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
Posts
6 comments:
Mayor Rossi is likely watching and hoping none of them find you over the weekend. Their 'leader' has abandoned the Forum and they frightened themselves a little bit. My Dad used to try and explain this stuff to me as we trudged home empty-handed after a day on the boat. " There are days when the fish just have to take some time off. " Patience, lass.
E you need to find someone to connect you with Kevin Squires of Keswick. Maybe even use the land lines to do that. He has already written a good letter that was published.
Don't know if it helps you but Karen Wolfe owns and edits the Pefferlaw Post.
They will have to do this on their own. Do you remember someone posting that Stouffville had sent someone to help when Aurora landed in it ? He told the guy that we would deal with our own problems. Stupid, but natural. Three law=suits later and we are still 'dealing' with it, Keswick are beginners. But they are probably up on the reading material. We hadn't a clue.
At one time the possibility of ' lurking opportunists' was discussed and rejected. Given Mr. McClure's leaving his blog hanging out there after his name was recognized, would he qualify? Young man with aspirations linking with angry people and then saying ' move on ' ? Where have we heard that before ? Just asking. Can see him in the next election saying, " I took a stand to prove my point. "
Mayor Grossi is probably deliberately baiting John MacLean to sue him, knowing that then the town will pay his legal bills in defending. There can be no other reason for his continuing to call John a liar. Will John rise to the bait?
I think this is another reason why this stupid resolution they passed needs to be reversed, but I suspect this is the very reason why it won't be.
Post a Comment