this letter "The City also advised me, however, that in their view they had identified for you that your requests were being processed in a different manner." The FOI Act is clear in how requests are to handled, the City was not doing so and was not granting access period! It is amazing how the IPC kowtows to the City but then again the IPC has no power to enforce the FOI Act and I am just a poor Canadian peasant. * It needs to be noted that after July 19/94, both the City and the IPC dealt with a number of my requests that were as the City claimed not official FOI requests, as official FOI request. Even into the Appeal/Inquiry process and as far as I know, the City did not try to claim that as they were not FOI requests they should not be dealt with by the IPC. * The City's claim that my requests were not official FOI requests was dealt with by resubmitting them as official FOI requests. And because the City still would not respond to my FOI requests there can be no doubt J. LeFeuvre was knowingly and deliberately carrying out the unlawfully political agenda, as directed by the Mayor, to delay and deny me my rights as a Canadian citizen to access government records and supply them to the greater community. * In my Aug. 19/94, letter I noted to the IPC that both the City of Mississauga Clerk's and FOI staff were unlawfully refusing my official FOI request and informing me to delivering them to the Mayor's office. Clear proof they were knowingly and deliberately carrying out an unlawfully political agenda, as directed by the Mayor. * It should not be forgotten Arthur Grannum is in the back ground operating as J. LeFeuvre as superior and often reviews her actions/decisions. It is his job and responsibility to know what is going on regarding how my request were being handled, especially after representing the Clerk's Dept. at the July 19/94, meeting. * Arthur Grannum is a former Executive Assistant to the Mayor and used to trying orders from the Mayor. http://home.eol.ca/~donbar/Animal/catshelter/LAug0189-2.htm * J. LeFeuvre has had two successful Compliance complaints was made against her. 1). Information and Privacy Commissioner's Investigation, I94-045M (compliance), found that Joan LeFeuvre violated the privacy section of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, by improperly providing to City staff with my personal information to City staff. 2). Information and Privacy Commissioner's Investigation, I95-091M (compliance), found that Joan LeFeuvre violated the privacy section of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, by improperly providing my personal information/FOI requests to the Mayor. * In regards to denying me service and knowingly miss-interpreting my requests, to deny me records, the false statements J. LeFeuvre has made about the City's computerized records filing system, ARIS, are such that it is more then likely she has also filed with the IPC a false affidavit about the City's ARIS system and my FOI requests. She has provided in writing, more then once the following statement "The Active Records Indexing System (ARIS)is a database of all the City's active records. This database contains approximately 300,000 entries. One page would contain 50 entries, therefore, it will result in a document of approximately 6,000 pages. Because not all 300,000 records are accessible to the public; staff would have to manually sever reference to such records. This will further increase the cost associated with such records being provided to a member of the public." As she is the City's Manager of Administration & Records, we should not believe she is as dumb or as incompetent as she is acting or as the British would call it, playing silly bugger. Any computerized filing system that is worth its salt allows you to sort records by its number code, or cross reference by subject or content of the file. It would create a print out of only those files that, say relate to the Cawthra Bush. I was given proof of this and that City staff have a print outs of ARIS files that they used on a day to day basis. Therefore, J. LeFeuvre's above statement is a falsehood designed to deceive both the IPC and me in order to deny me access to City records. Another statement that was made was that it took the City three hours to create one page that lists ARIS codes and locations of files. What I am supplying in this letter took less then 5 minutes to create or just photocopy. I even presented my proof to her and all she could say was it was an error (not her's), to have supplied me with ARIS records. In conclusion; As J. LeFeuvre has in the past made false and miss-leading statements regarding the nature and how the City's files operate, in order to keep the Mayor's promise to withhold records. And that it is likely she even signed an affidavit to back up her statements. Her current statements about security records only being filed by date with no cross references regarding the content of the records should be viewed as a false statement. Also that the facts she is withholding service from the requester and making a claim of a vexatious request which is the result of her refusal to work with the requester to sort out issues, should also be viewed as J. LeFeuvre's keeping Hazel McCallions promise. The IPC have never dealt properly with the ARIS issue and instead has sided, improperly with the City. I believe this was done out of fear that the Hazel method, of unlawfully shutting down the FOI Act whenever a politician cared to, could spread to other municipalities. The IPC informed me they have no power to actually require municipalities to carry out the FOI Act. As well as, a way to avoid dealing with statements J. LeFeuvre likely made and backed up by an affidavit regarding the City's ARIS system. Further more if I had been successful with getting access to the City's computerized records filing system, it would have set a huge legal precedent that would mean Canadian's could use the governments own filing system to get access to government records. In effect turning government offices into a form of library! So you see I had to be stopped at any cost. The IPC and the City of Mississauga both took advantage of the fact I was too poor to hire a lawyer or otherwise buy justice. * J. LeFeuvre became more creative in her methods to delay and deny me access. Wrongly interpreting my requests (and refusing to listen to me about what the requests is), denying me service (refusing to explain how records are kept), presenting me with very large bills for records and not working with me to keep costs down. J. LeFeuvre knows that withhold service will frustrate me and upset me. That I will strongly express myself about her refusal to provide reasonable service and she will use that as a excuse to deny me service. She is provoking and goading me, as a bully would. The things people do for their pay cheque. I am using the FOI Act to uphold Canadian democratic rights. * In a letter from the Mayor dated Jan. 24/96, item #2, the Mayor openly confesses to being involved in my FOI requests which by City By-Law 53-91, is unlawful for her to do. Nowhere have I seen either J. LeFeuvre or A. Grannum even questioning the Mayor's involvement in my FOI requests. To a reasonable and fair person they would be seen as not carrying out their lawful duties but rather the political agenda of their boss. * Further to the issue of the Mayor violating the City By-Law 53-91, the By-Law that states the Mayor has delegated her powers and duties regarding carrying out the FOI Act, to the City Clerk. The IPC has reviewed the facts in Investigation I95-091M and found the Mayor acted improperly. The Mayor can be shown to have a pattern of conduct where she unlawfully involves herself in affairs that are to her, self serving. * Currently, the City is making every effort to stop me from knowing what staff is writing about me from knowing what staff are told to do around me. To make sure I will not be allowed my legal right under the FOI Act to make corrections/additions to records about me. In doing so, to defeat one of the main intents and purposes of the FOI act. It is clear the Mayor was to create a false paper history to cause me legal and more then likely physical harm, to frighten members of the community from a just casue. Again a politicians agenda. I would not be the only one they have used this method on, more on my web-site http://home.eol.ca/~donbar/Unions/Untofc.htm Request #1, dated Mar. 14/94 FOI Request No. 94-000061 DETAILS: - Done on FOI request form & on an attached sheet of lined paper. - No Appeal & no problem. Request #2, dated Apr. 28/94 FOI Request No. 94-000090 DETAILS: - It was agreed, between Joan LeFeuvre and myself, that the FOI Act allowed requests for records to be made in letter form and that I would be submitting my FOI requests in letter form. My request letter doesn't specifically state that the request is under the FOI Act, as it agreed to before hand, that it would be. - May 9/94, the acknowledgment letter from the City of Mississauga states, "This acknowledges receipt of your request pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which was received in our office Apr. 29/94. According to the provisions of the Act, we must respond to your request within 30 days of receipt." and she did. - It is given a FOI request number and fees were charged under Section 45 of the FOI Act. - The FOI Act was fully applied to this request. It was Appealed, Meditated, an Inquiry held and an Order issued all under the FOI Act. Request #3, dated May 2/94 FOI Request No. 94-000091 DETAILS: - My request letter doesn't specifically state that the request is under the FOI Act, as it agreed to before hand, that it would be. - May 9/94, the acknowledgment letter from the City of Mississauga states, "This acknowledges receipt of your request pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which was received in our office May 3/94. According to the provisions of the Act, we must respond to your request within 30 days of receipt." and she did. - It is given a FOI request number. - Fees were charged under Section 45 of the FOI Act. - The FOI Act was fully applied to this request. It was Appealed, Meditated, an Inquiry held and an Order issued all under the FOI Act. Request #4, dated May 3/94 FOI Request No. 94-000093 DETAILS: - My request letter doesn't specifically state that the request is under the FOI Act, as it agreed to before hand, that it would be. - May 9/94, the acknowledgment letter from the City of Mississauga states, "This acknowledges receipt of your request pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which was received in our office May 4/94. According to the provisions of the Act, we must respond to your request within 30 days of receipt." and she did. - It is given a FOI request number. - The FOI Act was fully applied to this request. It was Appealed, Meditated, an Inquiry held and an Order issued all under the FOI Act. Request #5, dated May 24/94 FOI Request No. 94-000110 DETAILS: - My request letter doesn't specifically state that the request is under the FOI Act, as it agreed to before hand, that it would be. - Jun. 1/94, the acknowledgment letter from the City of Mississauga states, "This acknowledges receipt of your request pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which was received in our office May 25/94. According to the provisions of the Act, we must respond to your request within 30 days of receipt." and she did. - It is given a FOI request number - Fees were not charged in this case under Section 8(2) of the Ontario Regulation 517/90. - Sections of the FOI Act that deny access to certain records were applied. - Appealed. - Order M-442 - Jan. 16/95, orders the City to search again. - J. LeFeuvre doesn't inform me of the results of her search and she sends me a letter of apology, further proof of her cutting me out of the loop to deny reasonable service. - The FOI Act was fully applied to this request. It was Appealed, Meditated, an Inquiry held and an Order issued all under the FOI Act. Request #6, dated June 3/94 FOI Request No. 94-000114 DETAILS: - My request letter doesn't specifically state that the request is under the FOI Act, as it agreed to before hand, that it would be. - Jun. 8/94, the acknowledgment letter from the City of Mississauga states, "This acknowledges receipt of your request pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which was received in our office Jun. 3/94. According to the provisions of the Act, we must respond to your request within 30 days of receipt." and she did. - It is given a FOI request number - Fees were charged under Section 45 of the FOI Act. - Appealed. - In the letter from the IPC dated Aug. 19/94, it is noted that this request doesn't specifically state that the request is under the FOI Act. To counter, a decision letter from the City dated July 20/94, one date after the meeting with the Mayor and it does not make any mention of there being a problem as request not made under the FOI Act, is provided. Clearly the FOI Co-ordinator didn't consider that to be an issue. I was able to prove the City had responded to this request under the FOI Act and an Appeal was opened. - I had requested the fees to be waived (under the FOI Act), because I was acting on behalf of the community was denied. - Order M-509, Apr. 13/95, upholds the fees the City was charging. The fee of $92.20 was paid. - The FOI Act was fully applied to this request. It was Appealed, Meditated, an Inquiry held and an Order issued all under the FOI Act. Request #7, dated June 20/94 FOI Request No. 94-000136 MAYOR INTERFERED DETAILS: - 5 page main letter listing all questions, then broken up into 3 sections to go to the three named people; John Rydzewski 1 page, Peter Lyons 4 pages, Grant Walton 4 pages. - My original request letter doesn't specifically state that the request is under the FOI Act, as it agreed to before hand, that it would be. - June 22/94, the acknowledgment letter from J. LeFeuvre doesn't state it will be dealt with as a FOI request and states she has forwarded the letter directly to a person the letter specifically states, should not be informed, as to who is making this request for information. - As J. LeFeuvre handed out a confidential letter a Compliance complaint was made against her, Investigation I94-45M. The result of which was to support my claim of wrong doing on J. LeFeuvre's part and the City was instructed to make sure it didn't happen again, Oct. 25/94. - The FOI Act doesn't allow the FOI Coordinator, J. LeFeuvre, to end communications for more then 30 days for requests made under the FOI Act, without just cause and none was provided. - Aug. 18/94, the same request, this time specifically stating that the request is under the FOI Act, was presented to the City. As a result the Mayor's direct inference in the FOI process, the Clerks and FOI staff refused to receive an official FOI request. They both directed me to deliver an official FOI request to the Mayor's office, in direct violation of City By-Law 53-91. Believing I had no other choice, except to not make a request, I unwillingly deliver them to the Mayor's office. There was no response from the Mayor's office regarding this request. - The FOI Act states the FOI Coordinator, J. LeFeuvre, is to respond in 30 day to requests made under the FOI Act. No acknowledgment letter within the 30 days. - IPC, starts an Appeal as an unjustified DEEMED REFUSAL of service under the FOI Act, Oct. 6/94. In other words the City is refusing to respond to my lawful and official requests. Refusing to carry out its legal duties and responsibilities, as set out in Provincial legislation. - Jan. 17/95, a decision letter from J. LeFeuvre under the FOI Act. - It is interesting to note the FOI numbers assigned to my requests. Even if the responses are months from when the requests were, they appear to be in order. Even requests responded to in 1995, have early 1994 numbers. It appears that requests that were filed with the Mayor, did end up in J. LeFeuvre care, files were started but no other action for months. Till after the 1994 municipal election in Nov. and too late for the community to fight the watermain that went in that winter. If 136 & 137 were not responded to as a FOI request till much later then how did they get FOI numbers before 138 that was responded to July 20/94? Request #8, dated June 24/94 FOI Request No. 94-000137 MAYOR INTERFERED DETAILS: - My original request letter doesn't specifically state that the request is under the FOI Act, as it agreed to before hand, that it would be. - The FOI Act states the FOI Coordinator, J. LeFeuvre, is to respond in 30 day to requests made under the FOI Act. No acknowledgment letter within the 30 days. - Aug. 18/94, the same request, this time specifically stating that the request is under the FOI Act, was presented to the City. As a result the Mayor's direct inference in the FOI process, the Clerks and FOI staff refused to receive an official FOI request. They both directed me to deliver an official FOI request to the Mayor's office, in direct violation of City By-Law 53-91. Believing I had no other choice, except to not make a request, I unwillingly deliver them to the Mayor's office. There was no response from the Mayor's office regarding this request. - The FOI Act states the FOI Coordinator, J. LeFeuvre, is to respond in 30 day to requests made under the FOI Act. No acknowledgment letter within the 30 days. - IPC, starts an Appeal as an unjustified DEEMED REFUSAL of service under the FOI Act, Oct. 6/94. In other words the City is refusing to respond to my lawful and official requests. Refusing to carry out its legal duties and responsibilities, as set out in Provincial legislation. - Dec. 8/94, a response under the FOI Act and a request from J. LeFeuvre to give her permission to refer a portion of my request to the appropriate person. Delay method. - Appealed. - It is interesting to note the FOI numbers assigned to my requests. Even if the responses are months from when the requests were, they appear to be in order. Even requests responded to in 1995, have early 1994 numbers. It appears that requests that were filed with the Mayor, did end up in Request #9, dated June 27/94 FOI Request No. 94-000138 DETAILS: - My original request letter doesn't specifically state that the request is under the FOI Act, as it agreed to before hand, that it would be. - July. 20/94, the acknowledgment letter from the City of Mississauga states, "This is in response to your request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act received on June 28/94,". She responded to items as questions. She didn't respond to this request after this point. - Aug. 18/94, the same request, this time specifically stating that the request is under the FOI Act, was presented to the City. As a result the Mayor's direct inference in the FOI process, the Clerks and FOI staff refused to receive an official FOI request. They both directed me to deliver an official FOI request to the Mayor's office, in direct violation of City By-Law 53-91. Believing I had no other choice, except to not make a request, I unwillingly deliver them to the Mayor's office. There was no response from the Mayor's office regarding this request. - The FOI Act states the FOI Coordinator, J. LeFeuvre, is to respond in 30 day to requests made under the FOI Act. No acknowledgment letter within the 30 days. - It is interesting to note the FOI numbers assigned to my requests. Even if the responses are months from when the requests were, they appear to be in order. Even requests responded to in 1995, have early 1994 numbers. It appears that requests that were filed with the Mayor, did end up in J. LeFeuvre care, files were started but no other action for months. Till after the 1994 municipal election in Nov. and too late for the community to fight the watermain that went in that winter. If 136 & 137 were not responded to as a FOI request till much later then how did they get FOI numbers before 138 that was responded to July 20/94? Request #10, dated July 8/94 FOI Request No. 94-000247 MAYOR INTERFERED DETAILS: - My original request letter doesn't specifically state that the request is under the FOI Act, as it agreed to before hand, that it would be. - The FOI Act states the FOI Coordinator, J. LeFeuvre, is to respond in 30 day to requests made under the FOI Act. No acknowledgment letter within the 30 days. - Aug. 18/94, the same request, this time specifically stating that the request is under the FOI Act, was presented to the City. As a result the Mayor's direct inference in the FOI process, the Clerks and FOI staff refused to receive an official FOI request. They both directed me to deliver an official FOI request to the Mayor's office, in direct violation of City By-Law 53-91. Believing I had no other choice, except to not make a request, I unwillingly deliver them to the Mayor's office. There was no response from the Mayor's office regarding this request. - The FOI Act states the FOI Coordinator, J. LeFeuvre, is to respond in 30 day to requests made under the FOI Act. No acknowledgment letter within the 30 days. - IPC, starts an Appeal as an unjustified DEEMED REFUSAL of service under the FOI Act, Oct. 6/94. In other words the City is refusing to respond to my lawful and official requests. Refusing to carry out its legal duties and responsibilities, as set out in Provincial legislation. - Dec. 8/94, J. LeFeuvre response to my original Jul. 8/94, letter and does not note that my request is under the FOI Act but does give it an FOI request number. How strange? - Jan. 12/95, J. LeFeuvre responses under the FOI Act. Request #11, dated July 19/94 FOI Request No. 94-000246 MAYOR INTERFERED DETAILS: - My original request letter doesn't specifically state that the request is under the FOI Act, as it agreed to before hand, that it would be. - The FOI Act states the FOI Coordinator, J. LeFeuvre, is to respond in 30 day to requests made under the FOI Act. No acknowledgment letter within the 30 days. - Aug. 18/94, the same request, this time specifically stating that the request is under the FOI Act, was presented to the City. As a result the Mayor's direct inference in the FOI process, the Clerks and FOI staff refused to receive official FOI request, they both had directed me to deliver an official FOI request to the Mayor's office. In direct violation of City By-Law 53-91. Believing I no other choice, except not make a request, I unwillingly deliver them to the Mayor's office. There was no response from the Mayor's office regarding this request. - The FOI Act states the FOI Coordinator, J. LeFeuvre, is to respond in 30 day to requests made under the FOI Act. No acknowledgment letter within the 30 days. - IPC, starts an Appeal as an unjustified DEEMED REFUSAL of service under the FOI Act, Oct. 6/94. In other words the City is refusing to respond to my lawful and official requests. Refusing to carry out its legal duties and responsibilities, as set out in Provincial legislation. - Dec. 8/94, J. LeFeuvre response to my original Jul. 19/94, letter under the FOI Act and does give it an FOI request number. How strange? She also states that the request is being forwarded to Community services. - Jan. 18/95, J. LeFeuvre responses under the FOI Act. Request #12, dated Aug. 18/94 FOI Request No. 94-000225 MAYOR INTERFERED DETAILS: - Aug. 18/94, a FOI request was made specifically stating that it was under the FOI Act, was presented to the City. As a result the Mayor's direct inference in the FOI process, the Clerks and FOI staff refused to receive an official FOI request, they both had directed me to deliver an official FOI request to the Mayor's office. In direct violation of City By-Law 53-91. Believing I no other choice, except not make a request, I unwillingly deliver them to the Mayor's office. There was no response from the Mayor's office regarding this request. - The FOI Act states the FOI Coordinator, J. LeFeuvre, is to respond in 30 day to requests made under the FOI Act. No acknowledgment letter within the 30 days. - IPC, starts an Appeal as an unjustified DEEMED REFUSAL of service under the FOI Act, Oct. 6/94. In other words the City is refusing to respond to my lawful and official requests. Refusing to carry out its legal duties and responsibilities, as set out in Provincial legislation. - Nov. 24/94, J. LeFeuvre responds under the FOI Act and does give it an FOI request number. She also asks for my permission to forward the request to Community services. - Jan. 12/95, J. LeFeuvre responses stating my request "is being processed as expeditiously as possible." By law that is 30 days. - Feb. 14/94, a decision letter. Request #13, dated Sept. 13/94 FOI Request No. 94-000227 MAYOR INTERFERED DETAILS: - Sept. 12/94, a FOI request was made specifically stating that it was under the FOI Act, was presented to the City. The request was faxed to J. LeFeuvre's office. - The FOI Act states the FOI Coordinator, J. LeFeuvre, is to respond in 30 day to requests made under the FOI Act. No acknowledgment letter within the 30 days. - Dec. 8/94, J. LeFeuvre response under the FOI Act and does give it an FOI request number. She also states that the request is being forwarded to Community services and City Managers office. They are "asked to respond to our office as expeditiously as possible." - Jan. 25/94, a decision letter with a very large fee. Request #14, dated Oct. 18/94 FOI Request No. 94-000228 MAYOR INTERFERED DETAILS: - Oct. 18/94, a FOI request was made specifically stating that it was under the FOI Act, was presented to the City. As a result the Mayor's direct inference in the FOI process, the FOI staff refused to receive an official FOI request, she directed me to deliver an official FOI request to the Mayor's office. In direct violation of City By-Law 53-91. Believing I no other choice, except not make a request, I unwillingly deliver them to the Mayor's office. There was no response from the Mayor's office regarding this request. - The FOI Act states the FOI Coordinator, J. LeFeuvre, is to respond in 30 day to requests made under the FOI Act. No acknowledgment letter within the 30 days. - Dec. 8/94, J. LeFeuvre responds under the FOI Act and does give it an FOI request number. She asks for clarification of my request. Important background information regarding the Mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion. * There are serious questions about the Mayor's (81 year old), mental and moral state. On my web-site you can hear her say there is a "coup" ("There is a coup going on, there is no question about it, Mr. Barber is a member of it and I hope no member of Council are involved."), that is out to get her and that I am a part of it. Surely this can be seen as an example of how she is unreasonably over reacting in her treatment of what she perceives as a political threat to her, something likely to increase given her advanced age. Which makes her all the more dangerous to me. The purpose of my current request is to get access to City records in the hope of fighting off the Mayor's efforts at getting City staff to falsify records to cause me legal harm, before the Mayor puts her plan in motion. Mine and other supporters in the community, have their personal safety at risk, due to the Mayor's actions. A greater onus is on the IPC to make sure I get access to the City records and expose these efforts, in order to stop them. * Hazel McCallion sound bite about the "coup" on my web-site at http://home.eol.ca/~donbar/ * Hazel has been the Mayor of Mississauga for some 25 years. Many civilized democracy have term limits to keep politicians from being in power so long they can place their people/team in all the key positions and then it is their way or the highway. * As the Mayor has a history of over stepping the legal boundaries of her office, detailed below, and been found to have committed a conflict of interest with conducting her duties as Mayor. This is an important issue as the Mayor provides the moral leadership for City staff, moral and proper conduct is the central issue here. The following is only provided as background to other events going on in Mississauga that add an air of concern. I am not asking for the IPC to become involved in the below events. Having shown that City staff have offended, re-offended and are likely to re-offend in regards to violating provincial legislation to serve a politicians agenda, the question needs to be asked is Hazel McCallion the kind of person to direct staff to violate provincial legislation to serve her politicians agenda? As the Mayor provides the moral leadership for the ship of state, is the captain, personally, capable of allowing, directing and generally letting flourish a corporate culture as corrupt as noted in this letter? Consider the following. 1982 July 22, County Court, Judicial District of Peel, Ontario, West Co. Ct.J. - RE Graham and McCallion - Municipal law - Conflict of interest and duty - Mayor (not) declaring conflict. Hazel McCallion was found to have violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act 1980. It was found she had "breached the Act in all four ways in which the Act could be breached". The judgement to pay the cost was upheld in Appeal, High Court of Justice Divisional Court, Sept. 30/82. The Appeal came just before the election and surprisingly fast. It should be noted that in 1984 a subdivision application was filed for her land (the same one that got her in trouble in 82), which didn't fulfill the legal requirements of properly declaring who the legal land owner was and who was the legally authorize agent, to deal with the City/Peel, regarding the subdivision application. It was refereed to as "Willson McTavish "In Trust"". Mr. McTavish is now a prominent lawyer in the provincial government and says he only "lent his name" to the application. Details are on my web-site, http://home.eol.ca/~donbar/politics/dem-rep.htm#15 One of the first things Hazel McCallion did in 1974 (Mar. 12), when the City of Mississauga was created and she was elected as a Councillor, was to set up a company, Macran Associates Limited. This company could do land development and John Downing wrote an article about a land purchase and sale that made $132,900 in just seven months. As well as other disturbing facts about how Hazel's business partner was appointed and reappointed to the City of Mississauga's committee of adjustment and the Peel land division committee, a key position for a developer. Again details on my web-site, http://home.eol.ca/~donbar/politics/dem-rep.htm#10 The most telling proof threat, that her worship's leadership posses to our government and our rights as Canadians, is the new "Vandalism and Violence in City Facilities", policy, that is so extreme, it can be called fascist. This new policy is an act of violence against the community with its police state rules. Again you have to question the mental state of a person who promotes, as Hazel has, this kind of paranoid law making. This policy sets up a new legal system in the City with a set of laws designed to be abused. The vast majority of Mississaugans' were not asked for input or told its details. I asked Council to post notice of this policy so all Mississaugans would know what is going on and was refused. This policy is better suited to going after those who oppose politicians, then for sports. This policy covers all City property including all parks and buildings with the rules of a concentration camp. The City claims this policy is for stopping sport's violence but you can't even have a hockey game now that it is illegal (Zero Tolerance), to use a threatening tone, rasing your voice is verbal assault, to deliberately throw articles, whatever can be interpreted as an attempt at intimidation or to goad others, are now called acts of violence. Parents are required to sign forms like criminals, saying they will not be violent. A true insult to Canadians, what happened to being innocence till proven guilty. By the way this policy applies to the public, not City staff. Worse of all, City Staff can use it as a weapon against the public, to be confrontational toward the public, as they do toward me. The City Manager has confirmed it. City staff need only say they felt a little intimidated to refuse service. Staff can also bait you by frustrating you till, you raise your voice, call that a violent act and refuse to serve you. They can also call the police on you at the drop of a hat, their word matters not yours. Using human natural against people is a predator thing to do. What this means is that taxpaying Canadians must be meek and submissive toward City politicians and staff. Is that what Canadians fought in two World Wars for? More at http://home.eol.ca/~donbar/city-by-laws/comentv&v-long.htm There are many other examples of the Mayor's and City staff's abuse of power on my web-site. Background information regarding the 2000 and past elections. This from my Nov. 9/00, letter. "The two persons, Arthur Grannum, Director of Legislative Services and Deputy City Clerk and Joan LeFeuvre, Manager of Administration & Records/Freedom of Information Co-ordinator have in the past been involved with and at the direction of the Mayor, Hazel McCallion (a politician who is currently seeking re-election), violated provincial legislation, violated a City By-Law and a signing false affidavit." "At the Nov. 2, test of the voting machines, a time to question the integrity of the voting process, they were asked if any persons who had violated provincial legislation or signed false affidavits, were involved in the overseeing the election process. The question was not answered and I was told that was not the place to ask such a question." More on my web-site http://home.eol.ca/~donbar/elections/Formal-request.htm On election night 1994, I watched 200+ votes change from one candidate to another, who just happened to be a Councillor's secretary. I enquired about what happened but an explanation was not provided by the City Clerk. In the 2000 election J. LeFeuvre and A. Grannum were running the show and when I asked if on election night, I could over see the activities in the counting room (as a candidate should be allowed and has been the case in the past), I was told no. To run an election with no over seeing is an offence to the very natural of democracy. Even third world countries run by directors have fairer elections. How can those who a running the election make sure it use done honestly if they are locked out candidates from the counting room? But fair is not what Mississauga is about. (the below oath was filled out and sworn to) I ______Donald Barber________ DO SOLEMNLY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE LETTER IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND THAT all comments, opinions express are fair and honest, backed up by documents and other evidence. That the purpose of this letter is not in any way an attempt to defame, libel or slander anyone. In fact, it is a honest and sincere effort to seek relief from the conduct of those noted in this letter. DECLARED before me ____ (Commissioner of Oaths)______ at the town of Oakville, Region of Halton. On May ______________ 2001 Please find enclosed: Sincerely, Donald Barber |
Your Financial Donations are Greatly Appreciated The • |