Another Part of The Why

How do I know the caller wasn't lying about the decision being made to appeal the fourth unsuccessful appeal for a joint board hearing application, before Council had even received the court decision?

On the basis of ongoing experience in this council, I believe it to be true.

The last decision to appeal was processed without Council approval. It happened this way:

Again we had a closed meeting. Part of the agenda circulated was how to go about providing financial compensation to neighbouring residents of the Westhill application for their legal expenses for their unsuccessful pursuit of a joint board hearing. One of the ideas was a grant.

I challenged the propriety of discussing a grant or any other means of compensation for legal costs by residents, behind closed doors.

Residents have rights. They exercised their rights. They retained legal counsel to fight for their rights. They were not successful

Taxpayers have rights too. They have no obligation to compensate residents for exercising their private rights and incurring legal costs in the process. The idea was preposterous.

Furthermore, the town has an approved process to be followed for any person making application for a grant. Certain criteria must be addressed. The application becomes a matter of public record. So far as I am aware, no application had been made. There could be no justification for discussion behind closed doors.

The issue was not further discussed, behind closed doors or anywhere else. It was dismissed with an airy wave of the hand as not intended in the first place. It was a "misunderstanding"

The question of the town undertaking to continue alone with another appeal against the third refusal of a joint hearing was discussed.

We had previously publicly announced our intention to support the residents' request for a joint board hearing.

We supported with legal counsel, the initial request to the Ontario Municipal Board. We supported the appeal to Divisional Court against the OMB refusal. We supported at the second
Ontario Municipal Board hearing when it was referred back to that body by the Divisional Court.
Those three unsuccessful attempts to obtain a Joint Board Hearing were matters of public record. Though the decisions were not publiclicised, presented to council by staff nor received for information by Council.

As noted, after the third decision, we convened behind closed doors to discuss providing compensation to the residents for their legal costs to date. We had paid our own legal costs. We were now being asked to consider means whereby we might also pay the residents costs.

Apparently, the residents had indicated they were not prepared to spend more money to continue the fight.

It was not our business to know.

At that meeting, no decision was made for the town to pursue further a joint board hearing alone.

Yet the town did. A fourth time we pursued the same futile objective. A fourth time we lost.

That's why I believed the information that another Leave to Appeal had been filed before the question had even been brought before the Council .

Was I able to provide my caller with a reason. I was not.

Since learning the timing of the process however I believe I have a better understanding.

For the proponents of a lamentable succession of failures and attendant expenditures to have the full extent of their failure finalised and public before the next election would be bad news.

Accountability to the voters for stewardship of the town's affairs generally expected at the time of an election would be contra-indicated, if I may use a consultant's term.

Better to drag the thing out by whatever means possible than face the voters with the full scope of their folly.