"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Thursday, 11 September 2014

Follow up on insurance premiums.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Litany of Legal Fees not paid by BFL Continues...":

Wow ! You are really cooking this morning. I was able to follow but expect most readers including myself are going to need some time. Some of what you wrote, I knew about. Other material was just rumour when it happened. It is interesting that the insurance guy blew this all into the open.

Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 11 September 2014 11:37


BFL Vice president did tell us more than I realize. I was distracted by the antics of Councillor Abel.

Writing a post compels me to arrange my thoughts in order. I took down a post titled Anything can happen in politics. It was not clear enough for my liking and I am also restricted by my legal role as a complainant against six people who in my view abused public trust in numerous ways. 

I took a shower after finishing the post on insurance claims. My mind kept on turning. The post 
needs completion. 

Particulars are included in the town solicitor's report are on BFL stationary. It means Aurora staff did not provide them.

The Vice President answered questions about process. He did not volunteer information.

I asked why he had not provided the figures for defence of the six.  Mayor Dawe noted it was in the documentation. He pointed to the solitary " Personal Injury Claim".  I felt stupid and apologized to the V.P.  I said I was not looking for it under that title. But I did not ask why it was under that title.

I was only half stupid. Why is a legal defence against legal action complaining of defamation, abuse of authority, abuse of public resources and denial of rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by a Councillor being paid as a claim to defendants for personal injury.

I did not ask the obvious question and the answer was avoided.

We have checked Wikipedia. The funding in no way fits the category of personal injury.

It is my understanding from a reliable source, the insurance company initially denied the claim. Something happened that made them change their mind.

No clerk was on staff at the time. The Town Solicitor was Acting-CAO. It is the clerk's function to process insurance claims. A Municipal Clerk is a statuary office. Meaning: He has legal authority and responsibility.

A  lawyer was assigned to the defendants by the insurance company. There was a flurry of activity for several months between the assigned lawyers and the defendants.  In the end they demanded a new lawyer.

They were authorized to regain their own.

They did that.

I cannot speak of the trial until the decision is handed down. The Judge has from July 23rd, 6 months to make the decision.

The Clerk hired to replace the clerk who made a sudden decision to retire after giving me the Integrity Director's decision is no longer with the municipality .

His position, as Director was made redundant for the purpose of economy.

One other small detail I left out may be significant in the overall picture.

The Clerk was on vacation when the Integrity Commissioner made his decision. The Deputy Clerk accepted and notified Councillors the decision was in their mail boxes. Immediately after the message was withdrawn.

I went to the Town Hall to receive my copy.  The Deputy Clerk did not appear. Instead the Solicitor
passed by a couple of times on his way to and from the Mayor's office. He did not acknowledge my presence. I had a Rogers camera person and reporter with me at the time. I had waited an hour.

Finally the solicitor did approach . Informed  me cameras were not allowed in the town hall. Also informed me he was acting CAO and since the deputy clerk was not appointed acting clerk by Council and therefore he was instructing her not to provide me with the Integrity Commissioners decision.

This was in August.

The Deputy Clerk left the town hall in tears that day and was on stress leave until a new clerk was hired some months later. The only candidate by the way with municipal clerk experience.

The lawyer had been on staff since April. His was the only affidavit provided in the SLAPP action, the one the Judge said was evasive in his answers and lied.

He was no longer Town Solicitor early in the new term.

So now the question outstanding on the issue of vastly increased premiums due to an exorbitant claim for defence in a lawsuit is why is it classified as a personal injury claim.

How kosher is that?


Anonymous said...

You make a number of valid points but please check your material with a legal source. The blog makes an easy target. It is not telling tales out of school when I note that Mr Wallace had a lawyer with the paper - just to keep him out of trouble.

Dd You Read the Complete Entry? said...

"We have checked Wikipedia. The funding in no way fits the category of personal injury."

From Wikipedia:

"In insurance "personal injury" as typically defined does not include bodily injury damages and instead refers to mental injury damages, particularly as a result of defamation..."

So, yes, it does.

Anonymous said...

There you go again ignoring the contents & picking away at the packaging

Anonymous said...


Precisely, which "contents" would you care to discuss?

Anonymous said...

Bingo ! It is the past claims impacting on the current situation.

Anonymous said...

I think a guy from communications also had to quit under the stress. There had been a lot of pressure on him just before the election.

Anonymous said...

One cannot discuss with an isolate sniper

Proverbially Speaking said...

20:19, particularly when you're in possession of a pop gun and you're facing a howitzer.