0
EDC battle lost: OMB turns down appeal
15 December 2009
[indent]
I'm sure I'm not the only one saying "I told you so" this morning. The headline on the Enterprise Bulletin story reads, "Town loses chance to appeal education development charges." A lot of us saw that one coming.
All the other municipalities that had joined us in this fight dropped out after the first round when the OMB decided against us. The others didn't want the financial responsibility for continuing. Yet Collingwood continued to fight, and even agreed to shoulder the costs for doing so. You have to wonder what all those other municipalities knew that we didn't. Or maybe they could simply recognize a sucker when they saw one.
Afterwasting spending $400,000 of your tax dollars on this fight and losing, we challenged the OMB's decision based on the board making an error in law. And we basically got told to take a hike by the judge presiding over it: "The Board was in the best position to determine the merits of these arguments about procedural fairness, which turn on an appreciation of the evidence as well as the application of legal principles concerning procedural fairness and reasonable apprehension of bias. The Board made findings that the required procedures were followed, and it was satisfied that the Board made findings that the required procedures were followed..."
The Town's arguments were dryly dismissed by the board: "The Town has not satisfied me that leave should be granted, as there is not good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's determination of any matter of law. Many of the issues raised by the Town on this leave motion involve questions of fact or of mixed fact and law, and, therefore there is no jurisdiction to grant leave... In essence, the Town takes issue with the Board's treatment of the evidence."
On top of being kicked in the proverbial backside, we were told to pay the school boards for their patience. The conclusion of the judgment reads, "As the Town has failed to identify any arguable error of law in the Board's decision, the motion for leave to appeal is dismissed. I need not determine whether this appeal would raise issues of sufficient importance to warrant granting leave. Costs of $5,000.00 are payable by the Town to each of the school boards. "
This was the mayor's pet fight, all arranged and approved by council behind closed doors. Earlier this term, I refused to attend an in camera meeting on this matter, arguing that the information should have been made public - as should the debate about it - since public money was being used to fund it. But the mayor and his supporters didn't buy that and scurried behind closed doors to deal with it. What they bought instead was some expensive legal time.
As I recall (and the former mayor agrees), the previous council capped the costs at $50,000 to be split among all the challenging municipalities. This council allowed it to balloon to over $400,000, all paid for by you, the Collingwood taxpayer. Plus, of course, the $10,000 we owe the school boards.
As noted in the EB story,
Well, wasn't that a nice way to spend your money? Of course, you could have had most of a roof over the outdoor ice rink instead, but I'm sure the lawyers appreciate our business.[/indent]
All the other municipalities that had joined us in this fight dropped out after the first round when the OMB decided against us. The others didn't want the financial responsibility for continuing. Yet Collingwood continued to fight, and even agreed to shoulder the costs for doing so. You have to wonder what all those other municipalities knew that we didn't. Or maybe they could simply recognize a sucker when they saw one.
After
The Town's arguments were dryly dismissed by the board: "The Town has not satisfied me that leave should be granted, as there is not good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's determination of any matter of law. Many of the issues raised by the Town on this leave motion involve questions of fact or of mixed fact and law, and, therefore there is no jurisdiction to grant leave... In essence, the Town takes issue with the Board's treatment of the evidence."
On top of being kicked in the proverbial backside, we were told to pay the school boards for their patience. The conclusion of the judgment reads, "As the Town has failed to identify any arguable error of law in the Board's decision, the motion for leave to appeal is dismissed. I need not determine whether this appeal would raise issues of sufficient importance to warrant granting leave. Costs of $5,000.00 are payable by the Town to each of the school boards. "
This was the mayor's pet fight, all arranged and approved by council behind closed doors. Earlier this term, I refused to attend an in camera meeting on this matter, arguing that the information should have been made public - as should the debate about it - since public money was being used to fund it. But the mayor and his supporters didn't buy that and scurried behind closed doors to deal with it. What they bought instead was some expensive legal time.
As I recall (and the former mayor agrees), the previous council capped the costs at $50,000 to be split among all the challenging municipalities. This council allowed it to balloon to over $400,000, all paid for by you, the Collingwood taxpayer. Plus, of course, the $10,000 we owe the school boards.
As noted in the EB story,
Quote
...the boards (of education) intended to levy a $1,200 charge for every residential unit built... In 2003, after taking it to the OMB, the school boards came back with an $800 charge that would still be levied on a jurisdiction-wide basis.
Last year, the OMB upheld the school boards' right to levy the charge on a jurisdiction-wide basis.
Last year, the OMB upheld the school boards' right to levy the charge on a jurisdiction-wide basis.
Well, wasn't that a nice way to spend your money? Of course, you could have had most of a roof over the outdoor ice rink instead, but I'm sure the lawyers appreciate our business.[/indent]
If an issue has be be discussed secretly then there is the public perception of improper dealings.
As a former Mayor, I argue there is no need for an in-camera session as all community matters are in the pubic domain. Many communities do not use the in-camera option or leave it to the last item on the agenda.