Opening comments: More at the end.
There are a number of different versions of the claims, defenses, etc. in the Court files - this is just a sample.
Still working on getting the spacing set up right. In some case whole pages are presented and the ending of some sentences are on the next page, not included.
Bolding, color and underlining has been added for emphasis.
MEDIA ARTICLES;
Provincial realty arm hit with $20M suit Developer alleges Mayor McCallion affected land deal
Jul. 30, 2004
Filed Aug. 25 - 2003 Court File No. 03-CV-254315 CM1
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
A. MANTELLA & SONS LIMITED
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
A. MANTELLA & SONS LIMITED
Plaintiff
- and -
ONTARIO REALTY CORPORATION,
CITY OF MISSISSAUGA and DIXIE FORD SALES LTD.
ONTARIO REALTY CORPORATION,
CITY OF MISSISSAUGA and DIXIE FORD SALES LTD.
Defendants
AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM
TO THE DEFENDANT
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.
IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the Plaintiffs lawyer or, where the Plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the Plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.
If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.
Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.
IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE
.....…
(b) the manner of access being investigated under the alleged environmental study commissioned;
(c) when the alleged environmental study is expected to be completed; or
(d) whether it is ORC's intention to try to find a way to require the Plaintiff to provide access to the Ministry Lands as a condition of Mantella being
granted the necessary approvals for the development of the Mantella Property.
18. Between October 28 and November 15, 2002, the Defendants, the City of Mississauga and Dixie Ford conspired and combined among themselves to induce ORC to breach the terms of the Invitation to Tender and to otherwise interfere with the Plaintiff's economic interests by causing the ORC to breach the terms of the Invitation to Tender.
The City of Mississauga and Dixie Ford committed the following acts in pursuance of the said conspiracy:
(a) the City of Mississauga and Dixie Ford were both aware:
i) of the Invitation to Tender submitted by ORC to the Plaintiff and/ or,
ii) that the Plaintiff had either a valid business relationship with ORC by virtue of the Invitation to Tender or a valid business expectancy that
ORC would accept the Mantella's offer to purchase the Ministry Lands in accordance with the Guidelines and Procedures;
iii) the Defendants, Dixie Ford and Mississauga were aware of Mantella's valid business relationship with ORC or Mantella's valid business
expectancy that it would have such business relationship if the Mantella offer to purchase the Ministry Lands represented the best offer to
purchase the Ministry Lands, in accordance with the Guidelines and Procedures;
(b) through written and/ or oral communications, Ainsley Hogan ("Hogan"), on behalf of Dixie Ford communicated to Mayor Hazel McCallion
(the "Mayor"), the Mayor of the City of Mississauga, enlisting the Mayor's assistance in using her power and influence to induce the
ORC not to deal with the Plaintiff in accordance with the Invitation to Tender and to ensure that the Plaintiff not be permitted to purchase the
Ministry Lands;
(c) in pursuance of the Mayor's Communications with Hogan, the Mayor communicated either orally or in writing to Tony Miele, the President and
Chief Executive Officer of ORC and did use her public authority and influence to induce ORC not to deal with the Plaintiff in accordance with
the Invitation to Tender (the oral and/or written communications between Hogen and the Mayor and as otherwise referred to in this paragraph
shall collectively be referred to as the "Impugned Communications"). The Impugned Communications were intended to procure a breach of the
contract between ORC and the Plaintiff;
(d) the Impugned Communications did lead and/ or were a substantive contributing factor which led the ORC to reject the Mantella Offer in
breach of the ORC's obligations under the Invitation to Tender;
(e) the actions of Dixie Ford and Mississauga aforesaid constitute the tort of inducing breach of contract and were an unfair and unlawful interference
with Mantella's valid business expectancy or Mantella's valid business relationship with ORC;
(f) the result of Dixie Ford's and Mississauga's unfair or unlawful conduct as aforesaid, was that ORC did not accept the Mantella Offer;
(g) as a result of Dixie Ford and Mississauga having conspired to:
i) induce and having in fact induced ORC to breach its contract with the Plaintiff,
ii) wrongfully interfere with, and having in fact wrongfully interfered with, Mantella's valid business relationship with ORC;
the Plaintiff has suffered damages that it estimates to be in the amount of $20,000,000, the particulars of such damages to be provided before trial.
19. At no time did the terms of delegation allow ORC to:
(a) refuse to negotiate with Mantella in accordance with the Invitation to Tender;
Another version of the A. MANTELLA & SONS LIMITED - AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM (16) – filed date unknown
(a) any basis upon which to suggest the Mantella Offer was for less than the fair market value of the lands;
(b) the manner of access being investigated under the alleged environmental study commissioned;
(c) when the alleged environmental study is expected to be completed; or
(d) whether it is ORC's intention to try to find a way to require the Plaintiff to provide access to the Ministry Lands as a condition of
Mantella being granted the necessary approvals for the development of the Mantella Property.
18. The Plaintiff has since learned that at the prompting of Dixie Ford, Mayor Hazel McCallion, of Mississauga did strongly object to the sale of the Ministry Lands to Mantella and did induce the ORC to breach the Invitation to Tender.
19. The Plaintiff states that Mississauga and Dixie Ford induced the ORC to breach the Invitation to Tender. The Plaintiff states that Dixie Ford did not want ORC to sell the Ministry Lands to Mantella, but at the same time did not want to purchase the Ministry Lands pursuant to the Invitation to Tender made to Dixie Ford by the ORC.
20. At no time did the terms of delegation allow ORC to:
a) refuse to negotiate with Mantella in accordance with the Invitation to Tender;
Filed Aug. 27, 2004 Court File No. 03-CV-254315 CM1
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
A. MANTELLA & SONS LIMITED
- and -
ONTARIO REALTY CORPORATION,
CITY OF MISSISSAUGA and DIXIE FORD SALES LTD.
FRESH AS AMENDED STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
A. MANTELLA & SONS LIMITED
Plaintiff
- and -
ONTARIO REALTY CORPORATION,
CITY OF MISSISSAUGA and DIXIE FORD SALES LTD.
Defendants
FRESH AS AMENDED STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
1. The defendant, Ontario Realty Corporation (“ORC”) admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 5 and 15 of the amended statement of claim.
2. ORC denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 3, 6, 7, 9 - 14, 16, 17, 18 (c - g), and 19 - 30 of the amended statement of claim and denies that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief set out in paragraph 1.
3. ORC has no knowledge in respect of the allegations contained in paragraphs 2, 4, 8, and 18 (a & b) of the amended statement of claim.
Overview
4. In November 2000, the plaintiff, A. Mantella & Sons Limited (“Mantella”), engaged in a speculative purchase of 37 acres of land in the City of Mississauga. At the time, it hoped eventually to enhance the efficacy of its purchase by acquiring an adjacent parcel of land from the Government of Ontario at a low price, based on the fact that the publicly-owned parcel lacked independent road access. In due course, ORC, the governmental agency responsible for that land, refused to sell it to Mantella, and that refusal has spawned this litigation.
.......................
- 19 -
demand in return? In what manner were any of the communications or inducements improper?
75. The response to the demand for particulars provided no new information beyond what was pleaded in the amended statement of claim. None of the questions were answered. ORC relies on the answers given to the demand for particulars, The allegations, given their grave seriousness, are too generally, vaguely, and imprecisely pleaded to allow ORC to know the case that it must meet or to support a claim,
76. Tony Miele recalls only one brief conversation with Mayor McCallion concerning this matter on or about November 15, 2002, at which time the Mayor made very general inquiries concerning the status of the ORC lands. Mr. Miele believes that ORC had already decided not to accept the Mantella offer, before this call was received. Mayor McCallion made no attempt to in any way influence ORC's decision, nor were any of the Mayor's communications in any improper, No inducements of any kind were offered or requested.
77. There were subsequent contacts between representatives of ORC and the City of Mississauga concerning road access and the development of the ORC lands, but all of those contacts occurred well after Mantella was advised on November 15, 2002 that its offer would not be accepted and are, therefore, not relevant to the claims made in this action.
Mantella's Allegations Regarding Misfeasance of Public Office and Abuse of Authority by ORC
78. ORC's mandate, duties, and obligations are spelled out in the aforementioned legislation and policy directives. ORC's duties are owed to the MBS, and through it to the citizens of Ontario. Beyond that, ORC owes no duty to Mantella with respect to its land development initiatives and ambitions. ORC's actions have, at all times, been entirely consistent with its mandate, duties, and obligations.
79. The tort of misfeasance of public office or abuse of authority is categorized as an intentional tort. It is a tort that the courts have consistently held must be used
Filed Dec. 17, 2004 – From the City of Mississauga Court File No. 03-CV-254315 CM1
- 2 -
4. The Mayor, in her capacity as an elected member of a municipal council which has the statutory authority to deal with local land use planning matters (including roads), will typically receive and listen to concerns brought to her attention by her constituents regarding potential land use and development issues.
5. On or about November 14, 2002 the Mayor was informed by Ainslie Hogan of the defendant Dixie Ford Sales Ltd. ("Dixie Ford"), that the defendant ORC had invited bids for the lands next to the Dixie Ford property (the "subject property"). Dixie Ford was interested in acquiring only a portion of the subject property which they had been leasing. Mr. Hogan expressed concern as to the impact on their business if that portion of the subject property which Dixie Ford had been leasing were purchased and used by the plaintiff.
6. In response to that inquiry, on or about November 15, 2002, the Mayor attempted to contact Mr. Miele to make general inquiries with respect to the status of the subject property. The Mayor has no clear recollection as to whether or not she spoke to Mr. Miele, the President and Chief Executive officer of ORC, at that time. Neither the City nor the Mayor had any knowledge of a contract between the plaintiff and ORC (the existence of which contract is denied).
7. In or about mid December, 2002 the Mayor and others met with Mr. Tony Miele for the limited purpose and with the intent of confirming whether the subject property was being
Filed Dec. 20, 2004 – From Mantella – Affidavit of service to just OCR Court File No. 03-CV-254315 CM1
13. Contrary to paragraph 72 of the Defence, ORC made extensive demand for particulars notwithstanding that a great deal of the particulars were in respect of allegations in the original Statement of Claim to which ORC pleaded its defence without requiring any particulars, the parties reached an agreement that certain particulars would be provided and other items would be dealt with on discovery.
14. Contrary to paragraph 74 of the Defence, productions of the parties suggest a compelling case regarding allegations of communications between the Mayor of the City of Mississauga, representative of Dixie Ford and Tony Miele on behalf of Ontario Realty Corporation, pursuant to which the Mayor influenced the decision of ORC not to complete the sale of the .property to Mantella pursuant to the tender. Despite the fact that Mantella made an offer for an amount one third higher than the ORC's appraisal of the Ministry Lands, and ORC rejected Dixie Ford's offers as being non-compliant, in December 2003, Tony Miele and other representatives of ORC met with Mayor Hazel McCallion and other representatives of the City of Mississauga and Ainslie Hogan and other representatives of Dixie Ford and a member of the IBI Group. Mantella was not invited to attend that meeting. That meeting revolved around ways in which the ORC could accommodate Dixie Ford's interests, to the detriment of Mantella.
15. Throughout the ORC has been significantly obstructionist and secretive as to its files and dealings with respect to the Ministry Lands. In the context of the litigation ORC has refused to produce key documents or provide relevant information. When Mantella attempted to obtain access to this public information under the Freedom of Information Act, Tony Miele, in an obvious conflict of interest, has repeatedly refused Mantella's reasonable requests to public files ……