By Pepper Parr
June 3rd, 2024
BURLINGTON, ON
Published at 8:00 pm
The note I got from the lawyers representing the seven members of the 2014 city council that I had sued was a note saying:
Although you have taken no steps to pursue the action you commenced against the City, your action remains technically alive. Given that there are no restrictions on you and there have not been for over 4.5 years, we request that you agree to a dismissal of the action on a without costs basis. We would be pleased to send a full and final release, consent and draft dismissal order for your review.
Interestingly, the note said the action was commenced against the city. The action was commenced against seven individuals who were not employees of the city; they were city council members.
Sometime in September 2017 City Council went into a CLOSED session to discuss a Human Resources matter related to a named individual. I was in the Council Chamber at the time and mentioned to Joan Little, the Hamilton Spectator columnist, who was with me in the Council Chamber as well, that I wondered who it was this time.
Little did I know it was me?
Members of the 2014-2018 City Council Just two of the seven were returned to office in the 2018 municipal election.
Complaints were said to have been made about my behaviour; an investigation done and the results in the hands of the city manager who took it to Council.
This was at a time when the #Metoo movement was close to its peak.
James Ridge, former City Manager, at a Council meeting.
It was also at a time when I did not have a very good working relationship with then City Manager James Ridge.
On or about September 20, Ridge asked to meet with me, which was unusual. I asked that he set out what the subject matter was to be. He wasn’t prepared to do that but said he would mail it to me. The subject matter was a Notice of Trespass which banned from me from attending events at City Hall.
I was effectively banned from City Hall for one year, if I chose to be in city hall, I was to be escorted by a security officer.
I was stunned. I know who I am; I know what I have done and not done. I spoke to a number of people for advice; sought advice from legal counsel and looked into what my legal options were.
The legal issue was “due process” which requires that legal matters be resolved according to established rules and principles and that individuals be treated fairly.
One of the rules is that you get to see the evidence that has been gathered. There was an investigation into the complaints the city said were made the Human Resources.
I was not interviewed by the investigators meaning they did not have my side of whatever story there was.
Dealing with and determining just what the issue was took time; – Given that by this time I was more than halfway through the 12 month banning, decided that I would wait the year out.
During that year I learned where at least a part of the complaint came from; that information has yet to be dealt with. It amounts to a Criminal Code offence that I have yet to move on. In Canada there are no statute of limitation on Criminal Code matters – so there is plenty of time to scrape together the funds to retain good criminal counsel.
At the end of the year I asked the local counsel I had at that time,what steps I should take. Do I just walk back into City Hall as if nothing had happened? The advice I was given was to wait and see what the city chose to do.
Before that could happen a second notice of Trespass was served on me. That Notice gave specific reasons for the ban, which when read, were ludicrous. The second Notice of Trespass was a forever ban The details of the second notice of trespass was a forever ban.
We were now into the 2018 election which resulted in Meed Ward being elected Mayor and Paul Sharman returned to office. Five new people were elected to office as well.
With the advice of Counsel I decided to sue the seven members of the 2014-2018 City Council, namely Rick Craven, Marianne Meed Ward, John Taylor, Jack Dennison, Paul Sharman, Blair Lancaster and Mayor Rick Goldring.
A Statement of Claim was prepared, filed with the Court House in Hamilton. I personally served the seven members of Council.
Matters of due process amount to what are referred to as Charter issues are complex and expensive to fight in court. There were not many lawyers in the community with experience in this field.
The woman representing me at that time had decided to move from Burlington to Northern Ontario which meant finding new legal counsel. That proved to be a daunting task.
I interviewed 23 different lawyers. Several weren’t at all interested. Five were – the lowest retainer required was $45,000. My tax return doesn’t have a figure of that size on it.
We thought we had something going with a law student organization at one of the universities was led by well qualified faculty who were members of the Law Society of Upper Canada; the administrator of the group decided a Charter issue case was not what the students needed.
In June of last year, 2023, I learned that those two Notices of Trespass the city issued in 2017 and 2018 were illegal. In order to issue a Notice of Trespass the city was required to have a bylaw in place. At the time there was no bylaw in place. The City Solicitor and the City Manager at the time either knew or should have known that there was no bylaw in place.
Learning that what the city had done was illegal didn’t help in getting the legal counsel we needed.
Earlier this year I did get a note from the lawyers (which you as taxpayers are paying for) representing the seven members of the 2024-2028 Council advising us that then City Manager Tim Commisso had sent us an email in 2019 saying I was allowed to return to city hall, adding, that that if there were any further complaints about my behaviour the city would issue another Notice of Trespass, which they could now do because there is a by law in place. Commisso also said the city could use the report they had, which I have yet to see, to support the issuing of any future Notice of Trespass.
The July 2019 note from Commisso was sent to me by email. I did not receive that email. For a matter as important as this the notice should have been sent to me by registered mail
Unfortunately for me the clock had run out on my Statement of Claim. These claims must be on the court calendar within five years from the date they have been served. That time is up and so I have to sign the Full and Final Release the lawyers have prepared. I managed to have several unacceptable clauses removed.
I was advised by the lawyers that if I have not signed and delivered the document by the end of today, June 3rd, they will seek an order requiring me to pay all the costs the city has incurred to date. They can do that.
James Ridge took the tweet down shortly after it was posted.
The city had directed the lawyer representing the 2014-2018 council to do whatever it takes to get rid of the Statement of Claim.
There is an upside to all this. The Mayor did get rid of the then City Manager James Ridge; she called a Special Meeting of Council to vote on her wish to fire Ridge. The ink had yet to dry on the business cards the new council members were handing out to everyone they knew. They had yet to see a pay cheque.
I am almost inclined to let that happen; that is the only way you, the public, will learn just how much the City has spent on a matter that was illegal, unfair and a violation of my rights under the Charter.
The following is the document prepared by the lawyers the city hired to defend the members of the 2014-2018 City Council.
FULL AND FINAL RELEASE
IN CONSIDERATION OF the consent to a dismissal on a without costs basis of the action which bears Court File No. 18-67591 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, I, W.H. Pepper Parr, the Plaintiff in the action on behalf of myself and my successors, heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, servants and agents, hereby release and forever discharge Rick Goldring, Rick Craven, Marianne Meed Ward, John Taylor, Jack Dennison, Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster and their successors, heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, servants and agents, from any and all actions, causes of action, suits, debts, dues, accounts, bonds, covenants, contracts, proceedings, complaints, claims, demands and rights whatsoever, whether or not known or anticipated, which I or my successors, heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, servants and agents, or any of them, ever had, now have or may in the future have against Rick Goldring, Rick Craven, Marianne Meed Ward, John Taylor, Jack Dennison, Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster arising as a consequence of the matters relevant to the action as described above, including allegations which could have been raised in the action described above.
IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the above-described consideration is not an admission of liability on the part of Rick Goldring, Rick Craven, Marianne Meed Ward, John Taylor, Jack Dennison, Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster, and further, that such liability is expressly denied.
IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that I will not make any claim or take any proceeding, either in my own name or in names of entities I control, either directly or indirectly, against any person, corporation, partnership or other entity which may or does claim contribution or indemnity by statute or otherwise from Rick Goldring, Rick Craven, Marianne Meed Ward, John Taylor, Jack Dennison, Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster or their successors, heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, servants and agents with respect to any of the matters to which this Release applies.
IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that in the event that I do make any claim or take any proceeding in violation of the paragraphs above, this Release may be raised as an estoppel to any such claim or proceeding, and I undertake and agree to indemnify Rick Goldring, Rick Craven, Marianne Meed Ward, John Taylor, Jack Dennison, Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster on a substantial indemnity basis in respect of any defence costs incurred by or on behalf of Rick Goldring, Rick Craven, Marianne Meed Ward, John Taylor, Jack Dennison, Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster in relation to such claim or proceeding.
AS PART OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED CONSIDERATION, I agree to keep all of the terms of this settlement and all documents disclosed to me in the action, including the terms of this Release, strictly confidential and not to voluntarily disclose any of them, except for the purpose of receiving confidential professional advice, or as may be required or authorized by laws or regulations or by compulsion of law, and I further acknowledge and agree that any voluntary breach of this agreement of confidentiality by me will result in the immediate forfeiture of any and all consideration given to me or on behalf of Rick Goldring, Rick Craven, Marianne Meed Ward, John Taylor, Jack Dennison, Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster under the terms of this Release.
IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that each of the paragraphs of the within Release is severable from the document and an action may be commenced upon individual clauses without altering the force and effect of the remaining clauses in the Release.
IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED AND CONFIRMED that I have received, or have had the opportunity to receive, independent legal advice with respect to the terms of the settlement of the above-described action, including the terms of this Release.
IT IS FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGED AND CONFIRMED that I have read this Release carefully and have signed it voluntarily and freely and without any form of duress being exerted upon me by Rick Goldring, Rick Craven, Marianne Meed Ward, John Taylor, Jack Dennison, Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster, or anyone acting on their behalf and with the express purpose of making full and final compromise, adjustment and settlement with respect to all of the matters to which this Release applies.
I HEREBY DIRECT my lawyers to consent to the dismissal of the above-described action as against Rick Goldring, Rick Craven, Marianne Meed Ward, John Taylor, Jack Dennison, Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster, and confirm that I am not a party under a disability.
DATED AT , Ontario, this day of May, 2024.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
in the presence of
Witness
W.H. PEPPER PARR
Tough day.
There are so many aspects of this case that are egregious that it is hard to know where to start.
Aside from the lack of due process, attempts to control and silence the press, and the rush to judgement exhibited by members of Council and City Hall staff, perhaps what is most alarming is the cult of personality which seems to now permeate all aspects of Burlington City Hall. Offer a criticism and someone takes offence. Express a contrarian opinion and someone takes umbrage. Make a joke and someone alleges a micro-aggression. Ask a challenging question and it is viewed as a personal attack.
Discourse and spirited debate are the essence of a vibrant democracy. When we lose the right to disagree, and efforts are made to silence dissident elements, then it becomes a slippery slope to a dictatorship. That’s far more frightening than any perceived injustice the former City Manager alleges was committed.
I should have added that James Ridge threatened ECoB with legal action when he did not like a statement concerning planners on the ECoB website. This information had come directly from the Code of Conduct for planners in Ontario.
What we did was post his letter online and this ended what some would see as a bullying tactic.
We think, you will agree with us Penny that 2 of the current council of 7 knew of and condoned this senior administrative behaviour. Further, our current Head of legal fully understands there was no legislative support for such but fails to try to make amends.
For the record.
Many volunteers who volunteered their time in city run facilities were treated as abominably as Pepper Parr.
Imagine a volunteer being called in and “read the riot act” and threatened ?
This reached its climax when James Ridge was City Manager and seems to have continued long after he was fired from his position.
What a sordid affair, and certainly not a high point for the City in it’s transparency or treatment of one of it’s citizens. Hope you can move on for your sake, Pepper.
Several of its citizens and business owners Don according to our audit files and .until we can full get access to missing minutes, recordings and Committee files the issues remain. There has been some improvement since the new Clerk and Deputy Clerk’s were appointed that will, we hope see change.
This would appear to be a case study in institutional abuse of the natural rights of an individual. It is a caution to those who believe that there is an inherent and necessary fairness when organizations deal with people. There is not. Organizations, like families, take their character from those that lead – either visibly from the top of the hierarchy or, more subtilely, from within its power structure. And organizations have the deep pockets and the longevity to stay the course, such as the case here. What is particularly galling is that public institutions, such as COB, shelter and abet the personalities who create the inequity – protecting them from personal liability and the consequences of their actions.
To anyone who should find themselves treated this way be aware:
Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Provision
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Purpose
Section 7 of the Charter requires that laws or state actions that interfere with life, liberty and security of the person conform to the principles of fundamental justice — the basic principles that underlie our notions of justice and fair process (Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350 at paragraph 19).
Section 7 involves a two-step analysis:
Is there a deprivation of one of the three (3) protected interests, that is to say life, liberty or security of the person?
Is the deprivation in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice?
This second step may be broken down into two steps, where it is necessary a) to identify the relevant principle or principles of fundamental justice and then b) to determine whether the deprivation has occurred in accordance with such principles. (R. v. Malmo-Levine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571 at paragraph 83; R. v. White, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417 at paragraph 38; R. v. S.(R.J.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451 at page 479).
There is no independent right to fundamental justice. Accordingly there will be no violation of section 7 if there is no deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person (R. v. Pontes, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 44, at paragraph 47).
Principles Of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness
The principles of natural justice exist as a safeguard for individuals in their interactions with the state. These principles stipulate that whenever a person’s “rights, privileges or interests” are at stake, there is a duty to act in a procedurally fair manner.
The principles of natural justice concern the general manner in which a decision is made. Essentially, procedural fairness does not concern the correctness of the decision. Rather, principles of natural justice help to ensure that the decision maker followed the proper procedure in arriving at their decision. The principles of natural justice and procedural fairness are based on the theory that the substance of a decision is more likely to be fair if the procedure through which that decision was made has been just.
While the principles of natural justice embody several important rules of procedural fairness, the twelve most common rules are the following:
Notice
The applicant must be given adequate notice of the nature of the proceedings and of the issue to be decided.
Disclosure
Depending on the nature of the case, all evidence to be used against an applicant must be disclosed.
Opportunity to present one’s case
The applicant must be provided with an opportunity to present whatever evidence they wish to be considered.
While the right to be heard generally implies a hearing, it does not always mean an oral hearing. Submissions can be made in writing. This procedure is known as a file hearing.
It should be noted that where the credibility of the individual is at issue, the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness usually require an interview or an oral hearing.
In both oral and file hearings, certain rules must be observed before making a decision.
Opportunity to respond
When the decision maker is in possession of evidence not presented by the applicant, they must allow the applicant an opportunity to know and respond to that evidence.
Duty to consider all of the evidence
The decision maker is required to consider all of the relevant evidence and information pertaining to a specific case.
We knew most of that Joe but circumstances family health and finances to have a lawyer insist on our rights saw us have to grin and bear it. We have always believed one day we would have an opportunity to expose what was happening and knew there was no statute of limitations for criminal elements.
As you are aware Pepper, Dave and I were banned for two years for complying with the request of the Audit Chair to submit our Nomination Paper Audit to the Committee. RIDGE CALLED THAT AUDIT HARRASSMENT and claimed an outside investigator agreed. An investigator we were not allowed to address. An audit that has disappeared from Committee files and no one is interested up until this time to find out why or give us an apology for issuing an illegal 2 year tresspass notice for doing what council, is supposed to do, look out for taxpayer best interests.
Regardless of the City having no bylaw to allow them to issue trespass Letter and iit took us over two years to get a meeting with Commisso and Hurley to address restoration of our right to communicate with our Ward Councillor/CAO etc on non compliance with legislation issues, Civic Square being a biggie.. We are still waiting for the Minutes of two meetings we had with senior staff beginning Jan 24th that included the Head of Legal.that we were promised.
Winston Churchill said it how it was and how it needs to be when those we trust with our tax dollars let us down. Never, never, never ever give up.