With all due to respect to Mr. Barkwell, the cost of a publicly funded lawsuit, ought not to be camouflaged by a seemingly weak solicitor/client privilege argument. I am no lawyer, but in my view, this sounds inappropriate. Moreover, there is a correlation with the public being the client. See full story here. I am open to being corrected but this seems to be in very bad form.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Legal Advice?
With all due to respect to Mr. Barkwell, the cost of a publicly funded lawsuit, ought not to be camouflaged by a seemingly weak solicitor/client privilege argument. I am no lawyer, but in my view, this sounds inappropriate. Moreover, there is a correlation with the public being the client. See full story here. I am open to being corrected but this seems to be in very bad form.
13 comments:
Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.
Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.
Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While the Solicitor is entitled to claim solicitor/client privelege, the client - in this case the City as represented by its Council - is entitled to waive that privelege thereby authorizing disclosure of the record. Solicitor Bark Well (woof woof woof) was playing it safe in claiming the privelege realizing this was a political hot potato. He passed the hot spud over to Council and in doing so he likely scared off some of the Councillors who will never understand the finer points of law and the public interest. As a result, in the vote that was taken to waive the privelege and disclose, a majority voted against. Perhaps some Councillors are waiting for new Whistleblowing by-laws to divulge the cost. Council is at fault here, less so the hapless solicitor.
ReplyDeleteI agree Cal, that the "client" would be the people of Hamilotn, and that they do have the right to know.
ReplyDeleteMaybe an email barrage from the citizens to those councillors who voted against this motion should occur. What do you think about that proposal?
Meanwhile, the number of homeless increase, the lines at the foodbanks grow expotentially and the only winners are the corporate bodies.
Who was speaking for Mother Nature? Mother Nature never really got to heard, did she!
Those who voted to keep these costs from the public under the veil of client/solicitor privilege, I only have one word for - cowardly.
ReplyDeleteCal
Via CATCH
ReplyDelete--
A city lawsuit against the Canadian government is heading into its sixth year with no information on what it is costing taxpayers.
Council received an update in closed session this week but a minority of councillors failed to win release of the document to the public.
On November 24, 2004, council took the advice of outside legal counsel and voted 8-7 to sue 64 federal employees and four cabinet ministers [see transcript]. The Gowlings law firm had already filed notice of the action six months earlier, and they continue to represent the city in the court proceedings.
For the first two years of the process, public reports were issued on the costs of the legal action, but that was subsequently stopped. As of September 30, 2007, the city had paid Gowlings $243,224 for fees and expenses related to the lawsuit – an average of a little over $11,000 per month.
If a similar pattern has continued, the bill will now have exceeded $650,000. Information released earlier this year by the Canadian government confirmed that its Department of Justice had spent $690,300 by the end of 2008, plus an unknown amount by other federal departments.
At that point, neither side in the lawsuit had even begun disclosing its evidence – something that is supposed to occur at a very early stage in legal proceedings of this type. Last March, ward one councillor Brian McHattie asked for a staff report on the case and its costs. That was supposed to be delivered by June but didn’t arrive until this week as part of the in camera session at Monday’s committee of the whole meeting.
The vote division over that report was similar to one nearly two years ago that ended the public release of spending reports on the legal action. The five who opposed the secrecy this week – Bob Bratina, Mayor Eisenberger, Brian McHattie, Sam Merulla and Terry Whitehead – also fought against it in the March 2008 vote.
Russ Powers stood with them in 2008 but sided with the majority this week. Margaret McCarthy was absent for both votes. The 2008 decision also removed the spending cap of $450,000 that had previously been imposed.
The suit alleges that federal employees and cabinet ministers conspired to harm the city by supporting an environmental assessment of the Red Hill Valley Parkway that opened two years ago.
Specifically the city alleges that federal staff and politicians "abused their public office by engaging in targeted malice towards the City's completion of the Expressway" by using environmental assessment "in an unprecedented, illegal and unconstitutional manner in order to achieve that objective."
The city is demanding $75 million in damages it says occurred as a result of delaying the construction of the road. Stopping the lawsuit was one of the election promises made by Eisenberger in his 2006 campaign, but he has been unable to muster sufficient votes to accomplish this.
“We need the federal government's help to complete projects in our community,” said Eisenberger’s election document. “Ending this lawsuit should be a priority because it's in the best interest of local taxpayers.”
Any lobbyist worth his salt would be all over this.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the Gowling's gang has got a little winky
wink going on, on the slide. This ain't the only
suit [our city is courting].
Did you read the above article closely? Did you
notice the name Mellon. IT may come as some
consolation that even the Queen of England
[fell for the same scam] as our gullible
city financial planners.
"A lovely, open-ended lawyer-enriching spaghetti junction of intertwined litigation operating at cross-purposes with no conceivable resolution because the innumerable decisions will all come to rely on each other, or will be impeded by the innumerable ongoing investigations which will take years to resolve, if any can ever be resolved. The perfect contrived cover for the giga-crooks."
Judging by Madam Deputy Mayor MM's serial looks
the other day and her convenient absenteeism
during critical votes, I would venture to
say that someone is still doing some
womanly wooing.
I regret to say that, unfortunately, this site is getting rather boring. The main reason? ...it has been hijacked by the likes of Michelle, WRC2, MAW, who, regardless of the topic at hand, will bring up some issue totally different. Enough is enough. Michelle should get off from her poverty horse. WRC2 is not IT and likewise should abstain from needless comments. MAW should focus on his next run at municipal politics where he will fail again because he just doesn't cut it.
ReplyDeleteIf they stuck to the topic and enlightened the reader then there would be no objection. However, based on their track record, I would suggest they be cut off.
I can assure anonymous I have no intention of running for council, I'd rather not be part of the problem, that's for sure. And it's easy to take pot-shots when you're cloaked, unlike yours truely.
ReplyDeletePoverty is a major concern in our community, Anyways, in suggesting that we be cut off is an infringement on our charter rights, you know freedom of expression.
ReplyDeleteI agree with MAW, it is easy to make comments when you are cloaked.
Thanks for sharing anonymous one
ReplyDeleteReading your comment sure was fun
But the IT you see is neither you nor me
IT is merely the emphasis of an i and a t
However, based on their track record, I would suggest they be [cut off].
ReplyDeleteWRC2 is not IT and likewise should abstain from need[less comments].
ReplyDeleteI agree with MAW, it is easy to make comments when you are [cloaked].
ReplyDeleteI regret to say that, unfortunately, this site is getting rather [boring].
ReplyDelete