Details

Last week Ontario Premier, Kathleen Wynne, abandoned her libel action against former PC Leader, Tim Hudak. They agreed it was time to bury the hatchet and move on.

Their jointly agreed statement says: 

“The lawsuit between us, and the comments that led to it, did not reflect our view that the other is in fact a great mother/father, an honourable person and a dedicated public servant.”

It is hard to imagine the fragile and notoriously litigious former Newmarket councillor, Maddie Di Muccio, saying anything remotely generous about regional councillor John Taylor. She hates him, perhaps even more so than her obsessive-compulsive husband, the always-angry John Blommesteyn. But in suing him for libel President Di Muccio is making a terrible error of judgement.

The Courts are generally loath to intervene in spats between politicians. The defamation bar is set very high indeed.

For his part, Blommesteyn is out to get Taylor for allegedly breaking the rules on campaign finance.

Picking over the entrails

Blommesteyn has asked for a campaign compliance audit of some of the contributions to Taylor’s 2014 election campaign. A meeting to pick over the entrails will be held at 10am tomorrow, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 395 Mulock Drive. You can read the paperwork here.

Blommesteyn asserts that Taylor may have contravened the Municipal Elections Act by accepting donations of $750 from three related companies with common ownership. Taylor’s Toronto lawyers put the allegations this way:

“The essence of Blommesteyn’s claim is that Taylor received $750.00 contributions from each of three corporations (namely BionX Canada Ltd., Magna International Ltd., and Stronach Consulting Ltd.) claimed by Blommesteyn, on the strength of a “news blog" of unstated or unknown authorship, to have common ownership.”

Taylor shoots Blommesteyn’s Fox

Taylor says he believed at the time that the three corporations listed above were not linked. But as soon as he became aware of Blommesteyn’s application for a campaign finance audit he, Taylor, started digging and found out there was indeed a connection between two of the three corporations. He immediately refunded the $750 campaign contribution to BionX Canada Ltd

In his evidence Blommesteyn draws attention to the 2014 Candidates’ Guide for Ontario Municipal and School Board Elections which states on page 15:

 “There is a $750 limit that applies to each person, corporation and union who contributes to your campaign.”

It goes on:

“If you accept contributions from corporations, you must determine whether the corporations are associated. Generally, corporations are associated if they are owned or controlled by the same person or persons… The contribution limits apply to associated corporations as if they were all a single corporation.”

Taylor’s lawyers address this head on, quoting case law which suggests that

“receiving illegal campaign contributions cannot sensibly be construed to contravene any provision of the Act…  if this were not so, a contributor could sabotage the election of a candidate merely by making an illegal donation. Consequently, the only obligation upon a candidate is to return the contravening contribution as soon as possible.”

Whatever form the truth eventually takes, Taylor’s decision to return the $750 campaign contribution will no doubt be heralded as a great victory by Blommesteyn.

Maybe Taylor was not as punctilious as he should have been in checking out whether the donor companies were associated.

But in the hurly burly of a campaign I am sure these slip-ups and oversights can happen. It seems implausible to me that Taylor would knowingly jeopardize his campaign for re-election for the sake of $750.

But others clearly take a different view. They believe Taylor would push his granny under a bus for $10.

Non compliance

Two years ago, one of Blommesteyn’s companies was dissolved for non-compliance by Corporations Canada. He set the company up on 22 September 2010 but, for whatever reason, the required annual filings for 7656092 Canada Inc were not submitted by the due date for 2011 and 2012 and, on 22 July 2013, the corporation was dissolved for non-compliance. I didn’t make a big song and dance about it at the time and brand Blommesteyn a lawbreaker because, then as now, I am prepared to believe there is a perfectly innocent explanation.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

To read the documentation in its entirety, open “Documents” in panel top left and navigate to Newmarket. Open “Compliance Audit: Blommesteyn and Taylor”.

You can see details of Blommesteyn’s corporation which was dissolved for non-compliance by navigating to “Correspondence” and opening “Non-compliance”

Details

Regional Councillor John Taylor has now filed a robust defence to Maddie Di Muccio’s ludicrous libel action in which she accuses him of making her “a target of ridicule, hatred and/or contempt of others”.

In a statement to the Era newspaper, Taylor reminds its readers that Di Muccio, the grandly titled President of York Region Taxpayers Coalition, used public money for partisan, political purposes.

In his defence, Taylor says he wholly rejects the statements he made to the Era are libelous. He says they are true - which is, of course, a complete defence. He says the fact that Di Muccio expensed the Town of Newmarket $1,225 for an ad attacking Tim Hudak after he disqualified her as a PC candidate in the last Provincial election was in violation of the Town’s policies.

Taylor goes on to brand Di Muccio’s libel suit as “frivolous and vexatious”.

“Since January 2015, Councillor Di Muccio and her husband have launched an integrity commissioner investigation against me as well as a campaign finance audit. They have taken the Era newspaper to small claims court, they have opened a police investigation on a former municipal candidate, they have served notice of libel to two former municipal candidates. Finally, Maddie Di Muccio recently tweeted that she enjoyed serving me for this action in Council chambers in front of staff and my peers (attached). These actions are all a matter of public record or have been published by the parties involved.”

Di Muccio could, of course, drop the action against Taylor but that would involve a huge loss of face which would not go down well in the world where she feels comfortable and most at home, namely cyberspace.

So what happens next? As I understand it, within 90 days the Small Claims Court will invite them to a Settlement Conference, chaired by a Judge but outside a courtroom setting, to see if they can resolve things. If not, then it goes to trial in open court.

There is not the remotest possibility of Di Muccio succeeding in her libel action against Taylor and winning her claim for $5,000 in damages to compensate for her hurt feelings. This demand for cash is risible.

She inhabits a world where smears and crude personal attacks are commonplace. It is her way of doing politics. This is fairly typical of her modus operandi:

@NwktTownHall Newmarkt council’s officially become a cesspool of failed provincial candidates: @_JohnTaylor, @ChristinaBisanz, @JaneTwinney

8.38pm – 11 Dec 14

Given the vitriol of her attacks on others, I find it astonishing that Di Muccio believes she has any chance of winning. But, clearly, she does.

She has convinced herself, m’lud, that she expresses honest opinions whereas others lie.

#Newmarket chambers isn’t a real courtroom. In a real courtroom, you have to prove that the lies you say about other people is true.

8.16 AM – 15 Jun 2015

She will have her day in court. And it will be delicious drama.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

You can read Taylor’s Defence by clicking “Documents” in the panel top left, opening “Correspondence” and navigating to “Di Muccio vs Taylor”.

 

Details

The Background: The OMB written decision of 18 November 2014 tells us:

“There is no evidence before the Board that the Town took any steps to acquire these lands for public open space and public park purposes.”

In a nutshell: Newmarket councillors in March 2008 took a decision in principle not to buy the Glenway lands on the basis of a verbal report from the Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton. We do not know what was said at that meeting or what options were considered. But the die was cast. The decision was taken in a closed session meeting that lasted 35 minutes (with three items on the agenda). Tony Van Bynen was in the chair with John Taylor and Joe Sponga present (along with former councillors Emanuel, Ramsarran and Woodhouse).

On 24 June 2015 I submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Town of Newmarket (as did the Glenway Preservation Association) asking for sight of the Minutes and all Records relating to the possible purchase of Glenway Golf Course in the Closed Session of the Committee of the Whole 17 March 2008 and in the Closed Session Special Committee of the Whole 28 April 2008.

Read the Confidential Minutes and Reports

I received copies of these papers on 3 July 2015 along with a copy of a confidential Information Report from the Chief Administrative Officer to the Mayor and Members of the Council dated 15 February 2013. That document had been triggered by a question from a councillor asking if the Town had ever considered buying the Glenway Golf Course property. You can see all these papers by clicking on “Documents” in the panel top left, opening “Glenway” and navigating to “FOI Request on Town’s possible purchase of Glenway lands 3 July 2015”.

What the records reveal

The confidential Information Report of 15 February 2013, written five years after the events in question, says the Chief Administrative Officer (Bob Shelton) provided a verbal report in March 2008 to a closed session meeting of the Committee of the Whole on the Glenway property sale which was being conducted by way of a tender call.

The Information Report states:

“Council concurred that the municipality was not in the golf course business and the property should not be pursued.”

There is no mention of this reason in the publicly available records from 2008. The Minute of the closed session meeting on 17 March 2008 simply records that the verbal report "be received".

By the time of the report of 25 April 2008, Bob Shelton had met the owners and had learned more about their plans and preferences.

Shelton lists various key points coming out of the meeting

“The proposals are wide-ranging and from the discussions appear to range from intense residential development to the combination of development and private club activities such as a nine hole golf course, racket-ball, etc (it does not appear that a solid proposal was received for the 18 hole golf course though this was not entirely clear)”

“The owners indicated that at this point they would prefer to proceed by way of a co-operative approach with the municipality and thus would like to discuss potential options with the Town.”

“These options included the Town considering the purchase of the property and/or entering into a partnership which could be structured such that the golf course continues to function for a certain period of time while development option(s) are reviewed and pursued that would strive for a balanced plan.”

The report was “received for information purposes”.

Back to Front

It all seems back to front to me, with councillors taking a decision in principle in March 2008 not to buy before all the options had been explored.

The Minutes and Records are silent on the number and nature of any tender offers and any options that may have been put on the table by parties interested in acquiring the Glenway lands. This is the sort of thing we might have expected to see in a confidential background report – if, of course, the information were available.

Postscript

Marianneville bought the Glenway lands on 21 January 2010 from Glenway Country Club (1994) Limited for $9,900,000.

When Marianneville produced its settlement offer to the Town (in the hope of avoiding an OMB Hearing) it offered the Glenway West lands to the Town on a ten year option to buy at a fixed price of $5,500,000. The Town did not accept and the Glenway issue went to the OMB. Had the Town settled on those terms, Marianneville would have won the jackpot, acquiring the developable Glenway golf course lands for a trifling $4.4 million.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

We are in the middle of a blizzard of reviews. The Province wants to know our views on our municipalities and how they are run and whether we should change the voting system and much else besides.

Unfortunately, there is no review (yet) of the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act 1996 which spawns the annual Sunshine List. It gives pundits and commentators an opportunity once a year to slag off and berate those working in the public sector. (Personally, I think the vast majority of people in the public sector do a good job and deserve a round of applause.)

These days, the Sunshine List includes many people who should not be on it. Its original rationale – now lost – was to capture the very top earners. So many people are now on it, the list has turned into a form of salary voyeurism allowing nosey-parkers to find out what their neighbour is earning. If we want real transparency then we should publish everyone’s tax returns as they do in Finland.

Frozen since 1996

The $100,000 salary, fixed in 1996 and unchanged since, should now be $142,584 in 2015 – a 42.5% increase when adjusted for inflation using the Bank of Canada’s inflation converter.

There was an astonishing 14% increase in the number of Ontario public sector workers crossing the $100,000 threshold last year. There are now 111,438 public sector workers on Ontario’s 2014 Sunshine List. The average salary of those on the list is $127,178.

Sunshine List and its Anomalies

Despite the huge amount of attention given to the Sunshine List it is shot through with anomalies.

My attention was first drawn to this a few months ago when Newmarket Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, loudly complained to the Toronto Star that they got his salary wrong. The paper subsequently published a correction – revising it sharply downwards from $182,000 to $159,856 but even that doesn’t tell the whole story. He gets about $10,000 a year from a second job with the Hydro that derives from his primary job (Mayor of Newmarket) but that useful dollop of cash is excluded from his remuneration as disclosed in the Sunshine List.

Base salary + Taxable Benefits

Van Bynen gets a base salary from Newmarket of $91,313 plus various benefits such as Canada Pension Plan ($2,425) and OMERS ($14,704) totaling $16,383. The Town recovers $8,794 from the Region of York which represents the Region's share of contributions for OMERs and the CPP. This brings the total to $107,697. Other expenses carried by the Town such as the auto allowance ($6,463) and discretionary expenses such as tickets to events and fuel and vehicle maintenance and so on ($5,381) are quite properly excluded from his total remuneration. (Business lunches and so on are covered in a separate Corporate Expenses category and are, of course, excluded.)

We must now add on to the Mayor’s Newmarket remuneration the $52,987 he gets from the Region of York. (He has a seat on the Regional Council by virtue of his position as Mayor of Newmarket.) This takes his total remuneration ($107,697 + $52,987) to $160,684. But since the Star’s correction gives him $159,856 I must have make some kind of error in my calculations. Still, as from next year, the hydro remuneration will be added to the total bringing Van Bynen up around $170,000.

By any measure, he qualifies to be on the Sunshine List. Indeed, when Van Bynen chided the Toronto Star for getting the figures wrong he gave a revised total which lumped together his Newmarket and York Region remuneration.

A Tale of Two Cities: Newmarket's Mayor is on the Sunshine List but Aurora's Mayor is not

Van Bynen’s next door neighbour, Geoffrey Dawe, Mayor of Aurora, is noticeable by his absence from the Sunshine List. His base remuneration for 2014 was a relatively modest $61,492 with benefits of $17,869 giving a total of $79,361. (Excluded from this total, quite properly, are vehicle and travel allowance ($8,470) and other expenses ($1,830). Dawe’s total remuneration shown above excludes the $55,162 he gets from serving on York Region by virtue of his position as Mayor of Aurora. If this were added it would comfortably put Mayor Dawe in the Sunshine List. (Dawe also gets an honorarium of $3,000 for serving as Vice Chair of the Lake Simcoe Region conservation authority which may or may not account for the difference in York Region salaries for Van Bynen and Dawe.)

The Province really needs to update or, better still, index the Sunshine List threshold so that it doesn’t ensnare more and more people every year, moving away from the original intention. An updated Sunshine List with a $145,000 threshold would exclude the (relatively) frugal Geoffrey Dawe but capture Newmarket's Tony Van Bynen.

In any event, it needs to be clarified beyond doubt that total remuneration from second and third (or more) jobs that derive from the primary job of Mayor should be included in the List.

If it is to have any value, the Sunshine List should allow us to compare apples with apples.

At the moment, it doesn't.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

Earlier this week, after the Glenway “Lessons Learned” meeting, we were treated to Mayoral waffle of the highest quality. Tony Van Bynen was on top form when he told the Newmarket Era:

“There were some concerns expressed regarding the amount of information released to the public surrounding the fight, and the Town’s ability to purchase the land years ago. However, negotiating strategies do need to take place behind closed doors.”

"It is something that needs to unfold as the dialogue progresses. The rationale for making a decision not to buy the golf course, people still want to know what that was. That’s something Council still needs to deal with, in terms of how that process can be brought forward.”

It is way too late to do anything about Tony Van Bynen. Secrecy is in his banker’s DNA. Openness is as foreign to him as disclosing a client’s bank balance to a stranger.

John Taylor explains the process

In some respects, John Taylor is Tony Van Bynen in training. He loves talking about process and procedure. Take this gem from September 2014 when he was berating the abrasive former councillor Maddie Di Muccio whose husband, John Blommestyn, had publicised the existence of a confidential memo about the Glenway West lands.*

Taylor claimed that the overwhelming majority of matters discussed in closed session are brought into the open, eventually seeing the light of day:

 “…in-camera discussions go through a process and most of them eventually, if not all of them, eventually, come out of camera. You go through a process that takes time and staff review it and they report back to us how to bring it out in its entirety or partially and at what stage… And just to conclude. I think it is important to understand the process and my point is that these things go through a due course. We dealt with something perhaps a little quicker than we used to and that is fine but there is a process we go through for these things and the vast majority come out entirely or partially into the public domain."

Some previously closed material does make its way into Information Reports (which are buried in the Town's website) but the version of events described by Taylor is pure fiction.

The Town’s Solicitor, Esther Armchuck, told me in May 2014:

“Closed session discussions or directions given by Council in Closed Sessions remain confidential unless Council decides to make some or all of those discussions or directions public.”

This begs the question: does this actually happen in practice? Or does the system work by keeping everything in closed session confidential until challenged through a Freedom of Information request?

Declassifying confidential information

There is, in fact, no routine process in Newmarket for disclosing closed session records, say after a certain number of years. Instead, Freedom of Information requests are often used to prise open the oyster and get access to closed session records.

So, earlier this week, I put in a request (as did the Glenway Preservation Association) for disclosure of the minutes and all the records relating to the possible purchase of Glenway golf course by the Town in 2008. I also resubmitted an earlier request from September 2014 which had been rejected.

There needs to be a wholesale review of how the Town deals with closed session matters. Of course, no sensible person would dispute the need for the Town, or indeed any municipality, to have private space to discuss sensitive issues such as buying or selling land. There is provision for this in legislation. But this should not be an excuse for putting a padlock on information indefinitely.

It cheats the public. And information is, in any event, often traded by councillors when it suits their purpose. We are offered nuggets of information on the condition we don’t pass it on to anyone else.

Avoiding embarrassment

The Council can, on its own volition, make all or part of a closed session public and, obviously, councillors will take advice from staff to ensure the legal and financial interests of the Town are protected.

But that is very different from keeping things secret to avoid embarrassing individuals or to conceal inaction or some other failing.

I hear that in the fall the Town will start posting all Freedom of Information requests on line with sections redacted as necessary, making it easier to gain access to information.

This is a major step forward in loosening the grip of secrecy on our Town.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

*You can read the exchange by opening Documents in the panel top left and navigating to Newmarket Documents. Open Debate on Disclosure of Information, September 2014.

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home