Surprise

Sometimes when I've written a post and read it a couple of days later, a point acquires a significance it didn't have before.

It happened when I wrote about the town carrying on the quest to obtain a Joint Board Hearing at the Ontario Municipal Board, after McCutcheon et al, decided to quit. The town took over the case and footed the legal bill. I believe Mr. Northey , McCutcheon's former lawyer, was authorised to accompany the town's lawyer at our expense.

Although, Mr. Beaman, the town's lawyer, is the only name shown on the document.

When leave to appeal was refused on June 10th , Councillors received a memorandum from town solicitor, Mr. Cooper. It read:

Re: McCutcheon et al.v. Westhill redevelopment Company(*Westhill")
Endorsement of the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Leave to Appeal from the decision of the Divisional Court.

No media alert was issued by the town The Toronto Star had no picture of the Mayor hanging her head in mournful defeat in the middle of a newly ploughed field without a tree in sight.

Oh Yea ! Right! .....that happened a couple of days later. After the word was already out the final motion to block the Westhill application had been as futile as all the rest.

Following the third of five failed efforts, Mr. Beaman told us his bill was $200Ks. Even though Mr. Cooper had intervened and said legal bills were part of solicitor/client privilege.

The last two had Mr. Northey in attendance, one time "pro bono" so we really have no idea how much it ended up costing.

Mr Cooper's memo makes it clear, the matter was a continuation of an action undertaken by McCutcheon et al.

So, here is the puzzlement;

How is it a municipality can take over an action undertaken on behalf of four or five residents
and pay for it from public funds?

How can a Council approve public resources be used to fund a private action on behalf of property owners in the town against another property owner in the town.

How many times a year. is a property owner in town, in a dispute with a neighbour, who appeals to the town for help, informed in no uncertain terms; it's a civil matter. The town has no role to play in a civil matter.

What has made McCutcheon et al. different to all the rest.

Then there's the matter of the Auditor's Financial Statement.

All these years, I have been accepting the Auditors Financial Statement as an iron-clad guarantee under law the town's financial affairs are in order. Funds raised by taxation for specific purposes were in fact used for the purpose stated.

This year, I looked forward to seeing what the Auditor might have to say about funds used by six Members of Council to retain legal counsel at public expense to have a fellow Councillor "investigated" , prepare a report purporting to prove" guilt", publicize it in two local newspapers and prosecute it as a complaint to an Integrity Commissioner. And said Integrity Commissioner
being terminated with a paid settlement when the decision was not to their liking.

Well... although funds were not budgeted for the purpose; the legal department's budget was in deficit for $157,300 and some dollars; and the only explanation offered was "unexpected legal costs"; the Town's Annual Audited Financial Statement and the Auditor had nothing at all to say about the circumstance.

To be fair, the Auditor's Report was presented to Council at ten minutes to ten in the evening, After all the time desired had been made available t a resident to call me a liar and other nasty things. It's neither the ideal time nor circumstance for people who have been at work all day to be asking probing questions. Some of us believe that's a strategy too.

But here's my question this morning:

If public funds can be used to fight a civil action on behalf of residents against resident, and the decisions to do so may be made behind closed doors, by six Council Members who represent a majority . And at the end of the year, the Town's auditor has nothing at all to say about it;

That seems to present opportunities for money not budgeted for the purpose , to be freely dispersed from the town treasury without control and without note or comment of any kind from the official understood to be responsible for verifying that all accounts are right and proper,

Well...that's a bummer....I am not comforted by the auditor' s letter that he found no evidence of fraud.

If six people, can spend money not budgeted, for purposes not valid, because they have a majority vote and the system does not call them to account, then all these years, I have been living in a Fool's Paradise.

My only comfort is, I have never in those same years ever seen money spent this way.