The Argument

Copies of the four decisions on the application and appeals for Joint Board Hearing for the WestHill Development application. are on hand.

The town's decision to support neighbouring residents to the Westhill proposal ,in their opposition is already known. The decisions are a matter of public record. I scanned the first three. I read the most recent . The one that wasn't authorised by Council.

The first decision by the Ontario Municipal Board said Mr. Northey's argument was contrived.
Mr. Northey is the environmental lawyer retained by Mr. Mc Cutcheon, himself a lawyer I believe, and his neighbours. The town's lawyer, Roger Beaman supported Mr. Northey in his arguments. He was so instructed.

The last decision by the Divisional Court pointed out Mr. Northey had argued the case based on a law which had not been proclaimed. It was passed in the legislature but never proclaimed. That means it isn't a law. On instructions, Mr. Beaman supported that argument.

Mr. Beaman's fees for following Mr. Northey into court and supporting his argument three times, up to but not including the last appearance,were $135,000. We may assume the last appearance would bring the total close to $200.000

That's what we spent with tax dollars, to support an argument which never held water in the first place. The dispute is about amount of water being taken by the development. Pardon the pun.

It's not our business, but suppose Mr. Northey's costs for representing the residents with a company of experts was $400.000. And suppose Westhill Development spent the same amount.
.
We are looking at a conservative figure $1 million in legal fees in total and two years spent with nothing whatsoever accomplished on anyone's behalf.Not the Town's. Not the neighbour's. And not the developers.

NOTHING.!!! NIL.!!! ZERO!!!! ZILCH!!!! NADA!!!! Amen, my friends.

And we are not done yet shovelling money into this bottomless pit.

With professional advice yet.

Not that professional advice makes a difference in the Mormac Regime.

In fact, the pattern established seems to indicate clear bias, if not actual hostility, against any level or variety of expertise.

Here's another awful thought.

Someone has already contemplated that the town should compensate the opposing neighbours for their legal costs.

Add to that a potential judgement for costs to the successful party to the argument.