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 - Aug. 10, 2010 - By Louie Rosella
Mayor was in conflict, notes say
All along clear
Notes made by City solicitor Mary Ellen Bench show that former
City manager David O'Brien believed it had been "all along clear Hazel has a conflict" in the WCD deal.
Mary Ellen Bench
City solicitor Mary Ellen Bench testified that she learned last September that the mayor's son, Peter McCallion, was a principal of World Class Developments.
Both the City of Mississauga's solicitor and the former City manager say Mayor Hazel McCallion was "clearly in conflict" as the City was closing a deal to purchase a prime piece of downtown land and lease it to Sheridan College, the judicial inquiry heard today.
City solicitor Mary Ellen Bench testified that she learned last September that the mayor's son, Peter McCallion, was a principal of World Class Developments (WCD). WCD had negotiated a deal to purchase land near the Living Arts Centre from Oxford Properties, a subsidiary of Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), and planned to build a hotel/conference centre on the site.
Although the deal eventually fell through, and ended with a $4-million settlement to WCD from OMERS, the mayor was actively involved in meetings with the key players and was putting pressure on OMERS to make the deal happen, the inquiry was told.
She even requested to meet with Oxford and OMERS executives in late 2008 to find out "what's up (OMERS') sleeve," because she feared they would terminate the hotel deal, according to an e-mail from an Oxford executive filed with the inquiry today.
Bench said she learned that Peter McCallion was an executive with WCD, a claim he'd later refute, as the City was negotiating a deal to buy the land and lease it to Sheridan College. She received a "surprise" phone call from former City manager Dave O'Brien, who's a close friend of Mayor McCallion and sits on the OMERS board of directors, in September 2009. He was "concerned with the conflict," and the potential ramifications it would have on the pending Sheridan deal, Bench said.
Peter McCallion "didn't do his mom any favours" when he declared himself a principal or owner of WCD in an affidavit filed in court, Bench said.
"It was something of a concern ... the position he put her in," Bench said. "She's in a conflict situation ... it (sent) up a bit of a red flag to me (because) he (Peter McCallion) had a pecuniary interest."
O'Brien told Bench it was "all along clear that Hazel has a conflict," in a phone conversation on Sept. 5 of last year, she testified.
Bench advised current City manager Janice Baker to keep the mayor "out of anything going on" with regards to WCD and advised City Council of Peter McCallion's role with the development company.
O'Brien said the mayor was actively involved in WCD's effort to purchase the land, according to Bench's notes.
Bench agreed with Commissioner Douglas Cunningham the mayor was "clearly in conflict."
Bench's notes also indicate the mayor called O'Brien last year asking him to intervene and settle the dispute between WCD and OMERS.
"Council had a right to know who the players were and who they were dealing with," she said, adding "there were a lot of concerns with respect ... to the extent to which the mayor was involved."
Ed Sajecki, the City's commissioner of planning and building, testified today (Tuesday, Aug. 10) that he, the mayor, her son and others toured a downtown Marriott hotel looking for potential ideas during WCD's bid to get the land.
He maintained WCD didn't get any "preferential treatment" from the City during hotel negotiations.
Bench said the mayor was "quite involved" in ensuring the Sheridan deal went through, which it did late last September.
"She's a hands-on mayor," she said. "She's a very good negotiator. Her involvement has often avoided litigation for us."
City staff and several of the key players in the Sheridan negotiations, including Bench, looked to the mayor to get involved to ensure the deal would close, the inquiry heard.
The inquiry is probing the failed $14.4-million deal brokered by Peter McCallion for land owned by OMERS to build the hotel.
Among other things, the inquiry is investigating the mayor’s behind-the-scenes involvement in the land deal.
Comments by others - 25 - to this web-page at time of posting;
ComeOn
Aug 14, 2010 5:39 PM
Hazel Scandal
I doubt and judge in Ontario would we?ght the non note testimony over the noted one. That is why lawyers take notes. If you ever find yourself as a mayor and you are planning a big ripoff hotel project to make millions for the family before you hang up your hat remmber all of the little people you liked to step on that just might have kept notes of your less than democratic conversations.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Aug 11, 2010 7:40 PM
"That thing I don't temember? Her notes got it wrong..."
Wait a minute, Bench made notes and he didn't. He's claimed he can't remember anything... but he knows her notes are wrong! The thing that gives me hope is that this is the best they've got. It sure will be interesting to see how good the Mayor's memory will be.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 11, 2010 6:13 PM
HEY YOU'LL LOVE THIS!
See those meticulous notes by the City Solicitor? Dave O'Brien called their validity into question. HAHAHAHAHA. Disagreed with Bench! Which raises the obvious question. Why do these City/business types not record their conversations? Even here, we-citizens are still victims of faded memories, honest mistakes and especially LYING. So. What'cha think? Who will Justice Cunningham believe? Dave "I don't remember, I don't recall" O'Brien or Mary Ellen Bench?
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Aug 11, 2010 5:28 PM
@ComeOn
Oh the hazelbots get it all right. Ask yourself this: if you were one of the privileged few who was getting benefits from this sort of shady dealing and it looked like some of it might be exposed, what would you do? Face up to it and admit there was corruption, or go on the offensive and attack, smear, and try to suppress anyone who dares try to expose your little game? Wouldn't you make up your own version and repeat it endlessly? Always remember, the mantra for the City of Mississauga for years has been, "Saying it makes it so."
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Aug 11, 2010 4:49 PM
More Hazel McCallion Scandal -- Timelines and Players
My fear is that we are viewing this as a set of events over a few days or a week. These inappropriate dealings, meetings and abuses of office were spread over years. From 2003 at least to 2009 we have a trail of abuse. The Enersource timeline fits right over top of this WCD mess. It is impossible not to see that OMERS is getting to buy Enersource while a guy with no history of developing a hotel or filing a tax return is getting a land deal. Same players same timing eveyone is getting something right? Do people get that there were millions at stake with this crowd?
* Agree 1
ComeOn
Aug 11, 2010 4:44 PM
Hazel Scandal -- Timelines and Players
Who knew what at the City and sat on it? Ms. Bench has or had superiors. When were these people told about the serious problems and what did they do to inform the Council? I would like to see the NEWS ask these questions of senior staff. Are you curious I am?
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Aug 11, 2010 4:41 PM
Oh Look Some Facts Came Out and Hazel's Sycophants Are Nowhere To Be Found
So we have a city lawyer telling us of problems and documenting them -- let me play the CR SNAPMANTIS role and say that she dreamt it or she drinks so that explains it or she is a Barbarite or she does not get the complex world of corrup business that governs elaborate undertakings like this and therefore she needs to understand that the laws of ordinary man to do not apply to this Mayor. Now back to reality. Thank Ms. Bench for being honourable. I am curious how much pressure was on her to not tell what she knows? I would to see those people held accountable.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Spudder
Aug 10, 2010 11:31 PM
No special treatment
How can anybody say that with a straight face!! Try putting in a site plan application and ask staff to work on it based on your promise that you will pay the fee. WCD had staff working on a site plan with out paying an application fee. Staff were paid with our tax dollars as they worked on WCD's site plan. Right, no special treatment.
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 10, 2010 11:26 PM
As promised. YouTube video plus Blog with transcript. Exchange between McDowell and Bench on "Child" "not the son of the Mayor"...
Video, "Lawyer's conclusion: that Peter McCallion could not be considered to be the son of Mayor Hazel McCallion" http://tinyurl.com/35kqs8w And Blog, "Lawyer’s conclusion: That Peter McCallion could not be considered to be the son of the Mayor (Hazel McCallion)" with transcript at: http://tinyurl.com/394dtq6
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Stephen Wahl
Aug 10, 2010 10:39 PM
Sheridan knew they were being used as a pawn
The testimony that Muse pointed out to me indeed indicates that WCD was competing for the same land that the City wanted for Sheridan College. It does not show that the City was in, or people were being led to believe (IE: Premier McGuinty and Minister of Education) competition with the Peel District School Board for the Sheridan College Campus itself. Everyone, most especially Sheridan College, knew that games were being played, and everyone just played along. This will be a tough one to sort out because there are no obvious winners; just a whole bunch of losers; like me; most of them ordinary citizens and taxpayers in this generation and for many more to come.
* Agree 1
Uatu
Aug 10, 2010 10:30 PM
I didn't realize that Bench had spiked Stanley's opinion
The McLean-Kerr opinion that she took to Council is indeed much more thorough and professional. It doesn't re-invent the definition of "child." They state outright that Peter is a child under the Act hence his pecuniary interests are also Hazel's. McLean-Kerr take a narrow interpretation of what a meeting is and whether the meetings the Mayor had with her son and the developers fall within the scope of the Act. They conclude that the meetings she had weren't covered so she's off the hook. Interestingly, they open their opinion with the quote I just posted. I don't see how they square their conclusion with this part, though: "The scope of the Act is not limited by exception or proviso but applies to all situations in which the member has, or is deemed to have, any direct or indirect pecuniary interest..."
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 10, 2010 10:10 PM
@ Stephen, re: Sheridan College. The Inquiry touched a quite a bit on your question today. [Mary Ellen Bench is "A"]
Q: And the second last paragraph, you say: "The reality is they are out there and are likely to try and mess up the deal, but we have to find a way to make it happen regardless." The "they" I take it is WCD, is that right? A: That's correct. Q: And you're suggesting that the City has to find a way to make it happen regardless of WCD's position. So I take it from that that you felt strongly that the Sheridan deal was a good one for the City, and should -- should -- and you should do everything you could to make it go forward, is that fair? A: Yes, we had council support for this deal to go forward. We had Sheridan College saying this was really their only option in terms of location, and we were all working very hard to make it happen.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Aug 10, 2010 10:05 PM
Be fair to Stanley
I don't think it is fair to classify Stanley Makuch with the worst of lawyers. He was just doing what he was paid to do. He was handed horse apples and told to make them look like golden delicious. He tried. He quoted the part that suited him and ignored the rest and hoped no one would notice. He invented his own definition of "child" because the one in the Act made the Mayor look bad. He covered his ass with a gazillion in-my-views. How MYTHissauga!
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 10, 2010 10:02 PM
CRIPES, these Mississauga Judicial Inquiry people are FANTASTIC! Today's transcript is already up!
[Bench is "A"] Q: And I take it that an opinion was obtained on that issue? A: Actually, two (2) opinions were obtained: one (1) that met the timelines, one (1) that didn't. Q: Right. Just dealing with that. The first one came from McLean and Kerr, I take it? A: Yes. Q: And the second one came from Stanley Makuch at Cassels Brock ? A: Yes, it did. Q: And is that the one that didn't meet the timelines? A: That's correct. Q: And so were both opinions placed before council or just the first one? A: Just the first one. I had a hard deadline to meet to get my report to council. Q: Okay. A: And the second one didn't have anything in it that was different. The analysis wasn't anywhere near as complete, so there was -- there was no reason to put it before council...
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Stephen Wahl
Aug 10, 2010 9:57 PM
I am still wondering
I wonder if the Inquiry will see any reason or purpose to delve into the mock competition, between the City of Mississauga and the Peel District School Board, to woo Sheridan College to their location. The City wanted, and got, Sheridan College to locate in the City Centre, on land from OMERS; while, at the same time the PDSB was maintaining the notion, and public perception, that Sheridan College was still seriously considering the Britannia Farm. Maybe because Sheridan and the PDSB had the same real estate firm; or, the fair market value of the OMERS land and the Britannia Farm were calculated using data supplied by the same person (this last option seems funny though because the Britannia Farm was appraised at less than half the cost of the city centre land; and I was told that Sheridan couldn’t afford that.)
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 10, 2010 9:45 PM
@ Uatu, you wrote, " If Mary Ellen Bench is as smart as Muse says, she cringed when she got that opinion"
Bench isn't just smart, conscientious and thorough, she also has a sense of SHAME. And she distanced herself from that piece of crap. What I found fascinating when Stanely Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers) bobbed to the surface today, it was one of those Moments! Sitting right there was ME! Seeing the WORST in lawyers courtesy of Stanely Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers) --and the finestkind-best. Will have the video of the "child" debate up shortly.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Aug 10, 2010 9:07 PM
Stanley Makuch put in context
"The scope of the Act is not limited by exception or proviso but applies to all situations in which the member has, or is deemed to have, any direct or indirect pecuniary interest.... This enactment, like all conflict-of-interest rules, is based on the moral principle, long embodied in our jurisprudence, that no man can serve two masters. It recognizes the fact that the judgment of even the most well-meaning men and women may be impaired when their personal financial interests are affected. Public office is a trust conferred by public authority for public purpose. And the Act, by its broad proscription, enjoins holders of public offices within its ambit from any participation in matters in which their economic self-interest may be in conflict with their public duty. The public's confidence in its elected representatives demands no less."
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Aug 10, 2010 9:06 PM
Here's some insight into Stanley Makuch's thinking
I just noticed that Makuch cited Moll and Fisher et al. He writes that the purpose of the Act is to "prohibit members of Councils... from engaging in the decision making process in respect to matters in which they have a personal economic interest." He conveniently omits the sentences that follow. They're too long to paste into this comment so I'll post the full text in the next one. This is a fascinating look into the way lawyers spin something to suit the case they want to make. In science, we'd call it "cherry-picking the data."
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Aug 10, 2010 8:52 PM
@Therese
No, because they were paid to find a way to get the Mayor off the hook. That's why that opinion is so convoluted and goes so far out of its way to find a "suitable" definition of child. "Suitable" here means "one that doesn't implicate the Mayor." See the previous comment I posted about whether the Act is actually interpreted as narrowly as Stanley Makuch and Hazel McCallion would like. You are correct that it would be a farce if Makuch were right.
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Aug 10, 2010 8:37 PM
If Mary Ellen Bench is as smart as Muse says, she cringed when she got that opinion
That opinion is classic lawyer spin. For example, he writes, "The Act is directed only at member's behaviour at Council and any attempts to influence the vote of Council members." Compare this to an actual early precedent-setting ruling that has been cited ever since: "The scope of the Act is not limited by exception or proviso but applies to ALL SITUATIONS in which the member has, or is deemed to have, any direct OR INDIRECT pecuniary interest..." [emphasis mine]. (Moll and Fisher (1979)) You'd think a lawyer would know that, but then, look the way he twisted things to declare Peter a non-child. He had to, since as he wrote, "The Act, itself, is not very helpful." (That's true, a straight reading would mean Peter IS Hazel's child.) There's a lot of "in my view" in there, and his view is worth, well, you decide.
* Agree 1
Therese Taylor
Aug 10, 2010 8:18 PM
Wonder if Cassels Brock would revise their opinion based on evidence given…
On page 3 of Exhibit 84 which Muse has drawn to our attention at http://www.mississaugainquiry.ca/exhibits/pdf/Exhibit_84_MIS001009041.pdf the opinion states “It is clear from the information I reviewed, including the DVD’s of Council meetings, that the Mayor did not take part in discussions on the matter, or attempt to influence the voting…” But we all know now she did take part in discussions behind the scenes and she tried to push the deal through. Surely the intent the Conflict of Interest Act is not just for council meetings. It applies to all meetings the mayor or council members may be engaged in. It would be like saying don’t do this in public at council meetings, but you can do whatever you want behind your constituents’ backs. Surely this would make a farce of the Act and the rights of citizens to expect fair and honest representation.
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 10, 2010 7:48 PM
Peter McCallion is not Hazel McCallion's child (I kid you not)
Check out this document, "Conflict of Interest Related to World Class Development - Opinion dated September 25, 2009 to Mary Ellen Bench from Stanely Makuch (Cassels Brock Lawyers)" at: http://www.mississaugainquiry.ca/exhibits/pdf/Exhibit_84_MIS001009041.pdf Get this. These lawyers say that Peter McCallion is not a child under the Act. And therefore no Conflict of Interest! Seriously. Read the document!
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 10, 2010 7:17 PM
"City lawyer had qualms about mayor’s role in son’s land deal Mississauga solicitor says law kept her from raising the issue with Hazel McCallion. Phinjo Gombu Urban Affairs Reporter
Okay kiddies, this just in from Toronto Star. "Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion enlisted David O’Brien, a confidant and former city manager, to help settle a dispute between her son’s company and a pension fund over a failed $14.4 million land purchase, an inquiry probing the deal was told Tuesday." Rest at: http://tinyurl.com/2fokn8u
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 10, 2010 5:48 PM
I don't get why no one's asked what Peter McCallion brought to the Visionary table
I mean how many real estate agents with no previous hotel experience (let alone 4-star hotels), with a Grade 12 education, and with a "work ethic" so lacking that his real estate license was suspended twice for failure to take courses, could attract partners for a mega-condo-hotel project worth millions and millions and millions? Serious question. Can a guy like that just create a company, work the Ol' Pretend and attract an investor or two and run with it? Because face it. Surely if this is happening in MYTHissauga, it's got to be happening in other municipalities, right?
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 10, 2010 5:42 PM
@ ComeOn and Uatu HAHAHAHAHAHA get this! Peter McCallion is NOT Hazel McCallion's CHILD!!!!!
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 10, 2010 5:10 PM
Just back from the Inquiry. Was at the entire thing
Have to say that I remain impressed with the City Solicitor, Mary Ellen Bench as were all the lawyers in the room. On her note-taking, her thoroughness. Which at this point I'm forced to raise the question. Anyone know if there's any evidence that Peter McCallion can write anything beyond his name?
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Aug 10, 2010 5:00 PM
It's worth every penny and more to expose this sort of behaviour
How much has Hazel McCallion cost the ratepayers of Mississauga over the years by pulling strings and pushing deals behind the scenes? Even assuming that this was an isolated case, the sloppiness, incompetence, and the incestuous backroom relationships revealed by the Inquiry thus far are a bargain at the price.
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Aug 10, 2010 4:57 PM
Hazel McCallion Scandal Grows With Each Witness
Hats off to the seven councillors who did the right thing and brought the light of day into this tangled web of overlapping relationships, nude photos and memory loss. The McCallions stood to gain no matter how you slice it by millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions. The claim of ignorance is nothing short of shameful from this family and the memory loss is laughable. The City Solicitor simply added more nasty bits and pieces to a terrible tale.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
tankerone
Aug 10, 2010 4:44 PM
@Fartleberry
Well, it just goes to show you do not get much for your money these days!
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Fartleberry
Aug 10, 2010 4:18 PM
Is this the smoking gun that's costing us 5 million dollars ?
Is this the smoking gun that's costing us 5 million dollars ?
* Agree 1
Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top
[COMMENTS BY DON B. - ]