The wires are abuzz today with a story emanating from a final hearing on costs for defendants against the Morris defamation litigation against two resident families.at taxpayer expense.
Morris' lawyer omitted that two Councillors refused to attend the in-camera meeting on the basis Council had no business in the matter of critical comments made against the former Mayor in a Blog .
Or that the Deputy-Mayor who did attend, repudiated the decision in a statement made in open Council and declared the action was not, in his opinion, permitted under the Ontario Municipal Act.
Because the account was read from The Auroran, Morris lawyer dismissed all that as "hearsay".
The argument for costs in the action is being heard by a Master.
The decision is expected to be handed down in a month. Which will be almost two years since the action commenced with the Town ultimately paying out $65,000. from tax revenues in legal fees .
Posts
13 comments:
If the Council resolution was "carried unanimously" this can be interpreted to mean by those present at the time the vote was taken.
What seems to slip peoples' minds is that Morris, being present, acting as Chair and an active participant in the discussion, had voted in favour of the resolution.
If this was the case then she voted for something that represented a potential financial benefit for herself personally, failed to declare a fiduciary interest as required to be stated as the very first item on the Agenda of all Council and General Committee meetings, and breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
So what else is new?
The entire case now rests in the hands of the ' Master'
who will determine the costs. It could be decided anytime - judges seem to set their own pace. Then the only way it could drag on is if either party chose to appeal. Morris has a track record of appealing.
I know that Aurora voted, over the usual objections, to stop funding Morris. But I am not SURE that this would have prevented some obscure insurance policy from continuing to support her. Does anyone know - for SURE?
Why is it considered ' news ' that Morris and/or her lawyers fudged the truth? I thought that was standard operating procedure for them.
To 4:17pm:
Others concur with your thinking.
This is the reason George Hervey filed a conflict of interest against Phyllis Morris. As from the online Era-Banner of May 13, 2011 at http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1007954--former-aurora-mayor-faces-municipal-act-suit
Quotation from the article: "In the document, he (Mr. Hervey) alleges Mrs. Morris breached portions of the act by participating in a Sept. 14 closed session discussion about a series of allegedly defamatory posts on the Aurora Citizen blog that resulted in a resolution directing the town solicitor “to retain external legal counsel and to take any and all actions to bring a resolution to this matter”.
This authority resulted in Mrs. Morris commencing the action and funding it with the town’s resources, the document reads.
The document alleges Mrs. Morris stood to gain millions of dollars through the town-funded legal action and that she had an undeclared pecuniary interest in the matter as a result of her participation in the aforementioned closed session meeting. It further notes the town, at that time, did not obtain any indemnity for any amount recovered from the action, legal fees incurred, costs to be paid to another party or recovery of damages awarded.
(end of article quotation)
These legal proceedings are still going on so far as I know.
(Anyone have an update on this action?)
At the September 28, 2010 Council meeting (as well as in the media), Deputy Mayor Bob McRoberts disavowed his approval of the September 14th motion. Was this captured in the minutes of that meeting and if not, why ?
The minutes of the September 14th, 2010 meeting were revised at a later date to indicate that former Mayor Morris left the closed meeting one minute before it ended. Why was this done and who initiated this change ?
Did former Mayor Morris vote on the Sept 14th closed session motion that was passed, which she then subsequently used to leverage the town's money in order to fund her private lawsuit ?
When the September 14th, 2010 minutes were revised at a later date, why did the minutes say the motion “carried unanimously” with no further qualification if Morris did not vote (which I’m not sure about), if two councillors were not there and if the Deputy Mayor recanted ?
Regardless of how the town records its minutes it seems fair and reasonable to me to clarify the facts in cost recovery case if the implication was made that the entire council was unanimously unified when it clear was not.
There is another twist to this. If Morris did not accurately reflect the position of council then is she not in breach of the Town's code of conduct ? Just wondering. I wonder what Wendy, Chris and John will do about that if that's the case.
Does "Unanimously" mean that everyone that was in attendance voted the same way? I think that as long as a quorum was in place, and everyone in attendance voted for it... it was unanimous.
To Anonymous 7:58am
You stated: "Does "Unanimously" mean that everyone that was in attendance voted the same way? I think that as long as a quorum was in place, and everyone in attendance voted for it... it was unanimous."
I suspect that your train of thought is likely correct but the clarification was made to the court that in this case it was not the entire council that agreed to the motion and further, even some of those councillors that voted for the motion were quoted as saying they were not aware that they were supporting town funded private litigation. The court and the public should not be misled to think that 100% of the council agreed with the actions taken when that was clearly not the case.
Why did Morris say that the Auroran story was “hearsay” when she had to know it was completely factual ? Why was the Deputy Mayor's publicly stated recanting (in the media and I also think in a council meeting) of his earlier vote not captured in the minutes even after council revised them to record that Morris left the closed meeting one minute before it was over ? Interesting, eh ?
4:18 PM There is absolutely nothing ' appealing ' about Morris.
Please tell Paul Sesto that there is a court appearance scheduled in Newmarket for August 17.
This is public knowledge.
This is a quote from the Oct 18, 2010 story that appeared in The Banner entitled, "Aurora mayor launches legal action over blog comments". Morris knew that the support of council was not unanimous.
Quote, “Mrs. Morris said she has been forced to endure the sting of defamatory comments, most of which are made anonymously or under pseudonyms, for a number of years now. The decision to pursue a legal course has nothing to do with the election, she said, but, instead, resulted from some recent comments that went too far.
Fortunately, the majority of council also voted to pursue action, she added.
“It’s been an escalating situation,” she said.
“Comments are being made and council voted to retain outside legal counsel. That legal counsel is now embarking on a course of action to determine the true identities of those making defamatory statements... I brought it to council’s attention and it’s important to know that this is a decision of council.”
Apart from the defamation action, some serious threats have been made against her, Mrs. Morris said. As a result, steps have been taken to enhance security, she said, without elaborating further.
“As a mayor, I didn’t enter office to be subjected to either of these things. I did it to serve the public,” Mrs. Morris said.
“The courts will determine if what has been said is free speech or defamatory. I’ll leave it to them.”
Aurora told Morris what they thought of her lawsuit at the polls. End of Story.
Post a Comment