That quote, published by The Hamilton Spectator and attributed to Councillor Craig Cassar in response to the failures of the Mini Cabin Project, speaks directly to the supplier’s shortcomings.
However, the principle embedded in the councillor’s statement extends beyond the vendor. It is equally relevant to the Mayor, City Council, and senior staff who advanced and accelerated the implementation of the plan.
Hamilton’s troubled $7.9-million outdoor shelter project raises two distinct questions: who had the authority to prevent the breakdown in procurement discipline, and whether council can realistically recover roughly $500,000 in added costs from supplier Microshelters Inc.
The answer to the first question is uncomfortable: responsibility was distributed — and preventable failures occurred at multiple levels.
Council’s Role: Direction Without Guardrails
Council authorized the project and endorsed the mayor’s directive to move quickly to establish winter shelter capacity. While council does not administer procurement, it sets political expectations. When urgency becomes the dominant signal, administrative risk tolerance shifts.
If council wanted safeguards, it could have required periodic procurement reporting, contract vetting thresholds, or third-party due diligence before authorizing full payment. It did not. That omission does not create liability, but it reflects governance risk: speed was prioritized without embedding control mechanisms.
The Mayor’s Directive: Urgency as a Structural Pressure
Mayor Andrea Horwath has emphasized she did not impose a construction deadline. However, the political framing — “before the snow flies” — created operational compression. In public administration, compressed timelines predictably reduce due diligence depth. That does not equate to fault, but it explains the environment in which normal procurement safeguards weakened.
Senior Staff: Procurement and Contract Controls
The auditor general’s findings point most directly at administrative execution:
* Full payment issued “sight unseen.”
* No contract containing warranty protections.
* Limited supplier vetting of a newly formed company.
* Late involvement of legal and public works.
* Insufficient attention to building permit thresholds.
These are internal control failures. Municipal procurement best practice requires staged payments tied to inspection milestones, formalized warranty provisions, and supplier background checks. Those safeguards were either absent or underdeveloped.
This is where the breakdown becomes most concrete. Staff had both authority and obligation to structure the transaction differently.
Building and Technical Oversight
Building officials had reportedly warned that units exceeding 10 square metres would require permits under Canadian standards. The purchased cabins exceeded that threshold, triggering compliance complications. That suggests either internal misalignment or a failure to integrate regulatory advice into procurement decisions.
The Supplier: Misrepresentation and Disclosure
Microshelters disputes wrongdoing. However, the auditor noted altered drawings and deficiencies requiring significant remediation. If it can be demonstrated that the supplier misrepresented specifications, concealed intellectual property concerns, or failed to disclose material compliance gaps, the city may have a claim for negligent misrepresentation or breach of implied warranty.
That is the legal hinge point.
Can Council Demand the Money Back?
Council can demand cost recovery politically. Whether it can obtain recovery legally depends on contract law. Because the city reportedly paid via purchase order without robust contractual protections, recovery is not automatic. To succeed, the city would likely need to establish:
* Breach of contract (failure to meet specifications);
* Misrepresentation (false or misleading technical documentation);
* Or failure to deliver goods fit for purpose.
If the units met the specifications outlined in the purchase order — even if those specifications were poorly drafted — the legal footing becomes weak. Courts do not typically rescue sophisticated buyers from their own procurement deficiencies.
If, however, evidence supports altered engineering drawings or undisclosed non-compliance with Canadian standards, the city’s position strengthens materially.
Accountability or Political Theatre?
Calls for repayment are not inherently political theatre. They are a rational response to a $500,000 remediation cost. But absent clear contractual breaches or demonstrable misrepresentation, public demands may outpace legal viability.
The more difficult truth is this: the auditor’s report describes a systemic governance failure driven by urgency. While the supplier’s conduct remains legally assessable, the city’s own control environment appears to have been the primary vulnerability.
