By Joseph A Gaetan 

July 13th, 2025

BURLINGTON, ON

On July 10, 2025, Burlington City Council convened a Special Meeting under the authority of the Municipal Act to receive a confidential verbal update about potential litigation connected to aquatic services procurement.  The meeting was convened under a section of the municipal Act, dealing explicitly with matters of litigation and solicitor-client privilege and is subject to a Procedural Bylaw.

Given the sensitive legal nature of the meeting, particularly following the City’s rejection of the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays’ bid, strict procedural adherence should have been paramount. However, comments made by GHAC and some questions then posed by some members of council raise concerns about procedural rigor, and Council oversight.

After listening to the webcast of the Special Meeting of Council last week Joseph Gaetan takes the Mayor and Council to task for not following the rules – resulting in both bias on the part of the Mayor and unfair treatment by members of Council.

The Purpose of the Meeting

The purpose of the sole item on agenda was to receive a, “verbal update regarding potential litigation for aquatics procurement.” Under the By-law, Special Meetings may only consider business as explicitly noted in the Municipal Act.   Anyone delegating must adhere to these limits; and any attempt to address unrelated matters have been ruled out of order by the Chair in the past.

Did Mr. Bradt Introduce New Business?

During his delegation Mr. Bradt opined on a white paper, the shortage and need for more aquatic infrastructure, the necessity for a 50-meter pool, accessibility and sport tourism. Such remarks would normally fall outside the bounds of the meeting’s stated purpose.

While contextualizing GHAC’s role in the local swim community might be seen as indirectly relevant to the litigation discussion, these points clearly constituted new business:

Mr. Bradt’s remarks, seemed to be well-intentioned and forward-looking, they did not pertain directly to potential litigation or the legal status of the current procurement dispute. Instead, they amounted to advocacy for future capital projects and policy planning. Business that would more appropriately be raised under a different agenda or via a sponsored motion.

Did the Mayor Fail to Uphold Procedure?

Mayor Meed Ward, serving as Chair of the Special Meeting of Council she called is required to ensure that delegations stay on topic.. That didn’t happen at the July Special Meeting of Council.

As Chair, Mayor Meed Ward is responsible for preserving order and ruling on relevance. The mayor acknowledged Mr. Bradt’s remarks and then facilitated a Q&A session. She did not take the opportunity to challenge or redirect his comments back to the agenda item. Further to that, multiple councillors then asked follow-up questions that further amplified and legitimized the off-topic content.

During the Procedural By Law process of 2023 Mayor Meed Ward stated, ” I love procedure by law… I love good governance and the reason that I do is that it does help people make good decisions. And better decisions and bad processes and bad governance will actually make people end up doing things that are really harmful to them and to the community that they’re trying to serve.”

Could Council Have Intervened?

Members of Council can raise a point of order to question the relevance of the remarks or call on the Chair to enforce Section 23.4. That no one did so may reflect either a lack of procedural vigilance or possibly undermine the purpose of the Special Meeting on a legal matter.

Implications for Good Governance

This incident matters because the procedural slippage occurred in the context of a disputed procurement decision that may lead to litigation. Allowing a representative of the successful bidder, GHAC, to speak in a forum that should have excluded such input may create an appearance of bias, or lack of fairness.

If no legal breach occurred, the optics are troubling. The mayor called the Special Meeting City upon the rejection of BAD’s bid under the RFP terms. All the more reason to scrupulously avoid the appearance of privileging one bidder’s voice in a Special Meeting setting.

Conclusion and Path Forward

The proceedings during the July 10 Special Meeting raises fundamental questions:

Did the delegation’s remarks violate procedural limits?

Was the Chair’s discretion improperly exercised?

Did Council abdicate its oversight role by not challenging irrelevant commentary?

Should this matter be referred to the Ombudsman?