"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

Tuesday 21 November 2017


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "MAIS NON...MON AMI ... IL N'EST PAS VRAIMENT": 

"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. 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Were there assaults coming from Town Hall?