EDITORIAL
Editor’s Note: The history of the conduct referred to in this editorial dates back to when The Current began publishing in 2018. For the convenience of our readers, we have provided links to earlier articles below. It should be noted that the contents of those articles have never been disputed for accuracy. A copy of this editorial was forwarded in advance of publication to Mayor Willmer and CAO Klatt with an invitation to comment, but no response has been received.
In our Nov.13th Newsletter, we advised our subscribers that both the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRAO) and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) had responded to the concerns about the improper plundering through “weaponization” of the Township’s municipal insurance policy. Readers are reminded that this arose from what has been calculated to be the sum of approximately $600,000 paid to two Sault Ste. Marie law firms to represent MV & the individual members of the previous Council in defending against our lawsuit, the background and reasons for which were reported in an editorial in September 2021. In short, we had no alternative but to bring the lawsuit to counter their longstanding, vindictive vendetta against The Current. We have also called for the resignation or termination of employment of CAO Suzanne Klatt for the role she has played in this scandalous episode. (Image: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Dec.2024,x.com)
Of significance is that AMO volunteered in its response “You may also be interested to know that since 2021 AMO has called on the provincial government to pass legislation that enables municipalities to better enforce the ethical behaviour of elected officials.” Its lobbying has perhaps contributed to the announcement on Dec.12th of the introduction of Bill 241, Municipal Accountability Act 2024. This proposed legislation will establish a standardized provincial Code of Conduct for municipalities. It also expands the oversight powers of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario so as to address serious misconduct by municipal officials including potential removal from office. Currently there is little disincentive for local government personnel to toe the line because existing legislation lacks effective teeth.
As we reported in September 2021, one of the first things the previous Council did after taking office was to dilute the effectiveness of its Code of Conduct and Integrity Commissioner protocol “resulting in potential complainants being disadvantaged compared to most other municipalities in Ontario.”
Township’s insurance costs balloon
The Township’s malicious profligacy resulting in the unnecessary enrichment of the two law firms has caused significant financial consequences for ratepayers. A recent report by the Treasurer disclosed that these included substantial increases in our insurance premiums. Not only that but the Township’s deductible for claims made under the “Errors and Omissions” Section of the policy has been increased fivefold from what it was when the Township accepted defeat in the Human Rights Tribunal claim brought by my wife. This resulted in Township staff having to take Human Rights training and the payment of compensation as well as an apology from former Councillor Ernie Peplinski. That claim was also marked by excessive as well as avoidable legal fees. This means that in future ratepayers will be responsible for paying the first $25,000 of any successful claim. To add insult to injury, the Township ignored terms in the policy that excluded coverage for defending The Current’s claim, with the result that the policy arguably should not have been responsible for paying one cent of any of the Township’s costs.
Possible recovery of legal fees paid to the Township’s lawyers
Before retirement I had several decades of experience as a lawyer specializing in civil litigation. This enabled me to recognize that there were examples of the Township’s lawyers’ conduct that arguably breached their obligations as officers of the Court. If such conduct has occurred, it enables the Court to penalize the lawyers by ordering them to repay their clients some or all of the fees that they have charged by way of retribution. The relevant Court Rule says, in part,
“Where a lawyer for a party has caused costs to be incurred without reasonable cause or to be wasted by undue delay, negligence or other default, the Court may make an order:
- Disallowing costs between the lawyer and client, or directing the lawyer to repay to the client money paid on account of costs;
- Directing the lawyer to reimburse the client for any costs that the client has been ordered to pay to any other party; and,
c) Requiring the lawyer personally to pay the costs of any party.”
Recently I wrote to the Township and members of Council advising them of the existence of such a rule as well as our willingness to assist in providing details and corroboration through sworn evidence of the conduct that could result in the Court making an order in their favour pursuant to that Rule. If that happened, I pointed out that it could result in reimbursement by the lawyers which would offset some of the out-of-pocket costs, including increased insurance premiums. No response has been received to this suggestion. We are therefore forced to conclude that this is because the Township was fully aware of its lawyers’ tactics and turned a blind eye to them, thus preventing them from seeking reimbursement from their lawyers.
These matters, as well as other examples of our local government flouting its responsibilities of accountability, transparency and, especially, integrity which we have reported on since we started publication provide conclusive justification for early enactment of the Municipal Accountability Act 2024.
LINKS:
Is this unjust enrichment of MV lawyers a gift that will keep on giving? – Madawaska Valley Current
One thing which would help avoid this type of unnecessary municipal litigation would be for the County of Renfrew to establish a County Solicitor’s office which would also provide basic legal services to local municipalities on a charge-back basis and also to make it compulsory for local municipalities to consult with the County Solicitor before retaining outside legal services. That lawsuit mentioned above could have been settled for much less cost and much more quickly if the Township had retained a local general civil-litigation lawyer who would not have unnecessarily escalated the dispute. Big and medium-sized cities in Ontario generally have their own in-house lawyers to guide their City Councils and it would help if rural counties such as Renfrew would also establish in-house lawyers to guide both the County Council and local Councils.
Thanks you. Let’s hope that when this legislation comes into effect that the ombudsmans office begins to clean house and repair some of the damages in all the communities who were affected by this one particular law firm and their affiliated partners.