By Pepper Parr
July 15th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Mayor Meed Watd told Council members that “What we’re here today to discuss is based on a procedural perspective. We directed staff, particularly the City Solicitor, to proceed in accordance with the the instructions as directed by committee. And of course the public doesn’t know what committee directed staff to do because too was done in a Closed session.
That is as much as we have for you at this time.
Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kears asked: “Do you think any conversations around bringing this particular item or scenario to the audit committee for review”?
Mayor Meed Ward replied: “The matter that’s before you is the legal report in relation to potential litigation with respect to the procurement process. Any discussion with audit is a completely separate matter and not related to the litigation and the matter that’s before you in this report right now.
That was all the public got.
Council went into closed session and came out an hour later, saying city legal counsel was meeting with both swimming clubs to find a solution that did not result in litigation.
Shortly after that Council adjourned – they come back in mid August.
Nothing more than that.
Cody Brandt, Golden Horseshoe Aquatic Club (GHAC)
Everyone has buttoned down, working secretly, in that the public doesn’t know what is going on and we suspect few of the swimmers and their parents know very much. Bits and pieces will get mentioned which further confuses the issue.
It’s messy.
Cody Brandt, Golden Horseshoe Aquatic Club (GHAC) attended the Council meeting – he didn’t delegate. There was no one present from the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays
There will be a bit more to pass along tomorrow.
Not attacking either of you but just stating facts. And by facts, I mean real facts, not opinions which are expressed without full knowledge of this situation.
Mr. Gamble,
If GHAC was to have the award of all or some of the pool time taken away from them, they would likely have a loss of anticipated income /revenue and business opportunities, which it might seek to realize via litigation. It might also seek damages for breach of contract.
Mr. Gaetan,
Please see below as commented previously to one of your opinion pieces in relation to the RFP requirement.
You wrote-
“Bids must include a current and valid certificate of incorporation as a Non-Profit or Not-for-Profit organization.”
“Bids not meeting the above mandatory requirements will be rejected.” (See Exhibit 1)
However, as per Service Ontario (Exhibits 2, 3, and 4), there is no such official designation or category issued by the province. This raises serious questions about the fairness and legal clarity of the procurement criteria used to disqualify BAD.”
I commented that I think you are mistaken because you are not correctly reading how the bid requirement is written.
A not-for-profit incorporation certificate, also known as a Certificate of Incorporation, is the official document issued by the government that signifies the legal existence of a not-for-profit corporation. In Ontario, this certificate is issued after the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services approves the application for incorporation under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 (ONCA) and prior legislation.
Under current and prior legislation upon successful review and approval of an application for incorporation the Ministry issues a Certificate of Incorporation, formally recognizing the not-for-profit corporation.
As per RFP and the specific section to which you have referred bids were required to include a “current and valid certificate of incorporation”.
It does not say the certificate must be issued in 2025 or at any specific date to be current and valid. It must just be current and valid. So to meet the RFP requirement all both BAD & GHAC had to do to meet the requirement was to include a copy of the certificate of incorporation issued by the Province when each was incorporated. The certificate of incorporation remains current and valid so long as the corporation is not dissolved.
Bruce,
No biggie.
The City can Terminate for Convenience at any time per the T&C RFP issued that would form part of a final Contract if in fact it was or has or even been issued. That mitigated any claim if prompt action is taken.
The unethical approach taken in the RFP means that GHAC would need to poach swimmers from BAD as the RFP evaluation criteria astonishingly gave no credit for current local membership I strongly believe BAD have a much larger potential financial claim. Even damages etc. Worst case could collapse their organization.
What is astounding to me that this has not yet been brought to a conclusion. It seems that the entire administration and council are neutered incapable of action.
Most concerning as a taxpayer if this spectacle was a common situation just what other administrative improvements might be needed to handle maintenance needs, capital purchases and contracts for the city.
To reiterate a prior comment I made use of a construction RFP document is ridiculous when a straightforward one page pool rental agreement would suffice. The city could advertise annually, bi-annually etc. Interested parties could submit a pre-qualification document.
BAD was totally okay with the RFP process in 2020 when it won. If the reason it’s RFP response was disqualified was due to it not including a current and valid certificate of incorporation, then it needs to look at itself and it’s legal advisors for not properly reading the RFP document.
You suggest it’s unethical for GHAC to take on board swimmers (or coaches) from BAD. So if through an RFP process Halton region was to change its single source outside contractor for his waste management operations from A to B would it be unethical to provide jobs to those about to be out of work?
You again advocate for using a pool rental agreement. How would you employ that in a competitive situation such as this one with BAD & GHAC?
Bruce,
No, the RFP in itself is unethical in its structure especially giving no evaluation credit for the number of Burlington residents in any proponent’s program. After all these are Burlington pools.
There is no such thing as a “current, valid certificate of incorporation”. What should have been requested was written confirmation from Service Ontario that their non-profit corporations were in good standing.
How on earth does one see this as a competitive bidding situation. The pool rental rate is fixed along with number of hours. It might be competitive if there were no rates given and then lets award to the highest bidder for pool time. I do not advocate for that.
The use of a construction document in these matters is ludicrous. All either of these organizations are doing is “renting’ pool time for local swimmers, nothing more. A one-page rental agreement. You can google and find a template easily!
What is really concerning is that both staff and council appear to be completely neutered and are incapable of; recognizing the problem they have created; and taking prompt remedial actions. They prefer to hide behind the City Solicitor. Meanwhile the kids and their families suffer. Burlington needs new staff and a new council.
I can’t begin to imagine how this team functions at all when handling other serious matters involving expenditures. Little wonder the city portion of 2026 taxes is at 5.8% out of the gate. No wonder our municipal taxes have exploded.
Find me on LinkedIn. This is easily done, and we can grab a coffee. I will bring a copy of the 2025 RFP. We can go through it together. I have no interest in what they did in 2020.
What is a “procedural perspective”, anyway in lay terms? IMO the issue is and was grounded in how COB via an RFP process rejected the BAD proposal based on the questionable rejection of their bid based on the request of a document that is not provided by Service Ontario. Enough already with word salad responses. Time to get real.
A travesty.
The only reasonable costs GHAC could claim in litigation is the time their organization spent in developing their proposal. The longer though this “do nothing” administration and council does nothing could potentially add to their claim……
In the meantime, the Devilray’s potential claim will keep snowballing.
If this administration and politicos were only capable of fulfilling their responsibilities, recognizing their errors and promptly acting, consulting with the City Solicitor would be unnecessary.
Councils apparent action is to let the City Solicitor negotiate a solution. Unreal. They should all resign.