"You argue the charge was justified It was in fact dismissed.
IT WAS A BULLSHIT CHARGE.......a total waste of public resources. "
So, in the case of a lawsuit by a former councillor against other councillors and former councillors, the case was dismissed... I guess the case was unjustified.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 21 November 2017 at 10:07
*************************
That complaint was not dismissed
The jury was dismissed.
After a midnight e-mail from opposing counsel,when the five week trial had ended , save for his instructions as to law from Judge Mark Edwards,who had sought to preside in the case, he ruled
complainant's lawyer Kevin MacDonald had made an "egregious" comment in his summation
and dismissed the jury.
Mr MacDonald said John Mascarin, counsel retained by the Mayor and paid by the municipality,
was "reckless". The word reckless was defined in the context used.
Edwards refused to allow evidence of the Integrity Commissioner's negative decision on the complaint
written by Mascarin, on behalf the defendant Mayor and 5 councillors contravening relevant provincial law and Regulatikns.
The complaint was dismissed by Integrity Commissioner David Nitkin, as " purely political"
It had been published in two newspapers and posted on the municipal web site, on orders of the defendants, paid for by the town ,though never identified as a communication of the town.
The Judge also refused to admit evidence of the unsuccessful SLAPP law suit filed against three citizens by the Mayor at town expense. Town lawyer, Christopher Cooper, who swore the affidavit and was the only witness, was found by that Judge in that trial, to have lied and evaded questions.
Mr Cooper's services were terminated by the incoming council after the former Mayor and three of
defendants were rejected by the Aurora electors.
After dismissing the jury, Edwards acknowledged the complainant's legal right to a jury trial and
the injustice of being so deprived by the lawyer's error.
He said special consideration would be extended to compensate for the inequity.
That never happened.
Several more weeks of work were spent gathering municipal experts aswitnesses and preparing a new argument, only to learn no opportunity would be provided to present.
Only written arguments were accepted.
Thousands more expense went into a second exercise in futility and frustration.
The Judge took nineteenth more months to write his decision.
He held the Mayor and five councillors had authority to use town resources, staff and finances, to publish a damaging statement about another councillor in every venue available.
According to Mr. MacDonald, Judge Edwards continued to receive communications from
defendants' counsel long after deadline for submissions.
Cost to the municipality was 31% increase in premiums resulting from almost $1 million legal
cost to defend a claim which was initially denied by the insurers.
Despite the question, reason for changing the initial decision was never disclosed despite the
question being asked.
Public respect for law and order is the essence of civilization.
The principle applies to Police and the Courts.
When the assault and battery come from within the institutions, the prospect is grim.
Were there assaults coming from Town Hall?
ReplyDelete