"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

Wednesday, 3 June 2015


Hardly a day goes by that I don't write  a blog.

The posts are not published because inevitably they touch on details of the suit . And that is a no-no.

In the eight years of  writing, no matter how it starts, each post finds its own direction. Unless  I write what's in the forefront of my mind, it's hard to deviate.

The previous to last comment takes the position my decision to litigate was wrong. I  respectfully suggest that decision was mine to make. No-one else. 

The town's insurance company  acceptance of  liability is a legitimate question the public has a right to know. 

I suspect the argument about my decision  is intended to distract from almost  one million dollars being used or mis-used to satisfy an ineligible claim. 

Had it been eligible, premiums would not have increased 41%  in 2014 and every year hereafter
to cover the cost after the fact.

Expertise is hardly required to understand the rule of cause and effect

Familiarity with the Municipal Act is not required to understand it cannot possibly be  interpreted to 
breach of civil law for politicians. 

Premier Kathleen Wynne is suing two Conservative members for public accusations that reflect on her integrity. The Liberal Party is paying  the Premier's legal expenses. The Conservative Party are paying to defend the defendants. 


Every lawyer in Ontario is an Officer of the Court. As such He/she is bound morally,ethically and legally to uphold the law. Solicitor/client privilege notwithstanding.

Libel and Slander laws  are older by far than the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 
dating back to English Common Law. 

Even those laws were founded on religious principles predating Christianity: Judean-Christian principles.

It was Moses who came down from the mountain with Ten Commandments chiseled in stone. One of the prohibitions was taking away a neighbour's  reputation. 

You can't steal property either. 

Aurora taxpayers have a right to be angry that taxes were used to increase premiums to cover exorbitant legal  costs. 

There is an an obligation to explain why normal checks and balances did not prevent it. 

The question remains to be asked and answered.



Anonymous said...

The Liberals have lost billions of tax payers money, and then end up with a majority gov't. What's a million or 2 in a municipality. Chump change! When only 30% of the electorate vote, those are the only ones that they answer too. The next market hit will be a doozie, there will be a record turn out in the polls the and questions like "why" and "how"will be demanded.

Anonymous said...

It was all slipped past during the last election because the opposition completely fudged their campaign, Our mayor was not required to answer any WHy questions.

Anonymous said...

9:00- What opposition?

Anonymous said...

"The previous to last comment takes the position my decision to litigate was wrong."

If you're referring to the following, you've got the wrong end of the stick: "The "so-called defamation thingee" was also a choice, and WRONG on every level you can think of."

That sentence describes the Mormac SLAPP suit against Hogg, Johnson, Bishenden, et al. as being "WRONG."

No one would deny you your right to sue. You're correct, it was your decision to make, yours alone. But, and it's a big but, you also can't deny the 'optics' of incongruity regarding a self-proclaimed 'champion of the taxpayer' pursuing a course that causes increased expense for the Town. Someone can be well within their (legal) rights and still look like a hypocrite.

KA-NON said...

@12:38 I can't believe that you are serious to suggest that Evelyn consider surrendering her rights to recourse on the basis that the town's insurance costs might go up as a result. That is absolutely idiotic thinking. Let's say that a town vehicle ran a stop sign, and plowed into your car. Would you not make a claim on the basis that the town's vehicle insurance costs might go up? Of course not.

Honestly, people get themselves so twisted up in logical knots on here trying to make a point or win an argument.

Anonymous said...

I never made any such suggestion, KA-NON. In fact, I stated that no one would deny ex-Cllr Buck her right to bring suit against whomever.

Your 'what if' liability insurance claim scenario is apples-and-oranges in relation to commencing litigation over a perceived loss of reputation.

Also, I'm not a long-standing member of council with a reputation for watching the taxpayers' pennies. I'm not a vocal opponent of so many budget line items, either, failing to vote in favour of every Town Budget. I don't attempt to strike a righteous pose while looking to claim some moral high ground as the champion of the 'little guy.'

Most of all, with all that reputation for parsimony, I didn't decide to put private interests before the public purse.

KA-NON said...

@18:19 In my initial drafting of the liability scenario, I had the town employee ramming your car on purpose. That may be a more accurate analogy.

In my opinion, your framing of Evelyn's suit as a financial burden foisted on the town is just as vacuous now as it was when it was originally cast, by the Mayor and his deputy. (To the extent that their naked political manouveurs may have had an impact on the election results is an embarassing shame on them, in my opinion.) Entirely conspicuous by its absence is your attempt to justify your position on the merits of the case that prompted the suit in the first place.

The treatment that Evelyn received which prompted her legal action was appalling. Not only did she have the right to sue (as you acknowledge) but I would argue the obligation. Someone needed to stand up to the bullying that was going on during that term. That it was Evelyn as opposed to the countless others who were fired, shouted at, berated, forced to resign should not surprise you or anyone else.

Anonymous said...

No, KA-NON, it's not a "more accurate analogy" - it's still a liability issue versus a defamation one.

It would appear that that particular naked, political manoeuvre worked, right? The raw rookies ran rings around the savvy veteran. The stupid, paranoid Mormac faction went hammer-and-tongs in attacking then-Cllr Buck (that's where your "shame on them" should be applied). The reprehensible campaign waged against then-Cllr Buck was fuelled by a massive insecurity complex, I'd venture.

Mormac tried far too hard - to distraction, in fact - without success in sidelining their target. Subsequently, the following term saw the new members quickly deem Evelyn Buck to be more hindrance than help. She ended up just as marginalized, just without all the vitriol and nasty, blatant machinations.

"Entirely conspicuous by its absence is your attempt to justify your position on the merits of the case that prompted the suit in the first place."

Irrelevant to the basic argument that I was making.

"The treatment that Evelyn received...was appalling."

Agreed. She had my sympathy during that ordeal.

"Not only did she have the right to sue (as you acknowledge) but I would argue the obligation."

Uh, no, you can't argue that. There was no "obligation" - period, full-stop.

"...the countless others who were fired, shouted at, berated, forced to resign..."

How many of those "countless others" decided to initiate legal action? See, there goes your obligation argument out the window, again.

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

8:49- deductible or not...we always end up paying. All levels of government will make sure of that. Regardless of any of that, Evelyn has paid and continues to pay for this Towns BS and FU's.