Mar 01, 2012 - 9:17 AM
Taxpayers on hook for McLean’s legal fees
You will now be paying former leisure services director John McLean’s legal fees as a result of a defunct defamation suit against him.
The town is liable for picking up expenses for Mr. McLean’s legal fees as a result of dropping the suit, which was announced Feb. 2, The Advocate has learned.
“In the matter of Grossi vs McLean, the CAO is directed to pay the costs as sought by Mr. McLean,” said town CAO Winanne Grant Tuesday, referring to a directive issued after a closed portion of Monday’s council meeting, which involved, among other things, correspondence from the town solicitor regarding a claim for legal costs.
Ms Grant said she had been directed to pay the fees and explained Mr. McLean put to use his right for recovery of costs associated with the claim after the town filed for a discontinuance.
While the directive did not include a dollar amount, Mr. McLean said Wednesday the request he filed to the town was for just under $4,000.
“A bill has been submitted and it was for $3,961.42 including taxes and disbursements,” said Mr. McLean, adding it is “signficiantly less” than the two invoices received so far by the town from the legal firm of Cassels, Brock & Blackwell totalling $15,087.86.
The total costs incurred will be revealled in a report to council during its March 26 meeting, said Ms Grant.
She also indicated a recommendation to rescind the indemnifcation bylaw of Nov. 21 will most likely accompany the report, since all legal invoices should be received by the town at that point covering December, January and February.
Whether the bylaw will actually be rescinded, repealled, revoked or reconsidered was also up for debate during Monday’s meeting after council received the online petiton generated by the proponents of the web-based group the Georgina Forum started by Keswick resident William McClure.
While Mr. McCLure expressed online his opinion that moving on is in the group’s best interests, he recognized that the issue the petition advocates still exists and therefore had it presented to council Monday.
The petition signed by 551 people specifically addresses the revocation of the bylaw and the fact residents should not be responsible for legal fees associated with the suit initiated by council.
The petition was received and referred to the CAO after much of the discussion, which Mayor Rob Grossi excused himself from, focused on the differences between and implications of rescinding, revoking or reconsidering the bylaw and what exactly signees were requesting.
While revoking or rescinding the bylaw would not affect the bylaw’s effect regarding payment of legal fees, Ms Grant did advise council a motion to reconsider the bylaw involved a different procedural process and would mean council is reconsidering its original decision to enact the bylaw.
“I don’t believe that you are going to find a legal opinion that’s going to tell you at this point that you could reconsider in good faith a decision such as this one,” Ms Grant told council members.
While Mr. McClure said the petition has no mention of the possibility of the town being reimbursed or that an investigation be conducted, Kristina Toomey of Keswick has filed for an investigation into council’s conduct.
Taking issue with the statements made by Ms Grant after the CAO was asked by the mayor to respond to her deputation to council Feb. 13, Ms Toomey took the town up on its offer to launch her own investigation since there was no opportunity to question or clarify statements made on behalf of the town during the meeting.
As a result, Ms Toomey has requested the closed sessions conducted during the Oct. 11, Nov. 15, Dec. 12 and Jan. 23 council, Nov. 7 and 21 committee of the whole, and Feb. 2 special council meetings be investigated.
Council appointed Local Authority Services (LAS) as the investigator and town clerk Roland Chenier confirmed Feb. 23 all relevant documents are being sent to LAS under guidelines set out by the Municipal Act and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
While there is no set timeline for the investigation, Mr. Chenier did say there will be a report issued upon its conclusion, which will be made public.
In addition to an investigation of the closed meetings, Ms Toomey also asked for a neutral third-party investigation of possible breaches of the Municipal Act and town’s code of conduct in a letter addressed to the mayor, council members, Mr. Chenier and Ms Grant dated Feb. 16.
Mr. McLean also wondered about potential breaches of the town’s code of conduct and statements he considers “totally libelous” and “offensive” when it comes to a strongly worded letter written by the mayor and published in the Pefferlaw Post Feb. 10.
“I think it was written clearly with malice intended, whereas my letters were not,” said Mr. McLean, adding his letters did not question council’s conduct.
When asked if he was considering any action against the town or mayor specifically, Mr. McLean declined to comment.
Legal costs for members of town council are covered under the town’s liability policy when an action is brought against them.
“I certainly don’t not want to sue the taxpayers of Georgina,” he said.
The town is liable for picking up expenses for Mr. McLean’s legal fees as a result of dropping the suit, which was announced Feb. 2, The Advocate has learned.
“In the matter of Grossi vs McLean, the CAO is directed to pay the costs as sought by Mr. McLean,” said town CAO Winanne Grant Tuesday, referring to a directive issued after a closed portion of Monday’s council meeting, which involved, among other things, correspondence from the town solicitor regarding a claim for legal costs.
Ms Grant said she had been directed to pay the fees and explained Mr. McLean put to use his right for recovery of costs associated with the claim after the town filed for a discontinuance.
While the directive did not include a dollar amount, Mr. McLean said Wednesday the request he filed to the town was for just under $4,000.
“A bill has been submitted and it was for $3,961.42 including taxes and disbursements,” said Mr. McLean, adding it is “signficiantly less” than the two invoices received so far by the town from the legal firm of Cassels, Brock & Blackwell totalling $15,087.86.
The total costs incurred will be revealled in a report to council during its March 26 meeting, said Ms Grant.
She also indicated a recommendation to rescind the indemnifcation bylaw of Nov. 21 will most likely accompany the report, since all legal invoices should be received by the town at that point covering December, January and February.
Whether the bylaw will actually be rescinded, repealled, revoked or reconsidered was also up for debate during Monday’s meeting after council received the online petiton generated by the proponents of the web-based group the Georgina Forum started by Keswick resident William McClure.
While Mr. McCLure expressed online his opinion that moving on is in the group’s best interests, he recognized that the issue the petition advocates still exists and therefore had it presented to council Monday.
The petition signed by 551 people specifically addresses the revocation of the bylaw and the fact residents should not be responsible for legal fees associated with the suit initiated by council.
The petition was received and referred to the CAO after much of the discussion, which Mayor Rob Grossi excused himself from, focused on the differences between and implications of rescinding, revoking or reconsidering the bylaw and what exactly signees were requesting.
While revoking or rescinding the bylaw would not affect the bylaw’s effect regarding payment of legal fees, Ms Grant did advise council a motion to reconsider the bylaw involved a different procedural process and would mean council is reconsidering its original decision to enact the bylaw.
“I don’t believe that you are going to find a legal opinion that’s going to tell you at this point that you could reconsider in good faith a decision such as this one,” Ms Grant told council members.
While Mr. McClure said the petition has no mention of the possibility of the town being reimbursed or that an investigation be conducted, Kristina Toomey of Keswick has filed for an investigation into council’s conduct.
Taking issue with the statements made by Ms Grant after the CAO was asked by the mayor to respond to her deputation to council Feb. 13, Ms Toomey took the town up on its offer to launch her own investigation since there was no opportunity to question or clarify statements made on behalf of the town during the meeting.
As a result, Ms Toomey has requested the closed sessions conducted during the Oct. 11, Nov. 15, Dec. 12 and Jan. 23 council, Nov. 7 and 21 committee of the whole, and Feb. 2 special council meetings be investigated.
Council appointed Local Authority Services (LAS) as the investigator and town clerk Roland Chenier confirmed Feb. 23 all relevant documents are being sent to LAS under guidelines set out by the Municipal Act and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
While there is no set timeline for the investigation, Mr. Chenier did say there will be a report issued upon its conclusion, which will be made public.
In addition to an investigation of the closed meetings, Ms Toomey also asked for a neutral third-party investigation of possible breaches of the Municipal Act and town’s code of conduct in a letter addressed to the mayor, council members, Mr. Chenier and Ms Grant dated Feb. 16.
Mr. McLean also wondered about potential breaches of the town’s code of conduct and statements he considers “totally libelous” and “offensive” when it comes to a strongly worded letter written by the mayor and published in the Pefferlaw Post Feb. 10.
“I think it was written clearly with malice intended, whereas my letters were not,” said Mr. McLean, adding his letters did not question council’s conduct.
When asked if he was considering any action against the town or mayor specifically, Mr. McLean declined to comment.
Legal costs for members of town council are covered under the town’s liability policy when an action is brought against them.
“I certainly don’t not want to sue the taxpayers of Georgina,” he said.
*******
MY THOUGHTS ON THE ISSUE
The Procedure referred to by the CAO to rescind a Bylaw as opposed to Adopt a Bylaw
is not that different. If Georgina's Procedure Bylaw disallows re-consideration of a Council decision within six months, the requirement can be waived by a two thirds vote ..
It would be wise for Georgina Council to waive procedure and allow the bylaw to be rescinded..
How just was the action? How fair? How disgraceful? How Shameful ? What an ugly blight on a municipal record ? How reflective of the Mayoralty of Mayor Rob Grossi?
How reflective of the lack of intestinal fortitude of Councillors who allowed themselves to be persuaded to follow his lead?
Or alternatively, venom enough from a nest of vipers, when the collective decision was made?
A Bylaw on the books authorising such a reprehensible action should certainly be removed. Like yesterday..
Moving on is a decision for individuals.
Putting the issue behind them is not the same thing.
Georgina residents should be thinking seriously now ,whether or not they are prepared to leave their town's business in the hands of the people who made this decision?
An investigation into the closed door meeting is good.
Not necessary for next steps. to be decided
Posts
1 comment:
Interesting to note that the online article youve quoted from http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1308272--taxpayers-on-hook-for-mclean-s-legal-fees
the last several paragraphs beginning with "Mr. McLean also wondered about potential breaches of the town’s code of conduct" have been selectively removed from the official online article. Can we surmise that the Advocate got a nasty call from the Town asking them to remove most of what Mr. McLean said with the threat of loss of advertising revenue?
Post a Comment