The tally is by no means complete

In response to a number of references to  town insurance coverage for civil litigation against  six individuals  for defamation of character; as a Councillor, I was unable to speak to the issue.

I cannot release my sources for reason but I can provide my understanding of the situation.

Initially defendants' claim  for coverage was denied.

That decision was reversed .

Since the exorbitant cost  is the reason for vastly increased premiums an explanation for the new decision can and should be provided by the insurance company.

According to statements to Council  the Insurance VP indicated  normal procedure is to pursue settlement.

Counsel assigned to defendants was replaced after several weeks of active consultation. Reason undisclosed due to solicitor/client  privilege.

Defendants were  subsequently authorized to retain counsel of their choice.

From time of  notification of intent to take action  and dismissal of the "wholly political "  complaint by the Integrity Commissioner David Nitkin ,opportunity to retract and apologize was always available

One after another,each took the floor at a Council  meeting  and stated they would not.

An offer to settle can emanate with a complainant.

Onus to respond rests with defendants .

One after another each defendant took the floor at a Council meeting and declared they would not.

It  has been the  consistent position  of the defendants throughout.

Other than the Aurora Banner's  no offer to  settle ever received a response

Other expenses for legal fees were paid from the town  treasury to "investigate" two blogs to discover comments contrary to the Code of Conduct  and write a report of findings and another for publication
of the complaint  referenced  which was dismissed by the Integrity Commissioner .

Following the  decision that the complaint was "wholly political"  and his dismissal , the annual  fee  for the newly appointed Commissioner was paid from the town treasury on termination of his legal I doubt it paid  for  legal fees to protect his reputation.

A fee was also paid  by the town to a public relations firm to "mitigate damage" caused by the Integrity Commissioner's conclusion.

All records of consultations were destroyed by the outgoing Mayor after her defeat and before her exit. No effort was made to halt the activity though it was known.

Full financial cost of the action described by  the Integrity Commisioner as "wholly political" can  not likely be known except through a judicial review. In itself it would cost taxpayers millions more.

Publicized cost of  SLAPP litigation undertaken against three residents by the former Mayor did not include severance  paid to the solicitor who ceased in the town's employ shortly thereafter.

Expenditures in that matter were paid directly from the town treasury.

As were costs for several lawyers retained early in the term to investigate the immediately preceding Mayor for potential invasion of the privacy of the succeeding Mayor.

Fes were paid to George Rust D'Eye and John Mascarin for various services provided in similar vein.

None paid by the Town's insurance provider.

All for the purpose of pursuing political adversaries and destroying reputations.