City of St. Catharines' By-Laws, what's up with that?

Freedom and democracy are treasured ideals but without a finely worn matrix of rules and laws humanity would not be a pretty sight. This finely woven matrix finds itself criss-crossing jurisdictional authority between federal and provincial hands depending on the subject matter. Often the task of understanding our laws and their ownership of enforcement becomes more daunting with the language used in their structure. For us ordinary folks our daily lives thankfully are made more simple by the design of By-laws.

By-laws are mostly the domain of municipal governments. The official City of St. Catharines website explains By-laws as such, “The office of the City Clerk is responsible for the care and control of by-laws. By-laws set standards for matters affecting private land owners, public health and safety.”

Safety is definitely an issue when anyone thinks of our roads and how we use them. For this reason we have Parking By-laws to ensure the safety of all drivers and pedestrians, and to keep things moving in an orderly fashion. Again quoting from the official City website, “The City of St. Catharines is committed to providing high quality and available parking to enhance the quality of life for our residents and visitors. Tickets may be given to owners or operators of motor vehicles who fail to obey parking by-laws.”

All of this sounds official, reassuring, and yet clear and simple. In addition to these comforting words from the City, there is also the City Solicitor for the City of St. Catharines, Nicole A. Auty. Nicole Auty was the co-lecturer at a forum called Advanced Creating & Enforcing Municipal By-laws, January 29^th and 30^th 2015. Their bio there states “Nicole A. Auty is the City of St. Catharines Solicitor/Director, Legal Services. She has served on the Executive of the Municipal Section of the Ontario Bar Association. She is the co-author of Canadian Forms and Precedents: Municipal Law and has experience drafting a wide rage of municipal by-laws.”

Now if all the simple and clear rhetoric from the City's official website is not enough to keep the residents feeling safe and cozy, then such an expert at the helm of legal services must. Yet how is it that By-laws matter so little in the City of St. Catharines? This is not an attack on government, rather a legitimate question when one examines the information and evidence provided.

One might ask why not approach the elected Merritton Ward City Councillors? The two current Merritton Ward Councillors are Jennie Stevens and David Haywood. Jennie Stevens is a familiar name to Mayorgate with the infamous telephone answering machine message. David Haywood is a new or first term councillor elected in 2014, with a background as a security guard for the Niagara Falls casino. Haywood had previously attempted to enter municipal politics in 2010 but failed and as far as political experience stands, David Haywood's is greatly limited.

Photographs of a city garden overgrown with weeds reaching three feet in height, and other plantings well into eight feet, obstructing the safety of an intersection, were posted publicly on Facebook and on the Mayor's Fan Page. Mayor Walter Sendzik responded in a dignified manner; Councillor David Haywood took another approach, he became openly belligerent and then came up with this gem. “As for starting something I cannot finish bring it on!!!!” Whether this was to be taken as a threat of some kind or a public challenge, one point is clear, that Councillor David Haywood has still to learn how to behave in public.

So let's “bring it on!!!!,” as per Haywood's own words. Apparently bus stops have been moved all over the City of St. Catharines. Bus drivers have told me that some of the new locations are nothing short of insane. One such move was on Glendale Avenue, a stop that had stood at its location for years was moved to within eighteen feet of the shoulder and a four-way-stop at Glendale Avenue and Bessey Street.

Glendale Avenue is a major road in the City of St. Catharines. It takes one to an outlet mall on one end and to the Pen Centre, the region's major shopping mall, at the other. Bessey Street is used by locals to avoid traffic back-ups at Glendale and Merritt if they need to proceed to Thorold (the neighbouring municipality) or to Hartzel and Queenston Streets. Looking at the photographs of how buses are forced to stop to either pick passengers up or to allow passengers to leave the bus, one wonders how safe was this?

If a bus driver stops at the bus sign as the rules require then half of the bus hangs into and across the intersection. The number 11 bus passes along Glendale five days a week beginning at 6:05 a.m. and ending with the last run at 6:05 p.m. approximately. During this twelve hour period the route is serviced every thirty minutes, presenting twenty-four potential instances for a catastrophe depending on how often passengers get off or on at this stop.

The city's own Parking By-laws prohibit this insanity. “By-law 202.01 Shoulder and Boulevard Restrictions: Unless otherwise provided in this By-law, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle or permit a vehicle to remain stopped, standing or parked on any shoulder and boulevard contrary to the prohibition or restriction applicable to the adjacent roadway as provided by this By-law.” By-law 203.02.04 Stopping Prohibited – Specified Places with signs: “Within fifteen metres (15m) of an intersection, and By-law 205.01.01 Parking Prohibited: within ten metres (10 m) of an intersection.”

Above the bus sign is a 'No Parking' sign. Each and every bus, as it pulls up to the stop, has half of its length across the intersection. Vehicles that follow the bus are either stopped in the middle of the intersection or try to move around the bus in the middle of the intersection, with oncoming traffic from the opposite direction. Some bus drivers refuse to pull up at the bus sign, they would rather break their own rules and risk their supervisor's wrath and pull at least a full bus length past the sign. Potential passengers then are forced to hurry and now go back to reach the bus; during winter that could add even more potential risk.

One bus driver had said that he had raised the issue of this intersection with his union representative but was told that the union couldn't do anything about it. Apparently this was a City move and there were several other stops that were as questionable. Drivers know this is not safe, passengers know it is not safe, then who decided to move the bus sign and for what reason?

Every bus driver is forced to break the by-laws of this city and commits an offence each time under the Provincial Offences Act. An email with photographs had been sent to Mayor Walter Sendzik and to the Director of Transportation and Environment Services, Dan Dillon. The questions asked were simple. First, why was this bus sign moved to a position putting at risk both passengers and drivers? Equally as important, who made this decision and on what information or review was this decision based? Any response received naturally would be published.

Mayor Walter Sendzik received the email approximately at 4:11 p.m. on December 8^th. First there was an automated response, then on December 9^th at 7:25 a.m. Mayor Sendzik responded with a personal message. He had looked at the photos and had taken action. Later that same day the Mayor's Administrative Assistant, Julie Hughes, confirmed that the stop had been moved to its original location, safe and clear from the intersection. Mayor Sendzik had shown care about a situation, was able to view the photos which clearly explained the need for a remedy and took immediate action. This shows how local government can work together with members of the community and make things work. Thank you to Mayor Walter Sendzik for his concern and quick response. Dan Dillon on the other hand decided to ignore the issue that was brought to his attention.

The next issue is somewhat more complex yet still dealing with the same principles of By-laws and a simple concept that all the laws in our society are equal to all the citizens. After all that is what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees. There is no small print in the Charter that says this guarantee is only applicable to the big laws like the Criminal Code or Income Tax law. In St. Catharines that concept of supposed equality is somewhat lost.

It all begins with a business on Merritt Street, not a big business at that, only employing ten or less individuals. Owner Sam Demita had faced Ministry of Environment investigations and he had breached the By-laws of this municipality for some five years. This city and its staff were quite aware of the breaches of law and finally announced that the By-laws were going to be changed to suit Sam Demita and his business Sun Collision, resulting in an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. 

As expected the OMB supported the City and ruled that the By-law amendments should proceed, and they did. The City of St. Catharines wrote up the new by-laws, threw in some spit and polish and Sam Demita broke the new shiny by-laws made especially for him from the first day. Two By-laws were written, as an OPA, Official Plan Amendment via By-law 2013-138, and the other a rezoning By-law 138-39.

Prior to the By-laws being written and the whole OMB fiasco, the cleansing or absolution of Sam Demita was pitched at a City of St. Catharines Council meeting on April 29^th 2013. As usual the meeting was presided over by the mayor of the day, Brian McMullan. One of the Councillors for Merritton at the time, Jeff Burch, made his statements, lied to protect Sam Demita, later being investigated by the Integrity Commissioner. It was a mess, and in addition to all of this the Director for Planning & Development Services for the City of St. Catharines, James Riddell, presented his Corporate Report #PDS-103-2013, File: 60. 2.30 dated April 3^rd, 2013.

This report is fifteen pages long and a great deal of it in language which attempts to cover all the supposed angles for the City. Yet several passages stand out and are worthy of being quoted. On page 7 of 15, paragraph two begins: “Section 12.1(viii) of the Garden City Plan does not permit automotive related service facilities in the Mixed Use designation. The applicant is proposing to amend the Official Plant to permit outdoor storage in conjunction with the adjacent automotive repair shop. Permissions for this small outdoor storage area will assist in the day to day function of Sun Collision.”

Now on page 8 of 15, under the heading Outdoor Storage: “Section 6A 2.1 of the Zoning By-law 2004-263 does not permit outdoor storage in the Commercial-Residential zone.” Then it continues in the next paragraph, “The subject lands have and continue to be used for outdoor storage. This use is in contravention of the zoning by-law.”

The real gem comes on page 9 of 15, second paragraph under the heading Planning Analysis Conclusion; “Staff note that the existing use of the site for outdoor storage is not consistent with the proposed amendments. Staff will be pursuing enforcement of the Zoning By-law, once the proposed amendment takes effect.” One may ask what does all that mean? Firstly, James Riddell and his bunch, City Solicitor Nicole Auty, the Mayor at the time Brian McMullan, and Merritton Ward Councillor Jeff Burch all knew Sam Demita breached the by-laws at will. Now that the by-laws were being amended to suit Sam Demita and provide absolution, a promise was made to enforce the new by-laws.

That was in April 2013. The OMB through the hands of Member or Adjudicator M.C. Denhez whitewashed everything for the City and the new by-laws came to life. Sam Demita did what he had done for some five years, he broke the new custom designed by-laws from the first day. According to Mr. OMB, M.C. Denhez and his final report of November 2013 #PL 130734, page 3, paragraph 14: “The OP designation and zoning of the back northwest corner (abutting the railway tracks and Sun Collision) was named 'Area B,' and authorized for car storage.” James Riddell in his report on pages 8 and 9 of 15 stated, “the proposed location and size of the storage area are limited...,” and “A limited amount of outdoor storage in the north-west corner of the site...”. Limitations and law are not exactly Sam Demita's concern.

That northwest corner was for damaged cars only; within weeks of the new By-laws coming into force, the whole yard was covered in vehicles. All the wrecked vehicles in fact were parked opposite the permitted area running adjacent to the fence line on Merritt Street. New vehicles waiting for detailing filled the site in the hundreds, and mini storage containers took position on almost all the empty spaces.

On September 2^nd 2014 three emails were sent with photographs attached to the attention of M.C. Denhez at the OMB, City Solicitor Nicole Auty and Director of Planning & Development Services James Riddell. As expected James Riddell didn't bother to reply, after all what more could he say. Nicole Auty responded with the line that staff will be looking into the matter, what that really meant is anybody's guess.

Everything remained the same till sate Spring 2015. After which the new vehicles had disappeared and almost all of the mini storage units. The damaged vehicles were left on the opposite side of the site in contravention of the custom made By-laws of 2013.

An announcement came to the residents along Pinecrest Avenue and a sign was attached to the fence of 186 Merritt Street, Sam Demita's property. Once again an Open House was conducted on September 24^th 2015. An “Information Meeting Regarding A Proposal To Redesignate,” it went on to say, “Amendment to Official Plan and Zoning By-Law to Permit a Mini Self Storage Facility to be located within the existing Mixed Use Designation and Zone.”

Now tough guy Councillor David Haywood and his threat of “bring it on,” may try to use the excuse of how much he doesn't know, but this time it won't wash. During the Facebook exchange a link was provided to the issues surrounding Sun Collision and Sam Demita. David Haywood was also contacted by Mr. Mark Leeson, a resident of Pinecrest Avenue. In addition to all of this Councillor Haywood was present at the Open House on September 24^th 2015 with his fellow Merritton Ward Councillor Jennie Stevens. Councillor Haywood did not bother to contact Mr. Leeson again after the Open House, according to Mr. Leeson during an interview on December 5^th 2015.

There are some serious questions about how much the law is worth in St. Catharines. In 2013 the former Mayor, Brian McMullan and former Merritton Councillor Jeff Burch did their thing. Now it will be interesting to see what Mayor Walter Sendzik and Councillor David Haywood will do. So who and what is Sam Demita? How can one man mangle, abuse, and spit on the law and have City Officials cover up for him?

Mayor Walter Sendzik replied with a simple referral to his Director of Development Services James Riddell on December 18^th 2015. Previously James Riddell refused to acknowledge any questions when an email was sent to him in September 2014. This time he had little choice, obviously Mayor Sendzik instructed him to respond. James Riddell on December 21^st via email confirmed once again that he is fully aware of the breach of law by Sam Demita. Once again James Riddell and the City of St. Catharines will do the clean up for a habitual law breaker. Mayor Walter Sendzik is no different to the former Mayor Brian McMullan after all. Mayor Sendzik has shown little care for the law, for its equality, or for its reason to exist, at least that is what can be interpreted from his actions in this situation.

As far as Councillor David Haywood, well this time he ran for the hills. He refused to reply to the email and questions sent to him. There are no more threats or challenges, public or private from Haywood.

Were does this leave the law and the Charter of Rights in St. Catharines? How does any individual reconcile the concept of equality before the law when they are charged and/or fined for a breach of By-law regarding development, property standards, or any other supposed infraction relating to both commercial and residential properties? The reality is simple, the City of St. Catharines has set a legal precedent for any defense lawyer to argue on behalf of his or her client. If Sam Demita can break the law at will with full knowledge of City officials, who then simply fix and change the law to suit Demita, then no regional municipality has legal right to penalise any other individual. That is what the Charter of Rights guarantees, equality before the law!

On the very last day of 2015, Mayor Walter Sendzik had his Administrative Assistant, Julie Hughes, send an email relating to the breach of law at 186 Merritt Street by Sam Demita. The email states, “In the meantime the owner has used the site for various outdoor storage uses, contrary to the zoning by-law. The City's inspection team has been out a number of times over the past years seeking compliance with the zoning by-law. The site has improved with the removal of numerous sea containers however the outdoor storage of vehicles remains an issue.”

Mayor Walter Sendzik admits to full knowledge that Sam Demita is breaking the law daily. Sendzik admits that Demita has no desire to abide by the By-laws fixed by the City for him in 2013. The mayor further admits that James Riddell is fully aware of the intentional breaches of law, now going on for six years by Demita, and has done nothing about it.

The Municipal Act under section 429 provides for fines to be levied to ensure compliance. Special fines above the maximum of $100,000 and for continuing offenders fines of $10,000 a day are levied. It is time for Mayor Walter Sendzik to remove James Riddell from his overpaid public position and conduct an investigation. It is time to ask Nicole Auty the City Solicitor some serious questions, as she is such an expert on By-laws. Yet Mayor Sendzik will do nothing, as the former Mayor Brian McMullan did nothing. The most recent photos taken only a few days into 2016 prove that Mayor Sendzik's statement in the email, “The site has improved with the removal sea containers,” is simply a lie. Is it possible that James Riddell simply decided not to provide all the facts to Mayor Walter Sendzik? After all the City's “inspection team has been out a number of times.” Who's inspection team but one sent by James Riddell.

This City has threatened and destroyed lives over simple noncompliance, yet here one individual appears to have the power to tell the City to …. off and do as he pleases without consequence for over six years! Mayor Walter Sendzik provide an honest and concise answer as to how this is possible.

We're Drowning in Thirst

The time has come to pack another year away into memory and 2015 once again proved that humanity seems to be on a course of self-destruction more than anything else. The United Nations Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon had summed up this quickly passing year into two rather appropriate words as “breakthrough and horror.”

As people gather together to celebrate 2015's passing into history and prepare to welcome in the new year, most thoughts are on the events that had personal impact. Few will raise a glass to remember the horrific events in Paris, nor will any think of environmental concerns for the future. That does not in any way diminish the celebration nor is it a condemnation of decent folks, it is simply human nature. In today's world life is not always easy and many of us, myself included, are thankful for what we have.

Perhaps that very trait of humanity's nature is what Ban-Ki Moon refers to as “horror.” After all if one's cup is full and thirst is kept at bay then little else really matters. Yet we live on this planet as a collective, not as solitary or single individuals. Our actions carry with them consequences that have a lasting effect on all others around us.

This past year brought with it the horrendous sadness of the monstrosity of indiscriminate violence against innocent victims. Paris was the centre of a murderous attack on humanity as a whole and not only on Parisians. Although the footprint of terror and the followers of an insane doctrine did not only imprint themselves in France, innocent lives were taken in the United States, more in Africa, and in other countries.

Violence once again had been the cause of a massive outpouring of locals from countries in Africa and the Middle East. Again innocent victims find no choice but to run and look for refuge in foreign lands. Many of those who flee their own countries do so at great risk, and compassion is also a human trait, yet compassion has consequences in time as does any other action, both good and bad.

True consequences are unavoidable but do average people in any country, whether it be Canada, the US, or anywhere else, see that these events affect them in some way? Amongst the tragic events there were more positive and uplifting examples of the human spirit. After all Ban-Ki Moon did not just speak of horror, he also saw breakthrough in 2015.

The United Nations brought together representatives from 196 nations to discuss a global issue which has the potential to touch every corner of our planet. There are those who see little merit in environmental issues, others claim that nothing has really changed and that alarmists push the idea of doom and gloom. Thankfully reality was not ignored and the Paris Climate Conference, COP21, on how to control CO² emissions fought through volumes of rhetoric to find an agreement for the future of this planet.

Few can deny that carbon emissions affect Climate Change. Millions of vehicles all around the world release huge amounts of CO² gases. The use of traditional methods of production, in particular the use of coal in power plants, adds massive stress in our atmosphere and serious effects on Climate Change. In Paris, negotiations found themselves bogged down not on how to reduce the carbon emissions but on what levels of reduction would be acceptable.

Climate Change is not a new concept, it has those who warn of the potential gloom the world faces, and it has those who deny its legitimacy. The battle between the two sides has lasted many years. Al Gore, at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009, predicted that the Arctic ice caps could completely disappear in 2014. Media found itself displaying photos of polar bears trying to get on a floating ice cap the size of a coffee table. Those images stayed in the minds and memories of many.

James Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment and Climate News at Forbes, published an article on May 19^th 2015. Its title 'Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat,' states; “Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth's polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012 polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent.”

In this article James Taylor acknowledges Al Gore's prediction of the disappearing ice caps. Al Gore in his presentation of December 14^th 2009 refers to a number of scientific individuals to prove his point. At the same time James Taylor refers to NASA satellite instruments and data. Still, there was not a more surprising convert to the side of Climate Change warriors than Pope Francis. On September 25^th 2015, Pope Francis delivered a wide ranging address to world leaders at the UN General Assembly, urging global action to protect the environment. He produced the Papal Encyclical – Laudato Si, defining Climate Change as a principle challenge facing humanity and a moral issue.

The Paris Agreement of the reduction of Climate Change represents a consensus by the 196 nations attending that we face this task together. The agreement will become legally binding if joined by at least 55 countries, which together represent at least 55 percent of global greenhouse emissions. Such parties will need to sign the agreement in New York between April 22^nd 2016 and April 21^st 2017, and also adopt it within their own legal systems.

Reduction in global greenhouse emissions tends to be a rather open statement. How do we actually achieve this? No one sees the end of oil production in the near future. Simply look at the demand with the ever increasing number of vehicles on the roads each year. Average individuals will not reduce the use of their vehicles, and although electric vehicles are an alternative how feasible are they in the short future? Can ordinary people afford to change from their standard vehicle to a new electric one? Once that thought begins to germinate the question of charging stations then arises.

At the Paris Conference one major topic centered around renewable energy production. There are many countries who have made forecasts to reduce their carbon emissions. Some nations such as France have achieved almost 90 percent of its electricity production from zero carbon sources, including nuclear, hydroelectric and wind, whilst still providing a high standard of living. France is not alone, as Finland and Sweden have also found equal success in a shift to renewable energy production.

Other countries such as China have announced renewable energy targets. China plans to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its energy mix to 20 percent by 2030. Japan announced that it plans to increase its energy mix to 22 to 24 percent renewable energy by 2030.

Is optimism enough? The disaster with a methane gas leak in the Porter Ranch community in Los Angeles throws more questions into the mix. Southern California Gas Company only plans to plug the leak in the next three or four months, which began releasing methane gas into the atmosphere on October 23^rd 2015. This leak has been releasing 62 million cubic feet of gas per day and has forced the relocation of 2600 local residents. Methane gas is as detrimental to Climate Change as CO², and this leak will affect California's predictions of reduction of gas emissions.

In the end was the United Nations Climate Change Conference simply a gathering of politicians full of promises, or was it a glimmer of hope for the future? Maybe a recap of 2016 will give us the answer. In the meantime, as we prepare to welcome a new year each one of us remembers the events of our lives, the support of family and friends, and most of all the hope that our future is better, or at least not worse than the past and that darkness does not hit us all.

Happy New Year to all of Mayorgate's readers.

The Australian Rhino Project, can it be the answer?

It has been often said that humanity is capable of great achievements, but also monstrous destruction. We share this planet with other living creatures; those who fly through our skies, others who walk the same soil we do, and still those who inhabit the waters. As the dominant creature gifted with reasoning and intelligence, it is expected that we would protect those other living creatures from pointless destruction. That is where the theory ends, with only one exception.

Through the decades human development has brought about industrialisation and urbanisation, gradually polluting this planet and affecting all life on it. As an intelligent species we are capable of turning this damage around, of developing alternatives which will not force us to surrender the comforts that we are so used to. Then why can't we find a way to stop the slaughter of creatures that we share our Earth with? Why should we speak of the extinction of a species simply because of greed driven by an insane demand?

The rhino is marching towards extinction in the wild as the slaughter of this magnificent beast continues to rise each year. Poaching is not simply a nuisance, it is an epidemic as lethal as the Black Death that gripped Europe in ancient times. Images of savagely butchered rhinos increase almost on a daily basis, and the threat of penalties for poaching if caught are not a real deterrent.

photo courtesy of The Australian Rhino Project

In 2010 recorded rhino deaths from poaching was 333, which rose to 1215 in 2014, an increase of almost 400% in four years. Penalties for poaching are not deterring the poachers, not when the bounty for a well shaped and intact horn is between $750,000 to $1 million. Rhino horn brings in more per ounce than cocaine or even gold. Those who do the actual slaughter do not see such huge profits, they are paid only a tiny percentage, but to the Africans it is still more than what they can earn working for a year, making it a risk worth taking.

True there are those who believe that saving the rhino is of great national importance. At this rate rhino deaths will overtake births between 2016 and 2018, and extinction of this magnificent beast will be ensured. Local rangers patrol the vast lands of Kruger National Park in South Africa but the land is both tough and massive in its breadth. Another effort to save the rhino has been under way, by moving rhino into Northern Botswana at the edge of the Okavango Delta.

This project has serious merit, yet the Okavango Delta region is not a fenced area, leaving the rhino open to poachers. The Kruger National Park has its own rangers and government support yet it is one of the main killing fields of rhino. Northern Botswana has the same potential; it is simply a different location.

In Australia an alternative project has been launched that provides a truly safe location for the rhino from poaching regardless of how high the price for the horn climbs. The Australian Rhino Project was formed by two men, Ray Dearlove and Allan Davies, with one focused goal in mind; to establish breeding herds of white and black rhino in Australia as an insurance population for the two species facing the threat of extinction.

Ray Dearlove was born and educated in South Africa and emigrated to Australia in 1987, yet his love and link to his homeland never left him. In May 2013 he was contacted by a group of people in South Africa concerned with the increasing slaughter of the rhino and the very real fear of their extinction in the wild. Dearlove found himself faced with an incredible idea; to establish a breeding herd of both white and black rhino in Australia. He decided to take this idea further by contacting a long time friend, Allan Davies.

Davies is an Australian-born businessman with some 40 years experience in the Australian and international coal industry. He is a registered mine manager in South Africa, and together with his wife Lyn Davies, joined Ray and Margaret Dearlove in an adventure to save the rhino from extinction.

Dearlove and Davies contacted Professor David Emery, Pro-Dean and Professor of Parasitology with the Veterinary Faculty at the University of Syndey. Together with Jackie Dalton, Development Officer at the Veterinary Foundation from the University of Sydney, it was decided that the Taronga Conservation Society of Australia had to be part of this project for any real chance of success.

Taronga's experience was to be the key; its black rhino program at its Western Plains Zoo in Dubbo, some five hours from Sydney, has bred more animals than anywhere else outside of Africa. At the same time, Davies secured the approval of the South African authorities, and in December 2013 the Australian Rhino Project was launched.

The plan is to bring 80 rhinos to Australia, developing a breeding herd as insurance against extinction. Once, or if, the situation stabilises the rhinos and its prodigy will be put back into the wild, and not only in South Africa. It is a monstrous task costing approximately $8 million. The cost for one rhino is one hundred thousand dollars, with the bulk of the cost going to air transportation.

Ray Dearlove, Co-founder The Australian Rhino Project

Upon touchdown in Australia, Ray Dearlove told Mayorgate, “The rhinos will go into quarantine (as per the Australian government's laws), thereafter the rhinos will move to one of several locations, for fairly obvious reasons these locations will not be disclosed. All movement of endangered species is governed by CITES [the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora] – to which we adhere to the letter.”

Mayorgate asked Dearlove why was he doing this, what was he going to get from it? His response was clear. “Alexander this is a personal passion. I am not paid by anyone. I do this because I believe that if I or you or others don't do something about it, who will? We cannot let these animals become extinct on our watch.”

Indeed the question is, who will? WWF-South Africa announced in 2010 the first World Rhino Day, an idea that germinated in the mind and heart of Lisa Jane Campbell of Chishakwe Ranch in Zimbabwe. A Global March Against Extinction was held in London on October 3^rd and 4^th this year, focusing on both elephants and rhinos. But awareness is not needed here in the West, the demand for tusks and horns stream from China and Vietnam. Memorandums of Understanding have been signed between China and South Africa, yet the slaughter continues. It is not only the rhino that poachers butcher; the elephant population has dropped from 109,051 in 2009 to 43,330 in 2014.

Recent news of a 66-year old Chinese woman with ties to the Chinese and Tanzanian elite, Yang Feng Glan, arrested in Dares Salaam, Tanzania for smuggling 700 tusks brings only shock and revulsion. Corruption is an important key behind the smuggling which supplies an insane demand – no MOU can pierce through that.

Rhino horn is used by the Vietnamese and Chinese because they believe it will help a man with an erection and will wipe away a hangover. Yet the horn is nothing but keratin, and for this the slaughter of rhinos has increased from 333 to 1215 in just four years.

Will an MOU or a march through the streets of London stop a man like Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe? For his 91^st birthday, he fed his guests a young elephant, buffaloes, sables, impalas and more, while a lion and crocodile were slaughtered, stuffed and presented to him as gifts. This indifference to life is beyond alarming.

It is undeniable that there are brave individuals like Ray Dearlove and Allan Davies, who believe that we cannot simply sit back and do nothing. Rangers in the Kruger National Park, together with people like Chris Palmer, risk their lives to stop poachers. Yet the slaughter continues, fueled by a demand based on nothing more than superstition, a demand that will not slow down for the foreseeable future.

The time has come for real and constructive action before it is too late. The Australian Rhino Project in its September 2015 newsletter finished with these words from Ray Dearlove: “Not for one moment do we suggest that our proposal to build this breeding herd in Australia is the answer, rather it is but one strand in a complex strategy in the fight against the poaching of these iconic animals. We leave you with one thought. Please do not think that extinction in the wild 'won't happen'. Just a few weeks ago we were informed that the Sumatran Rhino became extinct in the wild in Malaysia.”

Can anyone willingly allow these creatures to be wiped off the face of this Earth and not want to do something to save them?

No man, woman or child can remain blind or untouched by the suffering captured in the still eyes of a slain rhino. Equally there is no human being as a guardian of a tear drop of compassion who can become deaf to the cries of loss emanating from a baby rhino cub. In our hands, we have the power to change all of this.

The horsemen cross the Steppes of Ukraine

Power is an aphrodisiac that few men and women are able to control, and Russia's President Vladimir Putin has been intimate with its allure since his early days with the KGB. Still, the West believes that democracy, or at least their style of democracy, can be forced onto the people of Eastern Europe. America leads this crusade not only in Eastern Europe but just as feverishly in the Middle East, all too often with disastrous results both in the loss of innocent lives and that of simple dollars and cents.

The current conflict between Russia and Ukraine is embedded as deeply in the history of the region as it is in the lust for domination by Russia over its surrounding neighbours. Vladimir Putin still believes in the same maniacal aspirations of Stalin and of the great Russian state, although unlike Stalin, he is an astute businessman with weaponry at his disposal that Stalin could never comprehend. This is not to say that Putin has completely abandoned the military might of Russia's army, with its tanks and well trained troops. There have been rumours of Russian soldiers fighting in the self-proclaimed People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia has denied direct military involvement and claims to only protect Russian citizens and its border with Ukraine.

Today, the West is faced with a stand-off against Russia over the issue of Ukraine. Sanctions imposed by the US and its allies have had some effect on the Russian economy, with the ruble collapsing against the US dollar 50 to 1, though it is not all due to the sanctions, as Russia has suffered heavily with the massive drop in oil prices. Russia's economy heading into a recession, Putin knows how to keep the minds of average Russians diverted from such a mess. He has simply given the people an issue of protecting fellow Russians against threat and persecution.

Crimea was annexed by Russia in March of 2014 and the Ukrainian conflict found world headlines. Putin was simply able to point out that Nikita Khrushchev had made a grave error in 1954 when he transferred the Crimean Oblast to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Today, with its population being fifty percent Russian and the fact that Russia parks its mighty Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, it was only natural that Crimea needed to return to the arms of Mother Russia.

In response to the annexation, the EU and the US raised the stakes with their sanctions against some of the powerful elite around Putin. Major oil firms Rosneft, Transneft and Gazprom Neft were targeted; Bank Rossiya, Gazprombank and Sberbank have found themselves on the EU and US blacklists, as well as some of Putin's inner circle. Yuri Kovalchuk and Nikolai Shamalov found themselves blacklisted, while Arkady Rotenberg, Sergei Chemezov and Vyacheslav Volodin all face travel bans and western asset freezes.

Among all the frenzy of threat and counter-threat regarding sanctions, it is still questionable who is hurting more, Russia or the EU. The EU's trade with Russia simply outweighs that of the US, and in 2012 was worth almost 270 billion euros. Although Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel appears to support the Obama-led ideology of sanctions as punishment, the German economy is facing serious problems with the loss of business with Russia, as German exports to Russia in 2013 totaled 38 billion euros – the highest of all EU members. With summer drawing to an end Germany has to consider the fact that more than thirty percent of its oil and gas is imported from Russia. Russia has retaliated with an embargo on food imports from the EU, US, Canada, and Australia.

Vladimir Putin is not simply an out of control thug who is trying to push some socialist ideology down the throats of his neighbours. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Putin, who had been stationed in East Germany, retired from the KGB with the rank of Colonel. Attaching himself to Anatoly Sobchak, then Mayor of Leningrad, Putin's political rise was nothing more than meteoric. In 1998 Putin moved to Moscow; this time he found himself as head of management under Boris Yeltsin's administration. Yeltsin dismissed his Prime Minister in August 1999, promoting Putin to the position, and in December that year Yeltsin resigned as President of Russia, appointing Vladimir Putin as acting President. From a retired Colonel in the KGB to President of Russia in eight years makes Putin an astute, calculating tactician and a very cunning opponent, whose motivations are always well disguised regardless of what is heard publicly.

In 2010, Russia set on a new international course with the formation of the BRICS group of prominent emerging economies, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Now they have agreed on the formation of the New Development Bank, whose goal is to provide funds for infrastructure projects in member nations, and aside from this lofty ideal, it will be able to challenge both the IMF and World Bank with their influence on international politics. For decades the IMF and World Bank have been able to hold a mortgage on nations and therefore interfere with their domestic politics. The members of the BRICS group make up forty percent of the world's population and wield a combined economy of approximately $16 trillion. This figure will grow as each member nation launches further with development programs and economic growth. Each of the BRICS member nations have an equal share and voting power with no one nation given the power of veto. In addition to international finance, Vladimir Putin has been developing greater inroads into the EU and their need for Russian gas.

The Blue Stream is a major trans-Black Sea gas pipeline that carries natural gas from Russia to Turkey; gas began to flow in February 2003. Russia proposed to build another pipeline called the South Stream but the EU passed the Third Energy Package, which stated Russia could not own and control pipelines on EU territory. Putin's response was to cancel the project in December 2014 and file a lawsuit against the EU with the World Trade Organisation.

Now Russia has put into development a new pipeline from the Black Sea to Turkey called the Turkish Stream. The first line of pipe is expected to be completed by December 2016, providing gas to a relay station in Greece and massive economic potential for that country. At the same time, Greece has been given an invitation to join the BRICS nations and a possible pre-payment of $10 billion on future gas production. Such an injection of cash would allow Greece to revert back to the drachma, dropping the euro and providing the first substantial crack in European unity. Although Greece accepted an 86 billion euro bailout recently, it was Putin's attempt at manipulation that should not be taken lightly.

Putin understands world politics and understands that time is needed to achieve all his apparent goals. He has been able to hold on to power in Russia for some fourteen years and is not likely ready to relinquish it. The Russian people have supported Putin mainly because he brought a change to their lives with a growing economy, better jobs and better pay. Real opposition does not exist in Russia and treatment of any dissent is swift and harsh.

Putin's democracy puts up with public demonstrations only for the West to see, when in reality the government of Russia acts no differently than in Stalin's time. Alexei Navalny has been an outspoken critic of the Putin government and its massive corruption. He had led protests with tens of thousands marching in the streets of Moscow three years ago. Since then, Alexei Navalny has faced charges of embezzlement and was sentenced to house arrest. Navalny's popularity has not waned and only finds support growing with accusations against Putin's government that the charges were a farce only aimed to silence him. In December 2014, Oleg Navalny, the brother of Alexei, was sentenced to three and a half years in jail for the same embezzlement. European officials saw this ruling as a politically motivated act to suppress any real opposition. Alexei Navalny has openly stated that the decision to jail his brother Oleg was simply an act of terror aimed to silence him.

Regardless of the opinions of European or any Western officials, Putin's Russia will continue on its course. Domestic politics will never be affected by the weak pressures exerted by the West. Whether it is the Navalny brothers or Pussy Riot, dissent will be crushed in the traditional way.

As the West continues on its illusionary course of economic sanctions, the death toll in Ukraine has risen well over 7000. Ceasefire agreements do not appear to hold as both sides are willing to breach those agreements with little or no provocation. Rebels in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, who the West argues are armed and supplemented by Russian troops, are claiming to be fighting for heir to freedom from Ukrainian forces. Both of those regions have very large populations of Russians, with Russian being both their predominate language.

If the premise of democracy is the right to choose one's own government then the self-proclaimed People's Republic of Luhansk and Donetsk should be recognised. On the other hand can the Ukrainian government permit the splintering of their country through manipulation by another nation? These questions are not easy to answer when outside interference is thrown in the midst of all the rhetoric. The world, led by US President Obama, has decided to punish Putin's Russia over accusations of manipulation and interference. Yet it is the US who has interfered in domestic politics of nations since the '50s with the Bay of Pigs, and US-led coalitions have openly invaded countries under a guise equivalent to the Crusades. Defending democracy, and more recently, stamping out terrorism have been their catch cries and no one has objected.

Can anyone underestimate Vladimir Putin? The answer is a definite no. The world as a union has seen the result of inaction before, who can forget the British Prime Minister Chamberlain's comments after his meeting with Adolf Hitler, and his Peace for Our Time speech? In Ukraine it is hard to deny that Russia has armed the rebels and has provided manpower in this battle. At the same time the West claims justification in their economic stranglehold through sanctions, stating that it only wants Russia to remain neutral and maybe only cheer from the sidelines. Amongst all the posturing and accusations, the most disturbing aspect of this situation is how willing all the players are at sacrificing the pawns. Images of a woman in tears standing in front of her home, demolished by bombs in a struggle she doesn't fully comprehend tell the true story.

Since the struggle began more than 7000 innocent lives had been lost, while ceasefire violations continually provide obstacles to reaching a solution. In reality the West has no control over what is going to happen in Ukraine. Proposals to tighten sanctions only provide a greater opportunity for bullying. Both the Luhansk and Donetsk regions will eventually pull away from Ukraine, and if a supposed ceasefire holds it will only be temporary.

Democracy in Eastern Europe must find its own flavour and not be forced onto people who had only known struggle for centuries. The US acts like an arrogant child chastising its parents for not being 'tech-savvy,' forgetting how much the parents really know. Ukraine has had centuries of struggle and occupation to live through, from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth through to roving hoards of Tartars and even its own Cossacks. Eventually when Stalin's Russia occupied Ukraine, instead of peace its people had to survive the chlodomor, or the 'hunger-extermination', with estimates ranging from 2.5 to 7.5 million killed. During World War II many Ukrainians fought on the German side in fear of Russian occupation. Relative peace came during Khrushchev's time but now the horror of death and uncertainty has risen again.

Neither Russia nor the West has a right to interfere in Ukraine's domestic politics, yet it is clear both will do so. Vladimir Putin is a dangerous individual to underestimate. He is clever and cunning; the strong, decisive leader that average Russians want. Though it is the people of Ukraine who are caught in the middle of this international head-butting. It is time for them to decide the direction their country should travel in. Sanctions have hurt the EU as much, if not more, than they have hurt Russia, and the resolve to continue them will crumble in the end. At the same time no one will go to war over Ukraine, leaving only Ukrainians to decide what the answer to all of this may be.

Brian McMullan Finally Under Oath

Brian McMullan occupied the position of Mayor of the City of St. Catharines for two terms, from 2006 through to 2014. He decided not to fight for re-election in 2014 and left his position under a cloud of questions. During his term in office censorship was a key to his survival. The main local newspaper, The Standard, had its senior reporter Marlene Bergsma lie in print during then Mayor Brian McMullan's 2010 re-election campaign. Later, reporter Grant LaFleche ignored all the details of a failed attempt at intimidation by Brian McMullan of a fellow Niagara Regional Councillor, Andy Petrowski. Grant LaFleche was present at the courthouse, spoke with Brian McMullan's lawyer, and still did not find anything that was of public interest. Now this farce finally comes to an end and Brian McMullan's lawyer, Christopher Bittle, of Lancaster, Brooks and Welch has filed for a court date in an attempt to shut down the truth, even though McMullan is no longer in office.

On April 14^th 2015, the Superior Court of Justice issued a Notice of Trial between Brian McMullan and Alexander Davidoff, publisher of Mayorgate, set for July 7^th and 8^th 2015, in Small Claims Courtroom #2. Finally, Brian McMullan will be put under oath; no political language to maneuver with in answering questions which had demanded attention for a long time.

In Canada there is still a belief in the unbias principles of law that truth and equality will prevail. Canada as a society had to deal with issues surrounding the current Bill C-51 and diminishing rights to freedom of speech, but as Canadians we have been able to do so in open public debate. This in itself is testimony to the strength of our democratic foundation. Brian McMullan has used the law as a thug uses a club to threaten and intimidate into silence what is the truth. Now at his own hands he has provided the one forum which he cannot silence or bully.

It has been a long road. In 2011 Brian McMullan used Christopher Bittle and the law firm Lancaster, Brooks and Welch to issue a threat. Mayorgate's response was clear and simple: the threat was made public and the evidence equally public. Brian McMullan, Christopher Bittle, and Lancaster, Brooks & Welch LLP backed off.

Our democracy is based on a principle of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of Canada not only confirmed this most treasured principle but went further to enhance the protection of our freedom particularly as it relates to journalists and what is to be considered fair comment. In 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its judgement in the WIC Radio Ltd & Simpson case, and then again in 2009 with another case, Grant v Torstar Corp, changing the landscape of libel and slander actions. Even though defence against such legal action had been dramatically strengthened, SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) are still a weapon of harassment and intimidation.

SLAPP suits are a simple thing: they are tools of intimidation and harassment used to silence not only freedom of speech but also the free flow of information. As children we are taught to ask questions when there is anything that puzzles us and never feel embarrassed to do so. As adults we are simply encouraged to shut up. Asking questions may be natural to us human beings but they become a bother to some and can definitely be dangerous to the one asking them. Journalists thrive on asking questions and providing commentary which stimulates discussion, which then stimulates more questions. If this cycle was not considered dangerous or uncomfortable by some there would be no SLAPP-sters.

Brian McMullan is a SLAPP-ster, Christopher Bittle is a SLAPP-ster but only small time, as this action was filed in the Small Claims Court. The whole concept of the judicial system is designed so that its lowest tier, Small Claims Division, provides for speedy resolution of grievances. McMullan's Notice of Action was first served on July 7^th 2014, that is almost a year ago, or at least would be a year at trial date. As a matter of fact it would turn out to be an anniversary gift and this time I, as publisher of Mayorgate, would say “it's what I've always wanted” and mean every word of it.

As a step towards potential resolution of a claim and prior to a trial, both parties are required to appear at a mandatory settlement conference, in this case it was set for December 9^th 2014. Originally the settlement conference was set by the court for October 20^th but Christopher Bittle found conflict with his schedule. A mandatory settlement conference requires that both the plaintiff and defendant appear, but on December 9^th there was no sign of Brian McMullan. No reason was given, but then McMullan's contempt for the law had surfaced more than once in the past, and as the defendant it was within the Rules of Civil Procedure to demand an adjournment till such time that McMullan appeared in person. I had no intention to settle anything, even though Christopher Bittle's demands were greatly reduced on behalf of his client, unless McMullan withdrew his action in full. This settlement conference ended with a statement by Bittle that a trial date would be applied for by his client.

It took months, in actuality over four months, before the application for trial was filed. No sooner had a trial date been set by the courts that an email arrived from Christoper Bittle's assistant. Once again there were problems with schedules and an adjournment was requested, this time to late August depending on the judge.

A trial will finally open the doors to truth being released. Christopher Bittle bragged that he was going to have many of the documents in my Statement of Defence dismissed; apparently the volume of material had frightened him. Maybe he forgot that it was his client who opened Pandora's Box with his accusations and under law I have the right to ask questions on everything that he brought up in his Statement of Claim and Notice of Action.

The SLAPP-ing began on July 7^th 2014 with McMullan's Notice of Action. In this Notice of Action Christoper Bittle claimed, “The above noted allegations are false and are presented as fact without any evidence of support.” Full evidence of support lies in the hundreds of pages of the defence statement and the questions about to be raised at trial relating to the evidence, where answers will be given under oath. Bittle claimed further, “You have alleged the following conduct on the part of Mr. McMullan that is false.” Again Bittle, on behalf of his client called me a liar. Finally this claim by Bittle, “Your articles wrongly state an allegation of an affair as truth and use that as a basis to malign Mr. McMullan's character. These allegations are untrue.” Again calling me and my website, Mayorgate, a liar.

According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, once an action begins with a Notice of Action, regardless of what tier in the court system, nothing changes in that action. In October 2014, Brian McMullan had the full divorce file sealed from public access. Sealing a divorce file is not an easy thing particularly as there are no small children involved. McMullan himself was only a mayor, a public servant and nothing more. What were the grounds which McMullan had presented to have the seal enforced? The actual divorce filing by Mrs. McMullan was made public on the internet, was that disclosed to the judge before a decision was handed down?

The tag team of McMullan and Bittle made the accusation in their Notice of Action that the allegation of an affair between Brian McMullan and former Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman was false. This accusation was made even after the copies of a divorce filing was made available publicly on Mayorgate. Everything that is in the sealed divorce file is potential evidence for my defence and will be unsealed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario had placed a heavy evidentiary burden on litigants who seek non-publication and sealing orders, M.E.H v Russell Williams 2012 ON CA 35 (Doherty, Armstrong, Hoy, SSA). In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada requires an applicant to prove both necessity and proportionality. R v Mentuck (2001) 3.5. C.R. 442. 2001 SCC 76 at para 32.

“A publication ban of court proceedings should only be ordered when:

a) such an order is necessary in order to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and

b) the statutory effects of the publication ban outweigh the deleterious effects on the rights and interests of the parties and the public, including the effects on the right to free expression, the right of the accused to a fair and public trial, and the efficiency of the administration of justice.”

At the end of it all Richard G. Dearden a partner with Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP in Ottawa had summarised the whole issue of seals on court records with, “The Court of Appeal for Ontario has affirmed that family law proceedings are not different from any other type of civil proceeding. Openness is the rule. Secrecy is the exception. Litigants have an extremely high evidentiary threshold to overcome to obtain any secrecy regarding Court proceedings and records filed in Court files.”

In this case what had McMullan, Mr. or Mrs., provided to the Motion Judge that satisfied the Dagenais/Mentuck test for obtaining non-publication or sealing orders, as set by the Supreme Court of Canada, or the heavy evidentiary burden imposed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario? Now the question of proper administration of justice faces the demands of absolute openness of all potential evidence in order to present a fair and proper defence against accusations made by Brian McMullan.

In this case there is no question of media hounding the poor thing, wanting to publish personal or embarrassing details; McMullan had and still has absolute control over what is published by the only real newspaper here. Censorship had been the key to the two terms in office for Brian McMullan and can be easily proven, even to a panel of judges. The McMullans do not have any small children and as far as emotional embarrassment is concerned, that is not enough to seal any documents. Divorces happen every day for all kinds of reasons, so what makes the McMullan divorce a national secret?

Fear is the only possible motivator, but fear of what? It is not of 'the media,' so is it fear of Mayorgate? Does the divorce prove that McMullan lied in court documents? Do the divorce files prove that the threat and harassment of Mayorgate was planned and calculated? It will now be up to the Court of Appeal of Ontario to decide if this seal is going to remain. The administration of justice will not be blocked and evidence removed from the accused by this sealing order. Christopher Bittle may find conflict with his schedule as far as a trial date is concerned and no objection has been raised against an adjournment, but there will be no trial till the divorce file is unsealed and made available for open review by the accused in this SLAPP suit. Brian McMullan has only one other choice – withdraw his action against Mayorgate.

As a final attempt to request documentation that should be available for public inspection, on June 16^th 2015, I went to the Family Law Division Enquiry Counter in the St. Catharines Courthouse. Prior to making my approach I researched the Public Prosecution Service of Canada website to understand what is required to be filed in an application for a sealing order. It stated that “an application for a sealing order must be accompanied by appropriate supporting documents, a) a notice of application; b) an affidavit in support, disclosing sufficient reasons why the order should be made and the conditions sought in the order; c) a draft order.”

My request was simple, to review the Sealing Order as handed down by the Judge with all its conditions and reasoning. First I spoke to the Information Services Lawyer, Gary Bracken, who confirmed that I would be within my right to make this request. He was told that I had been refused by the staff on the enquiry counter before. This was hard for him to believe, so he walked over to the counter with me. At the time, the judge was speaking with two women in the back of the office; Mr. Bracken confirmed that this was her court. One woman at the counter got up to leave and refused to speak to me, the second said that as the file was sealed, the Order was sealed. She refused any attempt at requesting a review of the Order and went so far as to say that the Order would not have anything in it that I was looking for! Gary Bracken, was shocked and said that they “were protecting or covering their butts.” Who have these enquiry staff got to be afraid of, or why? Who were they willing to lie for?

The Court of Appeal for Ontario will unseal this file and this insane breach of procedure will end. Every word of what happened on June 16^th 2015 can be proven and all the details will be sent to the Minister for the Attorney General of Ontario. McMullan's legacy will be brought to an end in a courtroom, the rest is his choice.