Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP Threatens Mayorgate

Once again Mayorgate has found itself to be a target of threat, intimidation and harassment. As the publisher and sole author of all the articles published I have come to expect the possibility of attack by those who fear the truth, who fear the public light on fact and who fear being questioned. Every article I publish I do so after researching every facet and only after being sure that hard evidence is at hand to support all of what is said, then and only then do I publish. No article that I write is done so as an opinion or a hot winded editorial, and I will stand behind each and every question raised, still waiting for an answer. When a response is a simple refusal to clarify a given point, and on the explanation of “just because,” then enough suspicion exists to require further probing.

A situation was brought to my attention regarding a senior citizens' retirement home. The details seemed to be rather astonishing but after an interview with an individual who had been fighting to find answers to some very damaging questions, plus the fact that a Queen's Council was willing to add more information, the need for research was affirmed. In the end, after lengthy interviews both with the individual and his Queen's Council, together with examination of documentation, and I must add legislation, an article was published on January 15^th 2014. The article titled Seniors Languish In Intimidation was accompanied with an interview posted on YouTube, and it was one that could not be ignored.

On March 6^th 2014 I signed for two registered letters, these were letters of the most cowardly threat, intimidation and harassment yet thrown at Mayorgate and at myself. What made them most offensive to dignity was that one of the threats was addressed to my daughter Alexandra. The threats were issued by a Rachel Slingerland with the law firm Martens Lingard LLP, on behalf of clients, the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home. All responsibility for this attempt to silence Mayorgate falls onto the shoulders of the Paderewski Board of Directors.

Lawyer Rachel Slingerland is a young lawyer, and youth has the need to impress which is an uncontrollable urge. She for some reason believes that simply because she issued some papers of threat, that that in itself will silence the freedom of speech. It does not! Sadly for young Slingerland she has made some statements that are so greatly removed from the truth, that they can only be conceived as the opposite. Slingerland will, I am sure, hide behind the lawyer's mantra, “in the best interest of her client,” which seems to excuse everything. Hiding behind this mantra lawyers are able to butcher the law, truth, dignity and even their code of ethics, simply read the article relating to lawyer John Willey.

Ms. Slingerland joined Martens Lingard as an Associate lawyer in July 2013, she is indeed without any experience. Someone should inform this young lawyer that we live in Canada and not Syria or Putin's Russia. Every threat against Mayorgate has been dealt with publicly as I have nothing to hide.

On LinkedIn, Ms. Slingerland's own summary of herself is “I am a young lawyer eager to build a practice,” and Martens Lingard's official web page under her photograph states, “Rachel prides herself on her passionate advocacy for her clients. She is eager to bring energy and enthusiasm in the legal profession.” Energy and enthusiasm can be excuses to hide something else, as they are here. Slingerland decided to launch her attack and intimidation against not only me, but against an individual who has no connection to Mayorgate other than providing caricature art for some of the articles. She had done this on behalf and with the approval of the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home. Obviously Slingerland found some reason to advise the members of the Board of Directors that she had grounds to attack and intimidate an innocent individual. Youth and enthusiasm rarely thinks of consequences, now Slingerland will receive a crash course in a simple fact of life.

Alexandra Davidoff is a talented artist. Her work has recently been on exhibition in New Delhi, India in a collection with 100 other artists. In addition to the exhibition her work will be featured in a published book from the exhibition. Alexandra has provided art for other authors to illustrate and provide a visual to their own characters and story lines. She exhibits her work on a number of artist websites and out of a total of 138 posts that I have made Alexandra has provided 48 caricatures. As an artist Alexandra has grown developing and nurturing her talent and at the same time her reputation. At the time of the article on the issues surrounding Leo Skorski and the Paderewski Society Home, Alexandra had not supplied any artwork for the article. Alexandra has no connection to Mayorgate other than the fact that she is my daughter. Nor did Alexandra have anything to do with the recording of the video interview of Leo Skorski. None of the facts mattered to Slingerland, or the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home.

The 'Home' page for Mayorgate clearly from its first day states that I am the publisher and that no one else is associated with any portion of the blog. Slingerland in her “passionate advocacy for her clients” decided the truth was unacceptable, so she had to of received consent from the Board of Directors of the Paderewski to lie. Slingerland goes on to make a number of statements in relation to Alexandra Davidoff without foundation in truth, or fact.

These are Slingerland's own words from her first threat addressed to Alexandra Davidoff, “On the website it states that you draw characters and as such, you are a party to every article that is posted on the website.” Slingerland's language is somewhat less than correct. Alexandra Davidoff is an artist and she has contributed caricatures, not 'characters'. An artist whether for the New Yorker or Toronto Star, or for that matter any publication provides visual art and that does not associate the artist to the content, but such facts are of no importance to Slingerland. Slingerland's attempt at intimidation began with these words, “damaging statements you have written about the Board of Directors on YouTube and on your and your father's website.”

What is going to be most interesting is to have Slingerland in a court room in front of a judge, there the lies have to be proven. Nowhere on “the website” does “it state” that Alexandra draws characters. The “website” has an about page which clearly states that as publisher of Mayorgate no one else writes or is involved with the articles. Yet Slingerland claims that “on the website it states...,” intentional malicious prosecution has its consequences and no one will give an inch of room for Slingerland or the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home to back away from this now.

As a journalist I am responsible to provide articles that are based on fact, without editorialising or stating opinion. Each and every article on Mayorgate has been put through this most basic criteria. I research the information, I ensure that I search out any applicable legislation and verify the credibility of any source. Also as a journalist I am not making accusations nor allegations but I am without a doubt raising questions, and as such am always aware of the advice of a favourite cartoon hero of mine, Eugene Krabs from Spongebob Squarepants; “questions are a danger to you and a burden to others.”

The issues regarding the Paderewski Society Home were brought to my attention because my articles are in depth and without pandering to any powers at large. They were raised by a Regional Councillor, an individual with a certain amount of credibility one would think. I had spoken at length with Leo Skorski, a man who had dedicated his time in the service of others. Leo is the recipient of a number of awards for his community work from both the province and local government. He is also the recipient of both the Gold Jubilee and Diamond Jubilee medals. In addition to Leo's impeccable credibility he had his lawyer, a Queen's Council, not only present during the interview but willing to discuss all the issues and answer questions.

Leo Skorski had proven his credibility, at no time with me had he accused anyone, but he did raise many questions. Documents were provided by Leo's lawyer that raised even more questions. Copies of letters from Niagara Regional Housing were nothing more than attempts to brush off the real issues, even a previous letter from Slingerland had only brought more doubt forward. Experience has proven when evasion is a tool then more questions are needed. As far as credibility of Niagara Regional Government stands that is a Pandora's Box that Slingerland should not even consider touching with her lack of experience.

After everything was said and done, I still researched further by looking at legislation, the conflict of interest rulings and guidelines, and the by-laws set out by the Paderewski Society home. A journalist is responsible under the laws that govern libel to ensure that what he publishes is to the best of his knowledge to be the truth. I not only felt that my article justified questions to be raised, I had provided documentation in the article which supported the reasoning behind the need to find answers. No answers were provided by NRH nor by the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home. Experience has proven to me that when in doubt question even more.

In the papers served on me on the 18^th of March, Slingerland on page 4 decides for whatever reason to quote from Mayorgate's 'About' page. She says that Mayorgate is “described to be a,” and then in her own quotation marks “response to the censorship imposed by the local press in St. Catharines.” Motivation behind this is somewhat difficult to understand, the response will be less so. As she had decided to put this in legal documents, I as publisher of Mayorgate have the legal right to respond publicly. Now a second Pandora's Box will be opened. I have an Integrity Commissioner recorded who raises the issue of how the local press had totally ignored her and the investigation of a City Councillor, this Integrity Commissioner was shocked at the actions of the local press.

Since Mayorgate's 'About' page was read it had to be clear as to who is responsible for all the content. Yet Slingerland further extends herself on page 4 of the documents served. This time Slingerland correctly states that Alexandra is my daughter, it is also true that as an artist she has contributed on occasion her caricature art to my Mayorgate, as she had contributed art elsewhere. What follows is again hard to understand, as she claims Alexandra “also operates the website known as Mayorgate.” As human beings we often need justification for our actions, it is how our minds work. But in this case it is impossible to understand such a statement of claim by a lawyer. In court this will be interesting to discuss and both Alexandra and I can't wait to hear how Slingerland can twist facts.

Rachel Slingerland first sent her initial threat by registered mail, it was dated February 27^th 2014. Reading this initial threat and the second statement of claim one tries to wonder if one and the same lawyer prepared both. Consistency is a key component to any claim. Yet what is said in the first threat and then what is set out in the second are quite different. Gone is the manic rhetoric of “you wrote” anything in relation to Alexandra, now it is replaced with a more ludicrous statement that she “operates the website.” Yet even that is not the wildest change.

In the February 27^th threat Slingerland states that the “lawsuit will allege in part, that you were motivated by anger and or malice in making these defamatory statements and that you made these statements knowing them to be false.” Here lies the epicentre, ground zero or whatever cliche one wishes to use. I have covered more than one defamation trial and I will paraphrase one judge and the warning she gave an individual claiming to be defamed. This judge said that defamation or libel law is a quagmire, in particular when relating to the internet. The judge made it clear that proving defamation is difficult and proving intent more so, but without intent there is no defamation. I want Ms. Slingerland and her clients in court. Everything that I have said here is a response to her and her clients. Everything that I have said here is a response to her attack on my Mayorgate and on an innocent individual. Though the main reason and explanation has been left till last.

Rachel Slingerland is a lawyer employed by Martens Lingard LLP and she has only been there a short time, yet she is a lawyer. As a lawyer she is considered to be an officer of the court. Her own club of professional lawyers, the Law Society of Upper Canada, has a supposedly strict set of rules relating to professional ethics. A young lawyer getting her feet wet may find the need to prove daring, eagerness, and enthusiasm. Slingerland went way past all of this.

Back to the February 27^th threat sent by registered mail. The date of Slingerland's letter is very important. My article relating to the issues at the Paderewski Society Home and the YouTube video interview of Leo Skorski were published January 15^th 2014. Slingerland dated her letter not within 30 days of this date but on something else. Paragraph two (2) of the February 27^th threat states: “Further on January 27, 2014 you wrote a letter to the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority [RHRA] where you made allegations of senior abuse, neglect and inappropriate financial dealings of the Board of Directors of Paderewski.”

The RHRA is a provincial agency associated with the Registrar for Complaints for potential seniors abuse, under the legislation set out by the provincial government. All correspondence, all contact and all information provided to the RHRA is strictly confidential. The RHRA does not share or divulge the identity of any individual who contacts them, otherwise many seniors would be too afraid to seek help. Whatever I wrote them was absolutely confidential.

Visiting the RHRA's website one can find the RHRA Information Access & Privacy Code, it is a five page document signed by the Chair of the RHRA and by Minister Linda Jeffrey, the Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing. As Slingerland's experience is lacking I have provided a link here directly to the RHRA website, and have published page 1 of the Access & Privacy Code, with highlights. This has also been done for the benefit of both Ronald E. Martens and Peter J. Lingard. My email response to Slingerland dated March 14^th 2014 was copied to both of these partners for a specific reason. Lawyers have a tendency to what one can say find escape doors when needed. In this situation I did not want the senior partners, whose names are on the masthead of the law firm to claim that they were not aware of the full circumstances. Both Ronald Martens and Peter Lingard have been made fully aware of the actions by Rachel Slingerland and are equally responsible for all the consequences.

To quote part II, legislation from page one of the RHRA Information Access & Privacy Code: “The RHRA is subject to the Retirement Homes Act, 2004 and has specific obligations under each statute to maintain the privacy and confidentiality of information.”

Every word here is subject to legislation, subject to law, and a breach constitutes a breach of law. The policy continues to state, “The RHRA collects, uses, discloses and retains information for purposes related to the RHRA's duties or powers, and in compliance with its confidentiality obligations contained in sections 113 and 114 of the Act. Specifically, section 113 of the Act requires that the RHRA, including all officers, directors, employees and agents, preserve secrecy and keep confidential any information, including personal information and personal health information, obtained in the course of performing a duty or exercising a power under the Act.”

Unlike Slingerland no quote is edited to suit one's self. The law itself and the Privacy Code is explained and then the most important part. Again quoting from the RHRA Privacy Code, “Section 113 contains a number of exceptions, which allow the RHRA and people acting on behalf of the RHRA to disclose information in specific circumstances, including:

(b) to a ministry, department or agency of a government engaged in the administration of the Act.”

Rachel Slingerland is not part of any ministry, nor is she a member of a department or agency of a government engaged in the administration of the Act. Slingerland is a lawyer, employed by a private law firm and Slingerland is in possession of an illegally obtained document. Slingerland is a lawyer, a lawyer with a law degree and supposedly knows the law. As a lawyer with enthusiasm to boot Slingerland committed what now constitutes a criminal act of harassment with her threat dated February 27^th 2014.

Now the real questions begin. Tracey Fairfield, Intake Supervisor at RHRA stated in a letter dated February 10^th 2014 to me, “I have contacted the Not-for-Profit Housing Manager at Niagara Regional Housing to report the concerns noted in your letter.” Here begins the detective work. Slingerland clearly states in her threat of February 27^th 2014, “you wrote a letter to the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority...”. Illegally gained confidential information, and a breach of legislation. Question 1: How did Slingerland get this? Question 2: Did Slingerland get this directly from someone at NRH? Question 3: Did a member of the Board of Directors of the Paderewski supply this to Slingerland? Question 4: If yes to number 3 then who was it? Question 5: Who at NRH sold private and confidential information protected by legislation to a private individual or private law firm? Question 6: Why did this individual at NRH supply this confidential information if not for exchange of cash? Question 7: What does NRH gain in the attempt to silence the freedom on speech and to silence questions asked regarding the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home? Question 8: How does a lawyer decide to use illegal documents and/or confidential information in what is clearly criminal harassment now? Question 9: How do the senior partners of a law firm when made aware of the situation decide to simply ignore the breach of law by a lawyer they employ?

As I have said I left the best till last. A criminal breach of law has been committed by an individual at Niagara Regional Housing. That individual sold private and confidential information protected by legislation. It was sold either to a member of the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home or directly to lawyer Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP. Now it is time for the police to track down the information and lay charges. Slingerland took an oath, all that mumbo-jumbo about the law and stuff. Her actions prove an alarming lack of respect for the law.

In her eagerness to impress Slingerland attacked an innocent individual, Alexandra Davidoff. Slingerland's enthusiasm allowed her to use illegally gained documents and/or information, protected by legislation, to carry out her threats. She did all of this acting on behalf of her clients, the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home. The senior partners were made aware of the situation, of the illegal and confidential information their lawyer had used. Their response was to ignore the facts.

Now come the consequences. This is my public response to her threats on behalf of her clients, the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home. She will get my official written response within the 20 days. I want her in a court of law, but before that the RHRA has conducted an investigation and the result far from a happy one for her and the NRH. Now the police are being asked for an investigation. In return both Alexandra and I will be filing lawsuits against every individual member of the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home and much more. Rachel Slingerland decided to break the law and to threaten in order to shut down freedom of speech. This is Mayorgate's and my response.

Mayorgate's Statement of Defence 

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

Counterfeit Integrity

The Webster's Dictionary describes the word 'integrity' to mean: 3 “the quality or state of being of sound moral principle, uprightness, honesty and sincerity.” It would be expected that if one was to lay claim to integrity, that same individual would not attempt to deceive through omission or use trickery in their chosen language. In fact, honesty and sincerity as components require being “free from deceit, frank and open,” and “without pretence or hypocrisy,” again quoted from Webster's.

In Canada we have a bunch of what are called Integrity Commissioners established to patrol one of the oldest professions, politicians. These Integrity Commissioners supposedly enforce a certain code of ethics for those we elect to take care of our affairs as a community. Regardless of what your opinion is of anyone in the game of politics it is a sad fact that we do need them. After all imagine what would it be like without our political leaders. Reality soon wipes the smile off our face.

As an individual who is chosen to take up the mantle of an Integrity Commissioner it would be expected that these Webster style traits are demonstrated in that individual's personality and history. Then mother reality crashes through the door and throws into the mix human nature with all its ugliness. Ego steps in and then we have nothing left of Webster and his high aspirations.

There is further reality to deal with here, one which raises a question of the real purpose of such creatures. They are paid with public money to supposedly enforce a certain code of ethics in our elected members of government. Yet they have no authority to do anything about the most serious of breaches of that code. The most severe penalty that they can recommend, and yes only recommend, is to remove the one who may have committed deceit or worse from pay for 90 days. Even here the commish can only recommend the penalty and it is up to the respective council to decide if they implement it.

In the Niagara Region of Ontario one of these knights came crashing in with his ego in tow. Robert Swayze was brought to town to investigate two complaints brought against Councillor Andrew Petrowski. This whole issue was covered in an article titled Integrity Commissioner's trial of bias and does not need repeating. It is what Robert Swayze did later that brought a need to revisit these questionable muddy waters.

On February 26^th 2014 an email was received by artist Alexandra Davidoff sent by Robert J. Swayze. This email identifies the sender clearly and although its grammar is equivalent of a lower grader it has CONFIDENTIAL atop of it, and further repeated below. Alexandra Davidoff is the artist, a very talented artist, who provides some of the articles on Mayorgate with rather thought provoking caricatures as she had done with the article relating to Robert Swayze.

Robert Swayze's ego jumps forward with his statement that he is an integrity commissioner for “9 other municipalities,” and it appears he is doing some kind of educational presentation. He asks to have permission to use Alexandra's artwork in what he refers to as a “power point presentation.” At no time does Robert Swayze explain how he is wanting to use the artwork or why. Everything about Robert Swayze's request reeks of deceit and subterfuge.

Webster's Dictionary describes integrity as being frank and open, without pretence or hypocrisy. Reading Swayze's email sees no openness, no honesty. What did Robert Swayze have in mind only a guess could be used. He has shown that his ego is indeed large. In an article written by Micheal McKiernan titled 'Lawyers grabbing a piece of integrity commissioner action' for Lawtimesnews.com Robert Swayze is quoted as saying, “It's an evolving field, changing all the time. There's such an enormous variety of issues that come up and you're always creating new law and new approaches.”

It would seem that Robert Swayze ignores the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act 2006, Bill 130. In section 223.3 the Role of Integrity Commissioner is expanded on, and section 223.4 explains the authority and powers of an Integrity Commissioner. There is a reality that escapes Robert Swayze, he cannot be “creating new laws,” they are set out by the provincial government. His authority is extremely limited even if he finds serious breaches and wishes to make them public.

Robert Swayze decides to contact artist Alexandra Davidoff requesting permission to use her art yet is unwilling to fully explain how is it that he wishes to use it. What was the motivation behind this veiled request? Motivation was clearly at question when Swayze rode though the City of Guelph. It was again questioned in the issues surrounding his guest appearance in the Niagara Region. Motivation clearly remains a question in relation to Integrity Commissioner Robert Swayze.

As we try and grapple with codes of ethics, human nature and politics we find ourselves in very muddy waters. The notion that Integrity Commissioners are an answer is slowly becoming a false hope. Ethics and politics are extremely strange bed fellows and without real authority no knight who is simply highly paid with public money is worth a dollar bill, or is it a loonie?

Robert Swayze may see himself as something high on a horse, in this case he simply tried to play tricks without waiting for Halloween. Both the Swayze email and response to it are published here, maybe Robert Swayze would care to shed some light on all of this.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

A time for change, a time for courage

At no other time has Mayorgate taken a stand for or against any political candidate or party. Today we have reached a point where enough is truly enough, and although under no circumstances is Mayorgate endorsing any particular politician or party, the removal of the Liberals from Ontario Government has become a necessity.

Two recent by-elections in February 2014 have shown that the people of Ontario have reached saturation point on the empty promises and lies dished out by Liberal candidates. In Niagara Falls Joyce Morocco, the Liberal Candidate came in third behind winner Wayne Gates of the NDP and Bart Maves of the PC. Morocco brought in the 'big guns' of the Liberal Party to walk the beat with her. Longest sitting MPP Jim Bradley grinned and shook hands with seniors by Morocco's side. Yet when Morocco was asked one simple question regarding a seniors' centre in St. Catharines and the abuse of its residents, she and her handlers ignored everything. Party faithfuls will jump to her defence and claim that she is representing Niagara Falls and not St. Catharines. If that is the only defence, then look at the photo of 'smiling jack' Jim Bradley by her side and answer the question as to which riding does he represent? 

Grey Power as it is known is a strong political force, and at each election political candidates trek to seniors' centres to shake hands, hug and have photos taken. Is it any wonder the federal Conservatives announced their big plan, the BeFAIR Project, which in reality is more empty rhetoric and waste of our public dollars. Joyce Morocco and Jim Bradley grinned their false grins and shook hands, but when it came to action, Morocco's handlers erased the question raised to her from public view. That is the hypocrisy of Joyce Morocco, Jim Bradley and the Liberal Party of Ontario. Although this is far from one incident, nor is it the first.

Politics and politicians in Canada have not provided much to be proud of whether provincial or federal. Nor is the ugly mess of Ontario's political climate currently choking the people of the province solely a Liberal disease. One simply can look back and reminisce on the brown paper envelopes and PM Brian Mulroney, or the consequence of political indifference of Premier Mike Harris. Walkerton, Ontario should of been a frightening enough warning, yet it was not.

Premier Dalton McGuinty brought to us his own brand of politics. Most of us are familiar with lies and empty promises, but it was Dalton McGuinty, who with his bunch of hombres took all of it as usual to a new level. Who can forget the eHealth scandal and Ornge? Public health and safety found itself reduced to empty bloated rhetoric by politicians who had no interest in the welfare of the people who elected them. In the end it was not only the scandal of massive amounts of public money misappropriated by nothing more than thieves and con artists, but a death toll which kept on rising with innocent lives sacrificed before Premier McGuinty decided to take action. In St. Catharines more than two dozen innocent human beings were in effect sacrificed, whilst those at the head of the Niagara Health System were protected and paid off. Whether it was Walkerton or St. Catharines the innocent in the end pay the price.

Health took one hell of a beating at the fists of our elected Liberal representatives, but more was to come. Fists, shields and jack boots came crashing down on democracy itself. How can anyone forget the images of mercenaries in uniform brought in from all over the province to crush free speech and the right to voice an opposing opinion at the infamous G20 Summit in Toronto, 2010? True there were some in the crowds who showed disregard for private property and civil behaviour, but under no circumstance did that excuse or explain the destruction of civil liberties and rights by uniformed police officers. The flapping eyelids of ballerina McGuinty still echo through the corridors of Queen's Park.

Back in 2006 the McGuinty Liberals announced a new $46 billion energy plan that provided for the renovation of many of Ontario's energy plants. This sounded like a rather good idea and even looked good until it was revealed that the government tried to exempt their plans from environmental assessment. In the end this was not the only time that elected Liberal MPPs showed not only disregard for the future of this province, but outright lied about their phoney environmental stand.

Three consecutive Ministers of the Environment; John Gerretsen, John Wilkinson and Jim Bradley, have whittled away at environmental law and legislation. They have sacrificed our future, and that of their own families, to protect their pals and those with money. Even though both Gerretsen and Wilkinson proved that environmental protection was an absolute lie in their hands, it has been MPP Jim Bradley who took it all to the next level.

Jim Bradley has the fame of being the longest sitting MPP in Ontario. Jim Bradley also has the honour of being the only MPP caught altering official Ministry of Environment documents filed with the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario and provincial legislature two years after they were filed. Liberal MPP Jim Bradley did this to protect his pals here in St. Catharines, and that was not the first time. As Minister of Municipal Affairs, Jim Bradley was made aware of a breach of law by his pal Mayor Brian McMullan of St. Catharines. The evidence was undeniable, Jim Bradley as a sworn minister of the government decided to protect his pal Brian McMullan rather than stand by his oath and the law.

How much can we expect from our Liberal representatives of government? During the

C. difficile outbreak, as dozens of innocent lives were lost Jim Bradley bragged of a new hospital being built. Health Minister Deb Matthews ignored her responsibilities, and Premier Dalton McGuinty departed, some say ran, from his seat of power and a new leader was chosen in the guise of Kathleen Wynne. Mind you this was the same Kathleen Wynne who as Minister for Municipal Affairs ignored clear evidence of a breach of the Building Code and threat and harassment by a building inspector, so little was expected from her. Kathleen Wynne has proved that to be so.

Amongst the scandals that one can sift through surrounding the Liberal government surely the most costly has to be the gas-plant cancellations and its massive price. The Auditor General Bonnie Lysk slammed the Liberal government stating, “Liberal intervention – including from staff in former Premier Dalton McGuinty's office – drove that price tag far higher than it needed to be.” (Adrian Morrow and Howlett, Globe and Mail, October 8 2013 'Ontario's Liberals' gas-plant cancellations cost $1 billion').

This is an enormous sum of money, public money, paid for what? No one fully explained what really went on, or how this happened, not even the Auditor General. There is no surprise Dalton McGuinty ran from office after this one. Yet the same Liberals stand before the people of Ontario asking for trust and their vote.

When Dalton McGuinty ran from office, Ontario and Ontarians were saddled with Kathleen Wynne as the new Premier. Mind you she was chosen by the select few party members in a vote that did not give all Ontarians a choice as expected in a provincial general election. Still we all woke up one morning and had a new Premier. Regardless of what the publicity machine behind the Liberal mob thinks, a boyish new hairstyle or a new tailored outfit does not really resonate change, not in any sense of the word.

Since Kathleen Wynne took office the Liberals have continued on the same path. The same lies and questionable acts have continued. In part Wynne's own words when she appeared before the standing committee on justice policy back in December 2013 clearly put the whole Liberal mantra into perspective. As Wynne was questioned on issues surrounding the billion dollar price tag to the taxpayers of Ontario, not to mention little things like shredding emails and evidence, Wynne responded with this gem. “We can continue on this narrow path focused on the past. We cannot change the past, but we can focus on the future.” (National Post December 2 2013). Such words of wisdom can only warm the heart. Ownership and consequence is not a common trait in any politician, in the Liberal ideology it is a foreign language.

The time has come to remove this blight from our lives, lives that are stressful enough. Though one cannot forget the wise words, once spoken by someone or other, 'be careful of what you wish for.' Today looking at the alternatives it only can make one shake in fear with Tim Hudak and the Conservatives and Andrea Horwath with the NDP. Maybe it is all simply just a long bad dream and like Rip Van Winkle we will all collectively wake up. 

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

Unleash Your Taste – the Love of Food, the Love of Life

Welcome to Unleash Your Taste. Today I open the pages to a new blog, one that is motivated by the love of food and the love of life. As an individual who has cooked professionally for over 20 years and in several countries I have come to realise how every facet of our lives is touched by food. Art, music and design has in one way or another been inspired or has in itself become part of the nature of food. Food for our souls, food for our bodies and minds.

I have found myself back in the daily routine of cooking for others, though in a different fashion from the past. Where I am today is not in a kitchen removed from all but the other staff, but instead I am in the middle of daily customer traffic flow. Here the opportunity to create smells and aromas of fresh herbs, spices and sauces touches the senses of each individual who enters the premises. In a way it is a daring move on the part of the grocery retailer here in Canada, and an exciting journey for me.

Visitors to the store do not only find the physical ambiance and selection of goods pleasing, but come back again and again to see “what's cooking.” Regulars, and others who are becoming so, come by with a wonderful daily greeting, “what's cooking chef,” and that greeting motivates so much of what's happening, and what's still to come. It is also the motivation to open the pages of unleashyourtaste.com.

This will be a place to look at the joys of food, to walk through corridors of history, and even take a peek into the private rooms of individuals who themselves use an alternate expression of the love of life. Unleash Your Taste will strive to set itself from the 'formula' food blog and provide for its readers interesting topics which may bring forth comment in response. Regular customers will have an opportunity to pick up recipes of food they had tasted, take those ideas home and give them to their own families. It is something no chef in a restaurant is able to do.

So come and take a look at unleashyourtaste.com, it is young and different.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

A gift of giving, an act of taking

Christmas celebrations provide us an opportunity to enjoy family and friends with a feast of sharing, whether big or small. Christians across the globe come together to honour the birthday of a new beginning, and although to many the spiritual aspects are still important, a more modern, cross-secular trait has slowly crept across the traditions of Christmas.

Two symbols of Christmas have become synonymous with December 25^th. First of all the man in red, Santa, with his bag of gifts. Whether we await his arrival through the chimney, or simply the promise and high expectation that our parents will act on his behalf, brightly decorated gifts are still the most anticipated joy of many. Along with Santa, the Christmas Tree has become an absolute prerequisite of celebrations, after all where would Santa leave his treasures if not under the decorated tree.

The Christmas tree developed in early modern Germany with its predecessors traced back to the 16^th and 15^th centuries. It acquired popularity outside of Germany during the second half of the 19^th century. Queen Victoria of England, who visited family in Germany regularly, first was drawn to the charms of the decorated evergreen. As she also fell under the charms of Prince Albert, later marrying him, the decorated tree was to find its way across the ocean to England. Canada was first introduced to this decorative tradition in the winter of 1781 by Brunswick soldiers stationed in the Province of Quebec, on guard against a possible invasion by American troops.

Although the Germans can lay rightful claim to have introduced the modern version of this venerable symbol of Christmas, and of the magnificently crafted colourful glass ornaments, the worship of the evergreen dates even further back into history. Egyptians brought green date palm leaves into their homes to symbolize life's triumph over death at the beginning of the winter solstice. Early Romans celebrated the winter solstice with a festival called Saturalia, and gave coins for prosperity, feasts for happiness, and lamps to light one's journey through life. Later in the 1960's the Americans found a new tradition, the Aluminum Tree, the creation of Kwanzaa by Maulana Karenga, and along the way threw out all the beautiful and elaborate German glass tree ornaments.

To many Christmas means a multitude of things. Children of all ages think of gifts and the glitter of the decorated trees, even aluminum ones. Those who value the spiritual aspect commemorate the birth of Christ and hold on to the values of His teachings. Retailers see this as a chance to balance their books and continue on another year. Few think past this, few think of the taking that has continued for as long as the traditions have.

One of the greatest economies of the world is still suffering and many Americans do not have enough to feed their families. A shocking visual example came with employees of Walmart asking for donations to sustain their own families. Poverty is not a new plague or a symptom of a troubled world economy. Lands in Africa, Asia and India have lived with this issue for centuries. In Canada donations to registered charities keep decreasing, whether it is the fact that Canadians have less money at their disposal or that they have lost some trust in these organisations is debatable. Still the decrease is notable. Food banks, the first line of defense for the poor or the struggling are facing empty shelves. Many in our modern society are finding it difficult to simply provide the basic needs for themselves. Yet that is not the whole story, so to speak.

For decades we as a combined humanity have taken from our planet without thought of the consequences. Those who sit on thrones of power, whether in the West or the East, think little other than to retain that power. Corporations not only pull the proverbial strings of power, they in fact control it as a whole. As a species, humanity sadly understands taking more than giving. Recent news that Mexico will increase its crude oil production to new highs, competing with Canada's oil sands, can only raise serious new concerns for our combined future. At the same time the US is predicting to increase its own oil output to hit near record highs by 2016. Yet environmentalists are still playing at a game where they applaud the Obama government on stalling the Keystone Pipeline. Is there any credibility in the major environmentalists when the US, under Obama's control is working at such a huge increase in oil production? It is true that we have no real or viable alternatives to oil and its end use? Under such a massive cloud of potential profit it is not likely an effort will be made to develop one either.

As we celebrate this season of joy with our families and friends we may think of the disadvantaged and drop a bag of donated groceries to a food bank. Some of us will go a little further and give more to charities struggling with what seems an eternal human malady. Yet how many understand that each and every one of us, from the most affluent to the poorest, are in fact the disadvantaged. The rich could not even come close to understand such a preposterous concept, and the poor too poor to think about it. How then do we heal the gradual crack that is slowly, ever so slowly, becoming wider in our home, our planet?

It is not pessimism that gives rise to such a question, but realism. It is not a lack of joy but rather for the sake of joy that this question must be asked loudly. Christmas is a celebration of togetherness, only let's not drop our precious ornament to the ground and watch it shatter.

A Merry and Joyous Christmas to all our readers and a hope of many more to come.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

Integrity Commissioner Robert Swayze's trail of bias

Ontario has seen a new warrior come to greater public attention. The battlefield for this guardian of honour is municipal politics. His, or her, title is the Integrity Commissioner, and with such a title in tow we may expect a knight in shining armour. After all integrity has connotations of sound moral principles, uprightness, honesty and sincerity (all borrowed from the Webster's Dictionary). These warriors have been provided with a certain degree of legislative armour through the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006. Ready and willing, they forge out into the quagmire of municipal politics, for a hefty fee of course. No one would be expected to take on such daunting tasks purely on altruistic reasoning, and at the end of it all it is only tax payers' dollars, a well that government seems to think is limitless.

These staunch and courageous warriors are provided with the task to enforce and defend issues surrounding Code of Conduct and behaviour of those we elect, and those who claim to act on our behalf. Municipal politics is not all that simple, as one may think. At the centre sits the mayor or regional chair, with all sorts of councillors, boards and committees. It is a web of sorts that spreads its sticky tentacles throughout the community, and at times beyond. Today we find many municipalities instituting codes of conduct as a base guideline or a framework for those we trust with representation of the greater good. When something goes wrong, and as human nature will have it, it always does, these warrior knights come crashing in. Yet there is an almost disturbing reality, these warriors have no real authority or power to do anything.

The Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act 2006, Bill 130 is a lengthy document, as all government legislation is. Its language could intimidate the uninitiated individual to seek an interpreter of such a language. Regardless of the complexity of language this is the bible for all the procedures that municipalities follow, and section 223.3 outlines the Role of Integrity Commissioner followed by section 223.4 - Inquiry by Commissioner. Here we may fall into a false sense of security thinking that our knights truly have some authority. Under section 223.4 it claims that the commissioner has the authority to gather any documents and question witnesses under oath. Further examination allows for a tremor of an alarm.

As an integrity commissioner, he or she have the authority to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath and gather, or even demand, all and any documents pertinent to an inquiry. When an investigation is complete the commissioner is no more effective than the armchair sports enthusiast yelling out advice and tips at a television screen. This courageous, and dare say expensive, knight can only present any recommendations to city council. It is up to council to implement those recommendations or not. Council decides what they wish to do and may at their discretion ignore the commish in total.

Finally section 223.4 outlines any penalties that may be recommended by the commissioner. Even if dishonesty, breach of trust, lack of dignity etc, etc. is proven a commissioner may only recommend a reprimand or at worst the suspension of a councillor's pay to a maximum 90 days. Now is when one realises that the armour is simply a fake, and the warrior's weapons provided by the government equivalent to the special effects wizards on a movie set. A question looms in the air, even if the pay of a councillor is suspended, who gets the money then? After all it is still taken from the bottomless pit of the public purse, as the councillor doesn't get it. Who does?

With all these realities put into their right place a bigger question is raised, as if there is room for a bigger one at this point. Regardless of the impotency of an investigation, still the fact that an integrity commissioner had conducted an investigation can be spun by media into a blemish or worse on the reputation of an elected individual. But what if the integrity commissioner and the investigation itself raise serious questions of integrity? The premise upon which any investigation is conducted is that it is absolutely fair to both sides of an argument. Any integrity commissioner must remain throughout his or her investigation totally impartial. If that is not the case and it can be proven to be so, where does that leave the whole process of commissioners and their investigations. What happens to sections 223.3 and 223.4 of the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act 2006 Bill 130? Have these knights then only become highly paid mercenaries?

Exactly such a situation has developed in Niagara, Ontario with the integrity commissioner brought in to investigate complaints against a regional councillor. Two complaints were before Robert J. Swayze, one from four staff members of Niagara Regional Housing and another from a director of Regional Public Health. These complaints were made against Regional Councillor Andy Petrowski.

Regional Councillor Petrowski has been described as a 'bull in a china shop', and his demeanour may not always be pleasant. He is naturally loud and expressive and for that reason, Councillor Petrowski can be seen as intimidating. Most of all Councillor Andy Petrowski is not a man who plays by silent rules of what has become government. It is because of this unwillingness to tow the politically correct line, that Councillor Petrowski finds himself often as a target for those who would rather continue business as usual.

Integrity Commissioner Robert J. Swayze sets out details in his report as to the nature of the complaints. He also states that he spent quite some time with those who filed the complaint. Quoting from page 3 of the report Mr. Swayze states, “I questioned the four NRH staff, firstly as a panel and then each of them individually.” Robert Swayze's background is that of a Barrister and Solicitor, and as such it is safely presumed that with such a background he is somewhat in tune with human nature. Interviewing the four complainants of the NRH first as a panel is bewildering. At that point the four staff members of the NRH were in a position to present a unified chorus, and the report clearly confirms that as a fact in the opening of its conclusion.

No lawyer accepts as fact simple testimony without verification. In the situation of the staff members from the NRH, background would not of been provided, or one that only suited possibly the chorus. The situation surrounding the “severely handicapped” tenant of a building where the landlord was and is the NRH, is both disturbing and unacceptable. It has been claimed that the July 23^rd 2013 meeting was a “case conference meeting” to “discuss solutions for a hard-to-serve tenant.” These are all words taken from Commissioner Swayze's report. Such language had to of come from staff members of the NRH, and it appears that the mental picture painted here is of a tenant who was difficult to work with. What else would “hard-to-serve tenant” mean?

Facts paint a very different picture in this situation revolving around double-amputee Bob Hansplant. None of the NRH staff would have told Commissioner Swayze that the intolerable conditions that Bob Hansplant had to endure lasted over three and a half years, with the NRH staff in full awareness. Did Commissioner Robert Swayze want to know all the facts before stating in his report's conclusion, “I believe the testimony of the six staff members I interviewed...” All the alarming facts surrounding the tenant Bob Hansplant, including photographs of his apartment and a video interview were available. More disturbing is the clear evidence that a senior member of the regional staff had intentionally misrepresented the truth about the building and its landlord where this tenant lived.

Had Commissioner Robert Swayze given as much time to interviewing, either as a “panel” or individually, witnesses who had a different perspective, would his decision have altered? The email alone by Steve Murphy to Regional Clerk Janet Pilon had to have raised doubt on the accuracy of anything from the NRH staff. Niagara Regional Housing staff claimed “how upsetting” the facts, when published, were to them. Yet regional staff have been known to misrepresent the truth, provide intentional misconception and simply say what is the opposite of truth before. Simply refer to the letter by former Regional Chairman Peter Partington dated September 27^th 2010.

Former Regional Chair Peter Partington had little choice but to change the flow of words by regional staff such as Andrew Pollock, Director, Waste Management Services. He also had to admit that the Summer Greenscene 2010 had misrepresented the truth regarding the recycling of plastic bottle caps. In its newsletter delivered to all residents of the Niagara Region it claimed “Caps are not recyclable.” That was not true and in the end former Regional Chair Peter Partington had to admit it. Furthermore look at the case of Dr. Valerie Jaeger, the most senior regional medical officer.

Robert Swayze as a Barrister and Solicitor chose the extreme opposite of impartiality and fairness. He claims to have given enough time to Councillor Petrowski to provide additional information. Yet to provide an investigation, all facts and information are required from both sides, it was not the case here. In an article written by Micheal McKiernan titled Lawyers grabbing piece of integrity commissioner action for lawtimesnews.com Robert Swayze

is quoted as saying, “It's an evolving field, changing all the time. There's such an enormous variety of issues that come up and you're always creating new law and new approaches.”

The Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act 2006, Bill 130 sets out the 'law'. Integrity Commissioners have no more power than the Ombudsman, and the famous jargon of Andre Marin, with “moral suasion.” No commissioner can do anything other than make recommendations to a city council, it is up to that respective council to act on those recommendations or not. What “new law” does any integrity commissioner create? He or she has no real authority nor power!

Further into Bill 130 - Reference to Appropriate Authorities, section 223.8 states, “If the Commissioner, when conducting an inquiry, determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a contravention of any other Act of the Criminal Code (Canada) the Commissioner shall immediately refer to the matter to the appropriate authorities and suspend the inquiry until any resulting police investigation and charge have been fully disposed of and shall report to the suspension to council.”

Commissioner Robert Swayze is a Barrister and Solicitor with a speciality in municipal law. He is an individual with full understanding of the law and this section of Bill 130, even though he may not be a criminal lawyer. Another integrity commissioner had requested that further information was not divulged to her by a complainant regarding circumstances of a by-law fine being fixed by a mayor. Commissioner Suzanne Craig had said that even though she was not a judge she would have no choice but to stop her inquiry and contact appropriate authorities if she had heard any more on the issue. Robert Swayze on the other hand claiming that “you are always creating new law...” decided to possibly ignore the law already in place.

An individual had requested that Commissioner Swayze open an investigation for breach of the Code of Conduct against a member of the Niagara Regional Council and Mayor of St. Catharines, Brian McMullan. This request stemmed from a period of ugly and anonymous posts placed on the St. Catharines Standard's web page. The posts were not only slanderous in nature but had taken another alarming twist. One of the individuals using a fictitious name filed a false police report. According to the Criminal Code (Canada) filing a false report is breach of the Code and an offence which can carry time in jail.

Individuals who hide behind fictitious names and post insults and slander are simply cowards, and at times such cowards are best ignored. In this case the situation had reached a new level of insanity with the false police report. The target of these anonymous posts was Regional Councillor Andy Petrowski. Councillor Petrowski sought out ways to find an end to this malicious barrage of attacks. A newspaper article had appeared in The Standard regarding the posts and the issues which were the catalyst for the posts. Regional Councillor and Mayor of St. Catharines, Brian McMullan admitted to knowing the identity of some of these anonymous

individuals. Mayor Brian McMullan's direct words were published in The Standard's article. Admitting to the knowledge of the identity of one or more of the individuals who had committed a breach of the Criminal Code becomes a breach in itself and possibly conspiratorial in nature.

A member of the public brought this to the attention of Robert Swayze, himself a Barrister and Solicitor. Robert Swayze's response was not a surprise. He said “Your allegation that Councillor McMullan used information provided by the “phony Tim Lewis” against Councillor Petrowski is not wholly true.” Swayze claims that he “reviewed the press reports,” and if he had fully reviewed the press reports, as a lawyer, he would have to question the possibility of one disturbing fact. How could Mayor Brian McMullan admit to having knowledge of the identity of the anonymous individuals, as well as the “phony Tim Lewis,” and not find it a breach of the Code of Conduct?

Still it is not the first time that Integrity Commissioner Robert Swayze displayed what may be considered selective justice. An article by Doug Hallett of the Guelph Tribune titled 'Integrity commissioner slaps two councillors wrists', raises some ugly questions regarding Robert Swayze's M.O. In the situation surrounding councillors of the City of Guelph, it was apparent that two of the elected councillors had broken rank and provided information to Doug Hallett. In came Integrity Commissioner Swayze, he admits that he did not conduct a full investigation but he still made his comments and recommendations.

In this instance Robert Swayze states, “In my opinion, there is never justification for a councillor reporting complaints about staff to the press.” He further claims, “For this reason, granting the interview with the press and reporting the application is contrary to the Code.” For clarification what Swayze refers to as “the application” relates to the point that two councillors had filed or intended to file a Freedom of Information application. Swayze doesn't stop there, he further says, “the negative statements in the article on staff by both councillors Guthrie and Kovach are also contrary to the Code.”

This certified “specialist in municipal law” decided that he would conduct interviews with the CAO and Mayor of Guelph on a face-to-face basis for some 90 minutes. Yet when it came to the councillors who he made his comments against he refused to speak with them. It was later revealed that Councillor Gloria Kovach “requested a meeting with Swayze and attended said meeting armed with a full statement on the matter, which Swayze refused to accept from her.” (by Scott Tracey, Mercury staff writer).

One doesn't have to watch CSI too often to know what M.O. stands for, though in the case of Swayze versus fairness and objectivity, it is somewhat alarming. Commish Swayze said of the Guelph incident, “All councillors... must understand that they have been elected to become part of a team...” If that is Robert Swayze's mantra then the people who elect these councillors, whether in Guelph or Niagara or anywhere else, are in trouble. In the end Swayze guarantees that the people dwell on a cloud of misconception, believing that they elect their municipal representatives to represent their interests or that of their city as a whole. According to the certified specialist in municipal law, by the Law Society of Upper Canada, Robert Swayze, Barrister and Solicitor, elected councillors first must consider the team over everything else.

In Guelph Robert Swayze came in to investigate, or was it something else? His words were at the time that he “interpreted the referral as requiring my comment on the (news) report on the context of the Code of Conduct – and not as a direction to conduct a full investigation.” Still the whole issue was revolving around councillors and a news report in a local newspaper. In St. Catharines Regional Councillor and Mayor of St. Catharines admitted to having knowledge of the identity of individuals who had lied and committed slander. Then these individuals went further and breached the Criminal Code. Swayze responds “It is not within my mandate as Integrity Commissioner to “muzzle” members of council.” Yet in Guelph he did just that, he put a “muzzle” on councillors, told them that they are to think of the team first over any thoughts of the better good of all.

Robert Swayze's actions require serious questioning. It is not whether one likes Councillor Petrowski or not, whether one thinks of him as crass or passionate. Councillor Petrowski will make it clear that he advocates for those who elected him and not for the “team.” Councillor Brian Heit said it was an inadequate apology by Petrowski, yet Brian Heit is the same councillor who objected to acknowledge the death of a cripple who had endured intimidation and horrendous living conditions at the hands of Niagara Regional Housing. Will Brian Heit chastise Regional Councillor and Mayor Brian McMullan with the same words, that he has “to understand when he goes out of bounds”?

In the end this knight and protector of the 'Code' and teamwork simply leaves behind a load of questions. Without a doubt Robert Swayze will claim that the situation in Guelph was different to Brian McMullan's little public statement. He will claim that Councillor Petrowski doesn't understand “irony,” or that he misses it all together. At the end of it all, whether in Guelph or Niagara, Robert Swayze does not accept the possible fact that he indeed waves a muzzle in the air as a whip of intimidation when he threatens “I'll be back.”

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com