COMMITTEE DEBATE
Feb 12, 2009
After two delays because a staff report was not available, the Motion sponsored by Councillors Rick Chiarelli and Alex Cullen will finally be considered at Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee at its meeting of Tuesday, February 17, 2009. The meeting, to be held in the Champlain Room at City Hall, starts at 10 a.m. and the Motion is the first item on the agenda.
For background on the Motion, please go here.
The staff report is here.
The key argument made in the staff report is that the Divisional Court found that the Greenspace Alliance is not a public interest litigant. We believe so strongly that this conclusion of the Divisonal Court panel is wrong that we have taken the extraordinary step of seeking leave to appeal this cost award to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Read more about that here.
Ten organizations, including three City Advisory Committees, have sent in letters of support for the Motion. Download the letters and statements here.
Do you want to let your Councillor and all members of Council know what you think? Go here for more information and help.
On a related matter, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has charged the developers of Findlay Creek Village (at Leitrim Wetland) with seven offences under the Ontario Water Resources Act, including allegedly providing false or misleading information and failure to comply with a Provincial Officer’s Order. Read more about that here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATE – Feb 20, 2009
Committee approves amended Motion on policy seeking cost awards
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, starting shortly after 10 on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, spent nearly two hours discussing the motion proposed by Councillors Chiarelli and Cullen regarding the City’s policy on seeking cost awards against public interest litigants arising out of unsuccessful court action.
City Solicitor Rick O’Connor began with a brief presentation of the staff report, emphasizing that settlement offers are very widely used and staff would not like to lose this tool when engaged in litigation. Seven Councillors and the Mayor engaged in extensive questioning.
Public delegations were led off by Sol Shuster, who highlighted the letters of support received from ten organizations including three City Advisory Committees. He was followed by Erwin Dreessen, who provided an overview of the Greenspace Alliance’s work over the last ten years in efforts to protect and enhance green spaces in the city.
Third came Will Amos, staff counsel with the Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic at uOttawa. Will commented that the staff report failed to distinguish between normal civil litigation and public interest litigation and had provided an incomplete assessment of the criteria established in case law for a party to qualify as “public interest litigant.” He further noted that, in public interest litigation, using an economic incentive to settle could simply deter impecunious community groups from engaging in public debate before tribunals and courts.
After each of these presentations up to eight members of committee asked questions.
At that point members noted that “a consensus was emerging” and the Mayor called for a 5-minute recess. An amended Motion (the Therefore part) was then distributed and the Mayor asked whether the other registered speakers still wished to come forward. Cheryl Doran, chair of the Greenspace Alliance, spoke very briefly, noting that the Motion failed to cover individuals under the policy. She was assured by Councillor Chiarelli that in effect they are covered.
Read Cheryl’s prepared notes, and those of David McNicoll, Barry George and Iola Price. Also registered were Don Stewart on behalf of FCA and Agnes Warda as instructed by the Rural Issues Advisory Committee; their statements are included in the set of ten referred to earlier. Ken McRae had written in.
Lastly, Pierre Dufresne, representing Tartan, spoke, emphasizing that the boundaries of the wetland were revised 18 years ago and that the OMB thought that the appellants were empty-handed. Councillor Cullen deftly extracted the speaker’s admission that the case is not over.
At five to noon, the Motion was carried unanimously. The matter rises to Council on February 25, as part of this Committee’s Report No. 37.
Outside the court room, there was a bustle of media interest from print, radio and television outlets, in English and French.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COUNCIL DECISION
Feb 26, 2009
Council approves cost award policy, with a further amendment
On February 25, 2009, Ottawa City Council approved the new policy on seeking cost awards recommended by Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee on February 17, with a further amendment.
On a motion by Councillor Doucet, seconded by Councillor Cullen, the new policy was also made applicable to individuals who act in the public interest.
Read the Disposition out of Council here.
The amendment was carried by a vote of 11 Yeas against 7 Nays. Voting in favour of the amendment were: Councillors Hume, Cullen, Bloess, Legendre, McRae, Leadman, Wilkinson, Monette, Deans, Feltmate and Doucet. Voting against were Councillors El-Chantiry, Harder, Bédard, Hunter, Bellmare, Jellett and Qadri. The vote of Councillors Chiarelli, Thompson and Brooks was not recorded. Mayor O’Brien and Councillors Holmes and Desroches were away.
The amended policy was then approved, with Councillors Hunter and Harder dissenting.
(In discussion, Councillor Hunter had indicated that he was prepared to support the policy as recommended by Committee, but could not abide by the extension to individuals.)
In extensive questioning of City Solicitor Rick O’Connor it also was established that the action against the Greenspace Alliance, which triggered the adoption of this policy, would be abandoned.
There was some spirited discussion at Council. Watch the archived (and indexed) video of the proceeding on the City’s web site (go to “Policy on seeking cost awards”).