12:59 PM Here is the hypocrisy of this blog. The "insurer" is now the bad guy. You are telling Ms Buck to continue until the insurer has to pay. You know what will happen after that? The "insurer" will raise the premium that they will charge the Town. And then, we the tax payers of Aurora will have to pay to cover that. Absolutely brilliant!
***********
I have heard many accounts of insurance indemnity; of how things might transpire and how they have evolved to this point.
I have no certain knowledge of how it should or might be.
My focus has not wavered.
No one has ever said that the " Insurer " was " the bad guy ". That person who posted the comment just shy of 1 in the morning must have been squiffed.
ReplyDelete@ 12:59. Wow, that is quite a case of blaming the victim that you spell out there. IF the town's insurance premiums go up, it is because the insurer will have paid a settlement amount comensurate with the level of wrong-doing engaged in by the defendants. That will be where the blame for rising insurance rates should lie, NOT with Evelyn.
ReplyDeleteKA-NON
"That person who posted the comment just shy of 1 in the morning must have been squiffed."
ReplyDelete12:59 PM is in the afternoon NOT in the midnight hour.
*facepalm*
To KA-NON, 11:04
ReplyDeleteI think that if there is a penalty to be paid it could be paid for by the defendants. I could be wrong, but I doubt that the town's insurance policy would cover negligence of certain types. I suspect that the insurance policy is covering legal fees which might explain the delays.
The thing that I find so strange about this case is that the defendants have been allowed to avoid accountability for so long. Remember that these are elected officials that should be held to a higher standard and lord knows how they went about trying to hold others accountable on the town's dime.
How do the defendants explain the long delay in their response ?
Is it about money or integrity and accountability ? I guess that we will have to wait to find out.
A question that might be unrelated:
ReplyDeleteThe Auroran printed that the Master [ ?] had 50 days to decide the issue of costs for the former Mayor and her failed defamation lawsuit.. It seems to be well past that. Was it an error or should we learn something soon?
KA-NON.
ReplyDeleteDo you know if there is to be an Aurora Prayer Breakfast? Last year, Morris was the speaker & her topic was ' Integrity '. Just asking.
This is getting tricky.I know so little about legal matters. We need someone who has actual knowledge. Because my inexpertly informed opinion seems to believe that if there are a bunch of defendants, they can be held to different degrees of responsibilities. In the, usually, American programs, some defendants can split off from the others and be held less liable. We are the result of reading and TV programming. Doesn't count in the real world.
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous 6:43 PM
ReplyDeleteQuestion: "The Auroran printed that the Master [ ?] had 50 days to decide the issue of costs for the former Mayor and her failed defamation lawsuit.. It seems to be well past that. Was it an error or should we learn something soon?"
A “Master” is like a judge but they handle cost motions and other specific types of decisions. Masters are intended to help speed up the legal decision making process.
The Master ruling on the Morris cost motion can return his decision at anytime. It was hoped that the decision would come within 30 to 60 days but it could just as easily be 60 days.
6:59 PM
ReplyDelete"Aurora" Prayer breakfast details are available on their cheesy website here: https://prayforthem.ca/aurora
It's the 2nd annual (not 4th) as advertised. I commented on this last year:
http://christopherwatts.posterous.com/the-3rd-annual-aurora-former-mayors-prayer-br
I guess they feel no need to correct their mistake.
If you beleive what you read "community leaders" will be in attendance.
As per prayers specific to integrity given by the former mayor who is charged with violating the municipal act, none is listed.
I don't want the woman to pray for Aurora. I would like her to re-pay Aurora for all the money she & her cronies have cost. There is no price I could put on the mental mayhem.
ReplyDeleteCorrection:
ReplyDelete"The Master ruling on the Morris cost motion can return his decision at anytime. It was hoped that the decision would come within 30 to 60 days but it could just as easily be 60 days."
I meant to say... "it could just as easily be MORE than 60 days". In fact 60 days was yesterday. We might have to wait yet another 60 days (or more), and then we can only hope that there is no need for an appeal.
Come on. How long does he have to think? The case was thrown out by a Judge. This should be a matter of simple math. Maybe the Master has forgotten about the whole thing?
ReplyDeleteChristopher, it's the 4th meeting but under 2 different names. Mr. Callow will probably be showing off his newly minted Diamond Jubilee Medal.
ReplyDelete4:34PM
ReplyDeleteIf it is "the 4th meeting under 2 different names"
This doesn't equal the "4th annual meeting" because as you point out the name has changed, thus it is the 2nd annual meeting under the name "Aurora's". Before this it was named the "Mayor's".
The 4th Prayer Breakfast! Awesome stuff ! And put on by the same cast who accuse us of hypocrisy. Truly boggles. But I have read their ads and do have some questions. Are council members supposed to pony up $25.00 to attend, the way some of them have to pay to attend all of these not-for-profit events? And how can one justify that price for breakfast? Our family does quite nicely at Jonathans's. If you are paying a special motivational speaker, lose the ' prayer' part and say so. Aurora is an all-inclusive town,
ReplyDelete" Christopher Watts said...
ReplyDelete4:34PM
If it is "the 4th meeting under 2 different names"
This doesn't equal the "4th annual meeting" because as you point out the name has changed, thus it is the 2nd annual meeting under the name "Aurora's". Before this it was named the "Mayor's". "
Seems like semantics to me. This is the 4th prayer breakfast.
Agreed, 11:29 AM, pedantic semantics.
ReplyDelete