McCallion undermined public confidence, Mississauga’s lawyer says

Published Friday, Jan. 28, 2011 9:50PM ESTLast updated Friday, Jan. 28, 2011 9:53PM EST1 comment

The province must beef up conflict-of-interest legislation governing municipal politicians and make it easier for average citizens to make complaints, says a lawyer representing the City of Mississauga at a judicial inquiry into a failed land deal in the suburban city.

The recommendations are contained in a final submission that also sharply rebukes Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, accusing her of “misconduct” and “undermining” public confidence in the city by pushing the land deal when she knew her son stood to make money from it.

Six of the key players filed written submissions this week ahead of closing arguments to be heard on Monday.

Throughout the inquiry and in her closing submission, Ms. McCallion argued that she pushed the deal to build a convention centre and hotel near Mississauga city hall solely because it was a good project for the city and not because her son was involved with World Class Developments, the company putting it together. She maintains that she behaved appropriately because she declared a conflict of interest when the matter came before city council, as required by the province's Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

A legal team hired by the city and lead by veteran Bay Street barrister Clifford Lax argued in its submission that the act should be broadened to cover politicians' actions outside of council. Mr. Lax also suggests that city integrity commissioners or a provincial official should be given the power to initiate court proceedings against officials who may have breached the act. At the moment, citizens must hire their own lawyers and initiate proceedings themselves.

Mr. Lax also accused Mr. McCallion and his business partners of “using” the mayor to further their business interests. He criticized Ms. McCallion for encouraging the owners of the land to sell to World Class, attending meetings with the firm's principals and tasking a confidant with trying to sort out a lawsuit involving the company.

“For the mayor to be seen promoting a deal in which her son has a direct financial interest may lead the public to question whether she is acting for the good of the city, or solely for the good of her family,” Mr. Lax's team wrote.

In other submissions, the Alberta Investment Management Corporation was highly critical of OMERS, the giant pension fund with which it co-owned the land at the centre of the deal. Don Jack, the lawyer for Edmonton-based AIMCo. and its subsidiaries, wrote that OMERS did not consult his clients before agreeing to pay World Class $4-million to drop a lawsuit and its claim to the land. AIMCo. questioned the wisdom of the payout, arguing that it believed it had a strong case if the matter had gone to court.

(OMERS, for its part, maintains in submissions that it “acted fairly at all times with the city and treated the city fairly, notwithstanding that it was not obligated to do anything other than act in its own self-interest as a matter of law.”)

In other submissions, Ms. McCallion's lawyers argued that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act should be changed so that it does not apply to politicians' adult, non-dependent children, but advocated enshrining Mississauga's council code of conduct in law and creating an online database of declared conflicts of interest.

View the original article here