"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

Saturday, 6 June 2015


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "WHY OH WHY?":

In any of these lawsuits (provincial or yours) isn't there a deductible that must be paid ie by the taxpayers

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 6 June 2015 at 08:49


Litigation  between Premier Kathleen Wynne and  Opposition members is not government business any more than my law suit. Clearly there is no government liability. 

Imagine what it  would be like if politicians were free to  libel and slander each other  knowing they would be defended  from litigation with unlimited public resources 

The parties in Ms Wynne's action are each paying their own costs. The Litigation is against a statement made in public, damaging to  the Premier's reputation; an accusation of wrong-doing. 

The Premier has publicly stated an apology would make the litigation go away. 

The provincial government has no responsibility in the matter. 
Zilch...Zero....Nil...Nothing....Nada. Not a farthing of public resources expended.  

By contrast, the  S.L.A.P..P. action against three residents of Aurora  was  financed straight out of town coffers. 

Unpaid at the time of the election,the new Council led by G Dawe made the decision,with one dissent, to pay out of town finances. Costs are still being incurred  because of that decision. 

Defendants, law-abiding  victims of  Mayoralty Rage and Lust for Revenge , were not compensated  entirely for costs and no recognition given for anguish endured. 

The town's solicitor provided the only affidavit against them. 
He did not act independently.
He was terminated because of the judicial  ruling he had evaded questions and lied to the court

He received settlement from the new Council  of a year's salary. 

On staff advice .

The better part of $200k. 

The statement  against myself,composed by a lawyer and published was also paid by the town

Defamtory comments by Sher St Kitts permitted at a Council meeting in May 2009 ,were not recorded despite a resolution adopted by the majority to do precisely that.

Mr. Garbe stated staff had conferenced and decided  against  following Council direction.  

The Municipal Clerk, statutorily responsible for accurate record of  proceedings was not invited to comment. In a matter of weeks ,the clerk was no longer a town employee. 

Publishing the comments in the record would have made the town party to defamation. 

It seems paying for it with town resources however was not a perceived problem. 

Town resources were freely and repeatedly accessed to accommodate activities outside the town's interest or function during that term. Checks and balances were conspicuous in their absence. 

Piracy  of Church Street School and  the scandalous contract to purchase culture  is already known and will not be forgotten. 

The S.L.A.P.P. suit,initiated during an election was the straw that broke the back of Mormac's camel.

Without it the town might  still be enthralled. 

Ironically to an extent, the next Council  continued to similarly operate. 

Defamatory statements  were made but  not published with names attached.Enough names might been  difficult to assemble.

BTW... the  statement published by Mormac's  crew carried the  logo....not the town's name ....
creating an iimpression of Corporate Authority without the reality 

Still the town's resources were used to pay .


Just Curious said...

"Defamtory (sic) comments by Sher St Kitts..."

Why didn't you sue her?

Anonymous said...

You will have more support soon as a resident will add to the tale of SLAPP, harassment, and cover-up by some staff. May God be with those who abused power.