Scanned, recopied or Internet copy, if there are errors, please e-mail me with corrections:
Opening comments: More at the end.
To the main Judicial Inquiry page - to the Hazel McCallion page.
Mississauga News - Jul. 6, 2010 - By Louie Rosella - lrosella@mississauga.net
Mayor cries foul at inquiry
Inquiry.
Mayor Hazel McCallion's lawyer Elizabeth McIntyre (centre) gets ready for this afternoon's session of the
Mississauga judicial inquiry at Provincial Court. Staff photo by Fred Loek
The second phase of the Mississauga judicial inquiry opened with a bang this afternoon, with Mayor Hazel McCallion and her lawyer accusing the court of being unfair and "changing the rules" to the mayor's detriment.
"The mayor's primary concern is that these hearings are fair. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is not fair," said McCallion's lawyer, Elizabeth McIntyre. "The mayor's conduct must be judged by the rules that were in place at the time, not by rules that didn't apply at the time or that some people believe should have applied."
This phase of the inquiry will probe conflict of interest allegations against the mayor and the role her son, Peter McCallion, played in a $14.4-million failed bid by his company, World Class Developments Ltd. (WCD), to purchase a 3.5-hectare parcel of City Centre land owned by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS).
WCD hoped to build a hotel and convention centre on the site.
The deal, which eventually fell through, involved private meetings between Mayor McCallion, the developer and OMERS while zoning of the land was still before Council. OMERS subsequently sold the land to the City, which, in turn, leased it to Sheridan College.
McCallion and her son are expected to testify during proceedings.
McIntyre took issue with Commission counsel William McDowell suggesting that commissioner Douglas Cunningham use the 2006 Municipal Employees Code, which excludes elected officials, or a 2009 draft "code of conduct" for the mayor and councillors that isn't yet in effect and wasn't in place at the time of the matters in question to decide whether the mayor was in a conflict of interest.
McCallion objected and in a media release issued this afternoon called it a "legal and jurisdictional error."
"The mayor conducted herself in reliance on the rules as they existed at the time and still exist," McIntyre told court. "To retroactively change the rules to her detriment doesn't accord with any view of procedural fairness."
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which was in place at the time, refers only to a member's behaviour at council and any attempts to influence the vote of council members, McIntyre said.
It doesn't, however, prevent the mayor from attending business meetings and giving advice regarding the City's desires and recommendations, McIntyre said, noting the City hired an outside lawyer to review the case — prior to the calling of the inquiry — who determined the mayor wasn't in a conflict.
Peter McCallion's lawyer, Luisa Ritacca, agreed with McIntyre's argument.
Cunningham appeared upset that McIntyre asked for a hearing at the last minute to define conflict of interest.
"Why are we hearing about this now," when the inquiry's terms of reference were approved late last year? Cunningham asked.
McIntyre said she and the mayor wanted clarification. Both were unaware the commissioner would be asked to apply new policies that weren't in place during the land deal talks to decide whether there was misconduct.
McDowell argued that just because there was no legislation dealing with the type of alleged misconduct being argued, that doesn't mean the commissioner should be prohibited from finding wrongdoing.
Cunningham should use a common-sense approach, McDowell said.
"You should use an objective test on what a reasonable person would regard as misconduct or conflict of interest," he said. "You are charged with finding whether the actions of officials or the mayor amounted to conflict of interest."
McDowell added the mayor took an oath to serve office "truthfully, faithfully and impartially."
"This mayor has probably sworn this oath more times than any other mayor in the history of Ontario," he said.
The first phase of the inquiry dealt with the controversial Enersource deal in 2000 that gave OMERS, a minority shareholder, unusual veto powers over the City-owned hydro utility.
The inquiry continues Thursday.
Comments by others - 11 - to this web-page at time of posting;
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 8, 2010 12:24 PM
@ The Mississauga Moose
Regarding the pic at "http://www.flickr.com/photos/43172810@N00/3549015999/ I agree. The photo does do me justice. Notice the message! "QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES?" In Mississauga? NO ONE. As the Inquiry is discovering with new revelation. Notice too that I'm wearing a Malton hockey sweater. I've been trying unsuccessfully since September 2007 for Mississauga to investigate the treatment of youth/minors (especially blacks) at Malton Community Centre. Also went up before Council to try and get a Peel Police officer inside Malton Community Centre as a mini-Community Station there. "QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES?" No one.
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Jul 8, 2010 12:11 PM
Snap -- Here is your deal of the week
"Court documents from a recently settled business dispute show McCallion participated in a second private meeting about the project last December, as World Class Development's deal with OMERS was unravelling – while the zoning issues were still before council." "McCallion has defended her actions by saying she could not absolve herself completely from city matters even when they involved her son, adding she believed conflict-of-interest provisions applied only to council meetings." from Sept 30, 2009 Toronto Star. Let me guess I made that up. OK. I did your research for you. Now you get off the couch and read the affadavits. Call your Councillor and ask for a set to be dropped to your mom's basement. I know my stuff but you offer nothing in your blind defense of a Mayor who admits wrongdoing.
* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 8, 2010 11:41 AM
Toronto Star article "McCallion’s lawyers lose fight to limit inquiry Judge refuses to narrowly define conflict of interest "
[all cut-and-paste] Phinjo Gombu Urban Affairs Reporter The judge overseeing the Mississauga judicial inquiry has rejected attempts by Mayor Hazel McCallion’s lawyers to narrow the council-ordered probe of a controversial land deal involving her son. “Members of city council are entrusted by those who elect them to act in the public interest,” said Justice Cunningham in a strongly worded ruling today. The decision is the first setback for the veteran mayor at the inquiry.
* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Jul 8, 2010 10:29 AM
Snap Snap or which McCallion are you?
I read the court documents what is your fear? Why are you opposed to understanding the facts? So as I understand it you want everyone to run around for you while you retain the right to claim all is well. Dude the 1950s are over. Time to get out of mommy's basement and crack a book. Make the call. Read for yourself. I know attacking the Muse is your new fun time but really that is a priority when our Mayor is subject to a Judicial Inquiry. Priorities time.
* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Snap
Jul 8, 2010 9:43 AM
Research Yourself
I'm not going to you your research for you. YOU find the doc and present it. Don't get Muse to do it. You are the one who threw an accusation out there. BACK IT UP with an actual quote.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 5
ComeOn
Jul 8, 2010 9:40 AM
Snap Education Time
Snap call your councillor (even if it is one of the Hazel appologists)and ask for a copy of Peter McCallion's affadavit and the corresponding OMERS affadavit. Just the fact these docs exists blows a big hole in the so called lawyers opinion on Hazel and the conflict issue -- but we are way beyond that now into big time No No land for a politician of Hazel's stature. I digress. Read the COURT FILED PUBLIC DOCUMENTS (Muse follow along here) and read the emais from one party and check dates and TADA -- a mess worthy of complete public outrage. Here is the irony -- few are ready the court docs. There seems to me quite a bit of inappropriate behaviour. You read it Snap and then lets discuss. I am ready when you are.
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Jul 8, 2010 9:35 AM
FACTS -- Snap -- FACTS
Hazel McCallion admitted to the world that she met with her sons partners and dragged some senior staff along at least once. I think you will find that when the total picture comes out it is faaaaarrrr more alarming than even that admission. Remember Snap not me saying it HAZEL DID. I know that for you shooing the messenger is fun but this is serious stuff here.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 8, 2010 9:09 AM
Toronto Star article McCallion’s lawyers push to narrow inquiry’s scope (all cut-and-paste below)
We say it is open to you not to define the phrase ‘conflict of interest’ or misconduct,” said McDowell. “We do not know the extent of the all the relationships among the players.” McDowell said the mayor’s position was akin to saying that, other than refraining from voting, she was free to be involved in the financial interests of her son’s company — the very issues the inquiry is considering. Lawyer Clifford Lax, who represents Mississauga, used stronger language, telling Cunningham that council deliberately left the terms of reference broad to include possible inappropriate conduct that falls outside the provincial act. “Where a municipality has asked you to assist in providing good governance, constraining your ability make recommendations … would defeat the purpose of council having passed their resolution,” Lax said. “I urge you to not fall into the trap of defining this inquiry out of existence.”
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 8, 2010 8:23 AM
@ ComeOn, sorry but you're wrong
You wrote, "However, it is coming and they best get ready to deal with what they will hear -- unless the Mayor is successful in pushing it past the election." Please. I don't care HOW shocking revelations could be, Mississaugans will still vote for Hazel McCallion. Two issues only ever move them. Property values UP. Keep taxes low. I agree with Mantis and ConcernedResident on at least one point. Those two DO represent the Silent Majority of Mississauga residents.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 8, 2010 8:20 AM
@ ComeOn
You wrote, "The question is not is Hazel guilty it is now how much guilt how far does it go." Just a reminder that the Inquiry hasn't presented all its findings yet. Second, my own interest in all this is not so much about Mississauga but Ontario municipal governance in general. I'd been warning for years City Staff's appalling lack of compliance to policies. Warning that Staff don't inform Council about changes in contracts. Warning that McCallion worried about that too (her Audit Committee comments). Elected officials were/are riding the back of a non-compliant tiger --Staff. I'm reminded of parents who brag about their exemplary son (scholarships for university, volunteers in community) yet they don't know that each night he slips out and "bombs" the hell out of the downtown core. Except with Mississauga, there's a lot of hints like empty spray cans.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 1
Tony Jackson
Jul 8, 2010 2:04 AM
ComeOn makes sense...
It appears that Hazel McCallion facilitated the control of the city’s utilities business to her cronies (OMERS) through blatant deceit (slipping veto to the agreement), then channeled her share of the loot (millions of dollars) through her son’s firm orchestrating a land sale drama (later as a secret settlement). It should be a corruption charge when you connect the dots.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Jul 7, 2010 11:31 PM
Hazel was convicted of abusing her office in the past
I am amazed at those who despite knowin Hazel was convicted of abusing her office in the past that she could never do that again. The citys dealings with OMERS forEnersource and the Peter McCallion land deal are connected over and over and over again. Same players in the room for each set of dealings. Did you ever ask yourself why Hazel never is outraged at OMERS sneeking in the vetos? No demands from her to have them give it back or they cheated us or how dare they... nothing except complete loyalty. At her February OMERS love in she ordered council not to keep from the public the veto information and then went on to praise OMERS up and down despite the fact they had put in the vetos without Council approval -- could it be her son had a deal with them that they could yank at any moment so mom has to be nice to the partners. LOOK AT BOTH TIMELINES AND ASK YOURSELF IF ONE HAND IS WASHING THE OTHER!!!
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Jul 7, 2010 11:23 PM
The question is not is Hazel guilty it is now how much guilt how far does it go.
She admits to involving herself and working on her sons land deal. The details here are likely to be quite shocking when it all gets out. However, there is the secret settlement said to be in the millions that is a ticking bomb along with a dozen other large scale scandal bombs. Some here will deny deny I guess it is just too hard for them to accept the facts. However, it is coming and they best get ready to deal with what they will hear -- unless the Mayor is successful in pushing it past the election.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 7, 2010 9:43 PM
I concede and agree completely that Mantis and ConcernedResident represent the majority of Mississaugans.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Mantis
Jul 7, 2010 9:33 PM
@SPAM QUEEN PART 2
I swear that members of council must laugh their heads off at you and Benny Hill and the other tinfoil hatters who show up at every council meeting. The rest of us have jobs to do and we don't have time to obsess over the operation of council. I think Benny Hill does it because he can't accept the fact that he will never sit in the mayor's chair. You on the other hand are harder to nail down. GIven your secret files and other such bizzare behavior, I chalk it up to mental illness.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive 2
Mantis
Jul 7, 2010 9:31 PM
@SPAM QUEEN
As you well know, we repesent a HUGE majority of the citizens of Mississauga and we aren't the least bit silent when it counts - on election day.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive 1
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 7, 2010 6:07 PM
Council was ever-weird today
Mayor McCallion declared conflict of interest for even being an honorary member of the Credit Valley golf/country course! Then Councillor Iannicca declared a conflict once McCallion did. And then Adams...
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 7, 2010 5:33 PM
@fomm
Honestly Muse, I don't understand why you and Uatu started responding to these cretins again. They insult and try to smear anyone who disagrees with them, they lie and make things up, and they refuse to acknowledge anything that proves them wrong. Just ignore them. They are corrupt and they know it. They have no shame and it shows." Ahhhh but they represent Mississauga's Silent Majority, fomm! They represent Mississauga's Silent Majority. And it's crucial that we allow these representatives of the Mayor and her Silent Majority the opportunity to ... you know. :-)
* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
fomm
Jul 7, 2010 4:12 PM
@Muse
Honestly Muse, I don't understand why you and Uatu started responding to these cretins again. They insult and try to smear anyone who disagrees with them, they lie and make things up, and they refuse to acknowledge anything that proves them wrong. Just ignore them. They are corrupt and they know it. They have no shame and it shows.
* Agree 8
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Jul 7, 2010 12:36 PM
Breaking News -- Hazel Not Guilty Under Hazel Law
Hazel's lawyer holds up the City paid for lawyer's report that arrives at the conclusion that Hazel did not commit a conflict of interest as strictly set out under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. So much to say here but this is the BIG point. That report assumes that the deal between her son and OMERS was over on January 9 when OMERS lawyer said it. However, later that same lawyer concedes that the deal will not be over until the court ruled on the lawsuit between Peter McCallion and OMERS which did not happen until that summer OVER A MONTH AFTER THE SO CALLED LAWYERS REPORT WAS FILED WITH COUNClL -- OOOOPS. In other words not such a good assumption for an expert report. Hey media, go back and she all the things that would apply if that assumption is removed -- yup conflict. How seriously stupid would a person have to be not to smell a problem with the Mayor just helping her son and partners out a little. I mean come on according to her friends why not let her have a little extra. One law for u
* Agree 7
* |
* Disagree 1
ComeOn
Jul 7, 2010 12:29 PM
Let me be clear I did not do anything wrong depending on how you define wrong!
Hazel Hazel Hazel. You did not fire this lawyer yet she asked for the court to change its schedule benefit your re-election. She speaks for you when you want to float trial balloons but when she oversteps you do not act. Now you play games with what is right and wrong. WOW.
* Agree 7
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Moose
Jul 7, 2010 10:20 AM
FYI
Approval of Minutes of Planning Meeting of September 28, 2009 Katie (Mahoney) would like the minutes to reflect that Ursula Keuper-Bennett videotaped a portion of the meeting even after her request to videotape had been denied by the committee
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 5
* |
* Offensive
The Genesearcher
Jul 7, 2010 6:06 AM
McIntyre says the Mayor's not clear on what conflict of interest is.
And this is the Mayor we have entrusted for the 31 years? After peviously been covicted of conflict of interest she still doesn't get it? OH, OH! Do you think us Mississsaugans goofed?
* Agree 6
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
The Spudder
Jul 6, 2010 11:51 PM
Mayor come clean
I have heard the Mayor on many occasions say that we should let the people decide. Well Madame Mayor I challenge you to show the leadership you have for the last 31 years and let the inquiry move forward. Let the people hear all the evidence and then let them decide on what, if any, you have done wrong. Let the Commissioner do his job and seek the truth so that it can set you free.
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 6, 2010 11:44 PM
continued from below.
As for McCallions 2005 statement, "and we have ensured that all employees and elected officials are made aware of the expected standards, polices and corporate procedures." "we have"? Face it. There's no government more efficient than one that makes such "we run a tight ship" claims then thwart all scrutiny so the only way for the public to get even partway to the truth is through a Judicial Inquiry. And I suspect that there are more municipalities like MYTHissauga than not. Have to laugh at McCallion's "allow public access to Council and committee meetings". Public access is mandated in the Municipal Act!
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree 1
The Spudder
Jul 6, 2010 11:43 PM
You don't get it
Read the resolution passed by Council with regards to the inquiry, conflict of interest is a very small part of this inquiry. This inquiry is about good governance. This inquiry is about finding out why a Mayor can meet in a hotel room with the Commissioner of Planning about her son's development and it is not considered a conflict. The Mayor has been around for 31 years, she was convicted with having a conflict on another matter, she knows better. This is all smoke and mirrors on the part of the Mayor and her lawyer. They are looking for any possible delay to get her through the election.
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 6, 2010 11:37 PM
Let's analyze McCallion's claims in the 2005 World Mayor's Contest specifically
"Mayor McCallion replies: First of all, corruption and cronyism stem from a number of factors such as lack of accountability, a weak reporting structure and ambiguous or non-existent corporate policies and procedures etc." City of Mississauga corporate policies and procedures are such crap that "ambiguous" would be the best you could say about them. The Mississauga Judicial Inquiry has now confirmed that there ARE non-existent policies to guard against corruption and cronyism. And two years after McCallion made these misleading noises to Pradheep, it's McCallion herself moaning about Staff's "complete disregard for policy". Then there's Staff's total abandoning of policies and guidelines. No code of conduct for Mayor and Councillors. WHO'D A-GUESSED? A conflict of interest policy that doesn't apply to Mayor and Councillors. WHO'D A-GUESSED? As for McCallions 2005 statement, "and we have ensured that all employees and elected officials are made aware of the expected standards, polices and corporate procedures.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Jul 6, 2010 11:29 PM
@Snap
No, Mantis made the link with his reasoning. I was simply pointing out how stupid it is to argue that the law and morality are the same thing. They're not, and you two both know it. Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit. Perhaps you aren't immoral minions of a corrupt system, perhaps you're really as stupid as your posts indicate.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 6, 2010 11:27 PM
From Pradheep, Mississauga Question: We hear constantly of cronyism and corruption on every level of government throughout the world. What steps did you take to prevent it in Mississauga?
"Mayor McCallion replies: First of all, corruption and cronyism stem from a number of factors such as lack of accountability, a weak reporting structure and ambiguous or non-existent corporate policies and procedures etc. What we have done at the City of Mississauga is put into place measures to try to prevent corruption before it happens. We have an accountable and transparent governance system in place; procedures open to public scrutiny; a strong internal audit system; a responsible and effective senior management team; provide the public with access to information; allow public access to Council and committee meetings, and we have ensured that all employees and elected officials are made aware of the expected standards, polices and corporate procedures. We feel that these measures are an effective way to address the issue of corruption and cronyism." Source: World Mayor 2005 Contest
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Jul 6, 2010 11:09 PM
Legal but immoral
So Mantis thinks that if there was no law or policy against it then it's okay: unless the law prohibits it, the Mayor can do whatever she likes. I will now Godwin this thread by pointing out that the extermination of Jews in Germany in the 1940s was legal. Mantis by his own reasoning is okay with that. By the way, does anyone here think Mantis and the rest of the Hazelbots would be singing the same tune if that were Carolyn Parrish who was being investigated? (Rhetorical question)
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree 2
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 6, 2010 11:08 PM
I'd love to know how the Silent Majority of comatose Mississaugans would define "conflict of interest"
but McCallion convinced me during the Port Credit library debate that it's not worth asking the public for their input.
* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 6, 2010 11:07 PM
I'm still trying to understand this.
McIntyre says the Mayor's not clear on what conflict of interest is. But then McIntyre reminds the Inquiry that "the City hired an outside lawyer to review the case — prior to the calling of the inquiry — who determined the mayor wasn't in a conflict." So how did the City-hired outside lawyer determine what conflict of interest was? And perhaps the Judicial Inquiry can use that City-hired outside lawyer's definition. No?...
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 6, 2010 11:04 PM
It's going to be SUCH A HOOOOOOOT tomorrow when McCallion begins the Council meeting with "Are there any direct or indirect pecunariary interests?"
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Jul 6, 2010 7:19 PM
Hazelbots are so predictable
I predicted that the Fiends of Hazel would claim she did nothing wrong because there was no law or policy that covered her meetings. To them, morals and ethics only apply if they are written down--then they become obstacles to find ways around. Also, we know that in Mississauga policies and laws are ignored routinely. Obviously the Mayor knew she was walking a fine line because she sought legal advice. You'd think her conscience would warn her that attending those meetings betrayed the public trust, but nooooo... Last, before the Hysterical Hazelbots start their shrieking: conflict of interest includes the APPEARANCE of a conflict. Just attending those meetings was a conflict of interest even if she never said or did a thing. Now if anyone wants to argue that morals and ethics only apply if they are defined on paper, go ahead. It would be consistent.
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree 3
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 6, 2010 6:29 PM
HAHAHAHAHAH That's RICH! GOOD POINT MissyNews!
MissyNews wrote, "McIntyre said, noting the City hired an outside lawyer to review the case — prior to the calling of the inquiry — who determined the mayor wasn't in a conflict." Oh REALLY! Question! How can the frikkin' outside lawyer determine the mayor wasn't in conflict when the Mayor's lawyer is requesting the Commissioner DEFINE conflict of interest?! We must always keep in mind that Mayor McCallion has proclaimed that "we lead Canada in management". And it's through that lens that we should judge the proceedings of Phase 2.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree 3
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 6, 2010 6:24 PM
It's a loophole if the municipalities lobbied for that loophole to be put in
Example. Bill 130 made the Ontario Ombudsman the investigator of closed meeting complaints.The Municipalities lobbied long and hard for the Bill 130 loophole that a city/town could prevent its residents from getting an investigation through the Ontario Ombudsman simply by hiring their own private pimpmeister. That vast majority went that route. Kind of like criminals lobbying for change to the Criminal Act to be allowed to hire the Judges they're to appear before. I'm grinning at how contemptuous McCallion and her lawyers are for the Inquiry. Given her rank in AMO and CFM that she'd play with "golly please define conflict of interest" is simply marvellous! KUDOS!
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree 3
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 6, 2010 6:16 PM
Very 100% true valid point! McCallion's lawyer nails it!
Quote, "'The mayor conducted herself in reliance on the rules as they existed at the time and still exist,' McIntyre told court. 'To retroactively change the rules to her detriment doesn't accord with any view of procedural fairness.'" Totally fair. But the real laugh is that there's a whole pile of Ontarians who think there's Provincial legislation/acts establishing at lease minimum standards of Municipal conduct and accountability. Nope. And McDowell offered the "reasonable person" test. That'll flap and fuss but won't fly. As for the Oath of Office "truthfully, faithfully and impartially".. as worthless the Lord's Prayer before every Council meeting. Imagine. I was right! "McDowell argued that just because there was no legislation dealing with the type of alleged misconduct being argued." There's nothing preventing any mayor from privately wining and dining developers on behalf of family's direct pecuniary interests!
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 3
* |
* Offensive
Mantis
Jul 6, 2010 6:14 PM
Also
If you look at cases in criminal courts where suspects are accused of "historic" or long since past crimes (murders, assaults, etc.) that must face the charges and the penalties that were in place AT THE TIME OF THEIR OFFECNES and not the law as it stands in the present day.
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive 2
Mantis
Jul 6, 2010 6:13 PM
Not a "Loophole"
This isn't a case of a "loophole". You cannot retroactively apply a present law to a previous act. That's simply justice. The mayor's conduct can be judged ONLY against the law and the guidelines as they existed when the events took place. You cannot change the law after the fact and then apply that changed law to perious conduct. Doing so would be an outrageous violation of the charter of rights. For example, under your standards and the standards that the commission counsel wants to apply, they could pass a law tomorrow making the drinking of milk a criminal offence and then go and retroactively arrest anyone who ever drank a glass of milk and charge them under that law.
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Offensive 2
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 6, 2010 6:02 PM
Well, I was RIGHT! McCallion's lawyer played the Loophole Card!
Comment at Jul 6, 2010 9:37 AM in the other article, "Inquiry hits another roadblock". I wrote, "I've just scanned it for "meeting" and "minutes" just to see how many loopholes municipalities have to avoid Accountability. I can't see anywhere that deals with meetings held by one member of Council and his entire family with (say) lobbyists to discuss land deals or crafting changes to a City's by-laws. I kept saying legislation pertaining to municipalities were just pieces of paper --window dressing. Will today be the day that we find out the magnitude of the holes that municipalities lobbied for themselves? And the Liberals allowed." And it's entirely her right. I'm good with it because it proves Andre Marin was right about Bill 130 when he said "The province blew its mission of bringing more accountability to the municipal level by caving into a powerful municipal lobby which were against bringing in any significant changes."
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree 3
Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top
[COMMENTS BY DON B. - ]