If the resident accused of defaming Mayor Grossi, now being defamed by the Mayor, were to proceed with litigation against the Mayor, the possibility is, the Mayor would be indemnified by the town's insurer,,
It has happened elsewhere.It doesn't make it right .It just means a Mayor can lean on insurers. It's a competitive world out there.
Against legal advice, Toronto council voted to pay legal costs of Councillor Heap, who was sued for defamation by a competing candidate in the 2006 election.
He was quoted that he was obliged to settle the matter to avoid bankruptcy.
Councillor Doug Holyday took the issue to court, at his own expense and the decision was reversed.
At the same time , Councillor Sandra Bussin 's legal costs were funded. That may be the case law cited by Georgina's CAO .who was directed to speak for Grossi the Brave One, when Karen Toomey delegated to council recently.
Councillor Bussin is Speaker of Toronto Council.
The City Act permits election of a speaker. The Mayor is not the presiding member.
If the process is the same as higher levels of government , the Speaker is removed from the political process. except to cast a vote in the event of a tie.
It is possibly the reason the chair is indemnified while other Councillors are not.
Councillors are indemnified by town insurers if sued for a decision made in performance of their duty. Taking legal action against someone else is not covered by town insurers.
i imagine Georgina was advised by some genius to pass a bylaw to get around that obstacle. It may have been legal. It would not have been right.
The Heap case brought by Councillor Holyday against Toronto Council must be a matter of public record. Sandra Bussin's also.
Karen Toomey would probably find it helpful to obtain a copy. if the community is intent on compelling Georgina Council to pay costs of the acknowledged flawed judgement initially exercised.
Since the CAO cited case law, it would be reasonable to request it be produced and or posted on the town's web site.
Court numbers or even hard copies should be available for the price of copying.
A formal request for an investigation into a closed meeting is a right. Legislation was created to serve that specific purpose.
It can't be a matter for councils to decide.That would make no sense.On the other hand, there would be precedents for that.
I think some provincial laws are nothing more than window dressing to fulfill knee jerk reactions.
Municipalities are required to foot the bill for inquiries. The legislation and the process should be on line.
There is legwork to be done that does not require legal services.
Forewarned is forearmed .
And Good Luck