Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hogg have been awarded enhanced costs of $21,275. for defending the action taken against them by former Mayor Phyllis Morris at Town expense.
I believe the first award of costs was about $35,000
Ms Morris is required to pay the costs within 30 days.
With my limited skill, I can't copy any of the decision.It may even be illegal .... I don't know?
The Court File No. is 10-CV-412021; Master Hawkins made the decision.
Snippets:
"I have therefore come to the conclusion this action is indeed SLAPP litigation destined to stifle debate about Mayor Morris fitness for office"
.
SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation
"In my view Mayor Morris wanted to hit ---------quickly and hard , in order to silence her critics sooner rather than later in the weeks leading to the October 25th 2010 , municipal elections"
"Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that Defense Counsel had engaged in overkill. Since Mayor Morris claimed $6 million in damages I do not fault Defense Counsel for mounting a through defense and leaving nothing to chance."
Now back to me:
Five members of the previous Council authorised what is now determined to have been "Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation" Councillors MacEachern, Gaertner,Granger, Wilson and Gallo. And of course , former Mayor Morris.
When the election was over, the town paid legal bills of $55,000 on behalf of the former Mayor for the SLAPP action.
Also paid, $8,000 to solicitor George Rust D'Eye to review the circumstances and advise.
I voted against both.
Another example of my negativity towards "new ideas"
Monday, 22 October 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
Please continue with similar negativity to new ideas.
There are going to be several very sour faces around the council table Tuesday night. I hope for their sakes that they did not invest in Morris's lottery because those who might have done so are taking a bath. On second thought, I hope that they were investors in the plot.
WHACK !
Well, shucks. There goes the yacht and the lakefront property.
Others may have their own opinion. This outcome gives me faith that the individual who stands behind what they believe is right can still fight for their voice to be heard and not to be stifled by political and legal action against them.
But what would someone have done if they didn’t have the resources (money) to stand against this action? Then indeed the SLAPP would have been effective in quickly silencing their voices.
Hold your horses. She can still appeal the decision & has a track-record of appeals.
Evelyn It is now a public document. Do with it whatever you wish. Her lawyers are going to be very angry. The Master was quite specific about their mistakes. It is now a precedent-setting case. Useful to other lawyers for years to come.
Now that this law suit is basically over, and the judgement confirms a SLAPP action taken by the Town of Aurora.
Could the Plaintiffs not seek the balance of their legal cost from the Town?
And if the Municipal Conflict of Interest action by Mr. Hervais finds the former Mayor Morris in conflict of a pecuniary interest, ( as the former Mayor Morris was the sole benefactor of the $6 million award if the action succeeded ).
Would then, the Town of Aurora not be in a solid position of entitlement to recover all those cost borne onto the Town, from the former Mayor?
What about the Councillors who voted in favour of and supported the action from the closed session decision?
It could get very interesting.
5:25 PM It could get very interesting when individuals running for re-election are asked a ' yes ' or ' no ' question about whether they supported Morris before &/or after the election. I will do my best to make sure that question is asked. Please do the same. Thank you.
The Master has yet to rule on another item of costs.
ah the sweet smell of success or better yet right vs. wrong , Hold tight for your case this judgment can do nothing but good for you and lord knows you deserve to prevail after the gutless barrage you suffered at the hand of the losers
The current Council has to be very careful tomorrow night. They are very close to following Morris into the Courts on their Centre contract. To ignore the advice of the Solicitor is to court trouble. Pun Intended.
ah the sweet smell of success or better yet right vs. wrong , Hold tight for your case this judgment can do nothing but good for you and lord knows you deserve to prevail after the gutless barrage you suffered at the hand of the losers
5:35 PM Go forth and talk you head off on your own Blog. Or Ballard's. Just go forth. Conquer on your own instead of being just a parasite here.
I think that Morris had to pay something closer to $27,000 for losing the Norwich Motion that she tried to use to compel people she knew to reveal the names of people she did not know. Also keep in mind that she was paid $12,000 by the defendants as a result of failed Motion to Strike, therefor if she does not appeal the most recent decision she will be out a portion of her legal costs as well as approximately $32,000 of the defendant’s costs. The defence will still be out a big chunk of change, regardless of the fact that they effectively won two major precedent setting stages of this legal battle.
I am not 100% sure about this, but I think that the town paid approximately $55,000 including the money spent for the Rust D'Eye report. I think that it was reported that Morris received something like $43,000 or $45,000 from the town but I am not sure on the actual dollar figures.
What amazes me most is that all of the elected officials that backed Morris in her legal attack on residents have ignored the fact that the same Code of Conduct that they used to try and hold others accountable states clearly that “public office is not to be used for personal gain” and yet Morris used public money in order to fund her private lawsuit against her political rivals without her even agreeing to sign an indemnity agreement with the town. On top of that there is the whole question of her adherence to the Conflict of Interest Act which is now before the courts.
In a very similar case, Georgina Council recently paid for Mayor Grossi’s legal bills as well as the defendant’s full costs when their council pulled the plug on a town funded lawsuit that a good number of the public felt was a politically motivated attack that was also a completely inappropriate use of town funds. I also think that Georgina council was also found to be technically in breach of the Municipal Act as a result of how they handled their lawsuit. The public reaction in Georgina was not unlike that of Aurora in this case.
What is most scary to me is that residents could have been effectively bankrupted by town funded lawsuits even before they got to court, despite the fact that the Charter of Rights says that governments can’t legally sue for defamation. Governments can fund third party lawsuits therefore the intent of the Charter of Rights is apparently easily circumvented by elected officials that don’t hold the same level of respect four our collective right to political free speech. That should be a sobering thought.
What is truly scary is how these cases of publicly funded legal aggression were allowed to unfold in the first place and I think that elections are the best way to ensure that this never happens again.
I think that Morris had to pay something closer to $27,000 for losing the Norwich Motion that she tried to use to compel people she knew to reveal the names of people she did not know. Also keep in mind that she was paid $12,000 by the defendants as a result of failed Motion to Strike, therefor if she does not appeal the most recent decision she will be out a portion of her legal costs as well as approximately $32,000 of the defendant’s costs. The defence will still be out a big chunk of change, regardless of the fact that they effectively won two major precedent setting stages of this legal battle.
I am not 100% sure about this, but I think that the town paid approximately $55,000 including the money spent for the Rust D'Eye report. I think that it was reported that Morris received something like $43,000 or $45,000 from the town but I am not sure on the actual dollar figures.
What amazes me most is that all of the elected officials that backed Morris in her legal attack on residents have ignored the fact that the same Code of Conduct that they used to try and hold others accountable states clearly that “public office is not to be used for personal gain” and yet Morris used public money in order to fund her private lawsuit against her political rivals without her even agreeing to sign an indemnity agreement with the town. On top of that there is the whole question of her adherence to the Conflict of Interest Act which is now before the courts.
In a very similar case, Georgina Council recently paid for Mayor Grossi’s legal bills as well as the defendant’s full costs when their council pulled the plug on a town funded lawsuit that a good number of the public felt was a politically motivated attack that was also a completely inappropriate use of town funds. I also think that recently Georgina council was found to be technically in breach of the Municipal Act as a result of how they handled their lawsuit. The public reaction in Georgina was not unlike that of Aurora in this case.
What is most scary to me is that residents could have been effectively bankrupted by town funded lawsuits even before they got to court, despite the fact that the Charter of Rights says that governments can’t legally sue for defamation. Governments can fund third party lawsuits therefore the intent of the Charter of Rights is apparently easily circumvented by elected officials that don’t hold the same level of respect four our collective right to political free speech. That should be a sobering thought.
What is truly scary is how these cases of publicly funded legal aggression were allowed to unfold in the first place and I think that elections are the best way to ensure that this never happens again.
Too bad David did not have legal backing and finance to take members of council to task for the abuse he faced.
I was a witness to some of it and it was ugly and uncalled for.
The Aurora Citizen is up to pick up some of the load.
I believe that Mr Sesto is incorrect. He seems to be implying that Richard & Bill had adequate money just sitting around so that they could defend themselves against a SLAPP lawsuit. That was not the case. They had to find a young idealistic lawyer who believed in their cause and then earn the money to pay their costs. It has taken a long time & those costs have still not been recovered.
To Anonymous @ 7:11pm
"It could get very interesting when individuals running for re-election are asked a ' yes ' or ' no ' question about whether they supported Morris before &/or after the election. I will do my best to make sure that question is asked. "
If you asked me this question, I would say that I did not support her but I did not not-support her. What does this question have to do with the price of eggs? What does this have to do with Mr or Mrs X candidae?
7:40 PM, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on the blog ... and that's saying something.
My intent was not to imply that “that Richard & Bill had adequate money just sitting around so that they could defend themselves against a SLAPP lawsuit.” I apologize if that is how it came across to anyone.
Perhaps my statement would be better to say that if someone can not find the resources in whatever form they can be in order to stand against this action then indeed they will be quickly silenced and the SLAPP would have succeed.
9:59 AM Who's asking you?
Very sad to hear David Heard resign from the heritage group.
I know he is passionate about our town and you could hear his disappointment about private meetings.
To: Anonymous @ 23 October, 2012 3:45 PM
"9:59 AM Who's asking you?"
=================
Maybe 22 October, 2012 7:11 PM Did....
You don't know who anyone is... we don't know who you are!
That public resignation was just grandstanding. I'll bet that if there were private meetings to restore a full museum to Church St School he'd be the first through the door.
To 9:59 who said... Quote: "If you asked me this question, I would say that I did not support her but I did not not-support her. What does this question have to do with the price of eggs? What does this have to do with Mr or Mrs X candidae?"
The question posed has nothing to do with the price of eggs and everything to do with political free speech. If you can't take a stance on this issue as a candidate for public office then maybe you are not fit for public office. The actions of those people that agreed that suing residents for the offence of participating in political debate (even if at times strongly worded debate) reflects their hypocrisy and the fact that some people are willing to use the full force of government to silence their political critics. That is what SLAPP litigation is all about and that is why the question posed is so fundamentally important. If you answer the question by avoiding accountability and misleading the public then you won't likely be the only politician to do so, but the truth will hopefully come out eventually and with any luck you will be tossed from office, should you be lucky enough to sneak into office in the first place.
8:01 AM That crack at David Heard was totally uncalled for and thoroughly nasty. You really are a dung beetle!
He obviously wanted to provoke a reaction, 11:47 AM, and mine is a genuine, honest reaction.
Is a "dung beetle" worse than a "self-pitying attention seeker"?
To Anonymous 5:25 PM
I assume that if the town pays your personal legal bills you have a pecuniary interest in the matter, even if you don't win a dime. It follows that if you have a pecuniary interest in any matter being discussed in a closed meeting you need to leave the meeting or you are in breach of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
If anyone loses a Conflict of Interest case they penalties can include being banned from public office for up to seven years and potentially being forced to pay back the money given to you by the town.
I doubt that the town can sue Ms. Morris to return funds that they gave her without requiring her to sign any form of agreement.
I am not a lawyer but that is my understanding and best guess.
Feel free to confirm with the town solicitor or town council what their take on all of this is. I think you have a right to know answers to these questions given that it was your tax dollars that were given to Ms Morris (assuming you are from Aurora).
Post a Comment