The city is setting aside tens of thousands of dollars to defend itself in the wake of a judicial review application from a councillor.
Coun. Jay Fallis filed for the review with the goal of having the Divisional Court quash both a report by Principles Integrity, the city’s integrity commissioner, and council’s decision to suspend his pay for 45 days.
Those steps were taken when Fallis was found to have breached the city’s code of conduct by providing confidential information about the waterfront redevelopment project to lawyers he had obtained on his own.
During a meeting Monday, council committee authorized staff to pull $65,000 — the approximate legal costs for the city’s defence — from the tax rate stabilization reserve. It also directed staff to pursue a joint retainer with Principles Integrity.
“The benefit of a joint retainer is two-fold. It will halve the costs the city is responsible for and will also allow for a co-ordinated legal response to this important public policy matter,” staff wrote in a report.
Staff also noted council could reconsider or revoke its Oct. 4 decision to suspend Fallis’s pay and could look to resolve the matter with the councillor.
“However, it is highly unlikely that dropping the suspension of pay will resolve the NOA (notice of application). The various determinations sought by the applicant go beyond the monetary sanction imposed by council,” the report stated.
The city issued a news release following Monday’s meeting, in which Mayor Steve Clarke — whose complaint to the integrity commissioner prompted the investigation — stated, “Coun. Fallis was found to be in breach of the Code of Conduct because he arbitrarily shared confidential documents with two lawyers without any authority to do so, not because he sought legal advice.
“Any councillor can seek their own independent legal advice. Where the line is drawn is sharing clearly stamped confidential documents with outside parties, even external legal counsel.”
The release noted the city “intends to defend against the notice of application for judicial review as it undermines fundamental principles of law (section 223.2 of the Municipal Act) and governance (council code of conduct and council’s legal privilege).”
According to the release, a judicial review is a "process by which courts make sure that the decisions of administrative bodies are fair, reasonable, and lawful."
In an application for judicial review, a party "asks a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court to change or set aside a decision of an administrative body where the party can show an error was made that warrants action by the Court," notes the review.
A judicial review is "not an opportunity to re-argue the case, but rather to show that the decision-maker failed to properly exercise its decision-making powers," notes the city's release.
