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 .
Posts
2 comments:
"Defamtory (sic) comments by Sher St Kitts..."
Why didn't you sue her?
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.
Post a Comment