Mayorgate's Statement of Defence

As a publisher of articles which at times dig deep into the depths of deceit and dishonesty it is not surprising that there will be those who wish to silence such endeavours. What Mayorgate has faced at the hands of Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP on behalf of her clients, the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home, has hit new heights of the absurd.

I will not revisit all the actions of Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP. I will not raise again the details of illegal documents used by a lawyer, gained in breach of legislation and law, only to be used as a weapon of threat. I will not comment on quotations used by this young lawyer where whole sentences were omitted and only a few chosen words were selected, as part of her evidence. I will not discuss further the cowardly attack on an innocent individual defaming her reputation. All of this has been done under the Rules of Civil Procedure, Courts of Justice Act, RCP-E18A (July 1, 2007) Statement of Defence.

A Statement of Defence had been filed and registered at the Robert S. K. Welch Courthouse in St. Catharines on April 7^th 2014. As per procedures outlined in the Rules of Civil Procedures, a copy had been delivered on the day to Rachel Slingerland's attention at the offices of Martens Lingard LLP on Church Street. This document is some 51 pages in depth, and the official Statement of Defence has 32 individual numbered points. A full copy of the document is attached to this article, as nothing is kept secret with Mayorgate.

The rules of procedure under the Courts of Justice Act require that a Statement of Defence is filed within 20 days of being served with a statement of Claim by the plaintiff. It clearly states in bold print that, “If you fail to defend this proceeding, judgement may be given against you in your absence and without further notice to you.” Yet once the Statement of Defence is filed and registered, the plaintiff has up to two years to sit on their hands before deciding to continue with the threats served. It has been more than seven days without a sound from Rachel Slingerland.

My statement which I registered at the courthouse following all the rules is divided between three main points. First, the defamation of artist Alexandra Davidoff will be dealt with in the most serious manner. No part of the accusations by Rachel Slingerland on behalf of her clients the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home are based in fact or truth.

Second, timelines are an important part of law, whether or not one agrees with them or not. Slingerland's Statement of Claim had its demands of compliance within a number of days or else. As a lawyer Slingerland is expected to understand these time requirements, although apparently that is a presumption that should not be made.

A Notice of Action was dated February 27^th 2014 and signed by Rachel Slingerland. In this notice Slingerland refers to the Mayorgate post dated January 15^th 2014, and of the YouTube video of the same date. Nowhere in her notice of action is it made clear when any of the Board of Directors became aware of the article other than the date of the article and Slingerland's dated letter.

According to the Libel and Slander Act under Section 5(1) it states clearly that no action lies unless notice is provided within six weeks that the alleged libel came to the attention of the plaintiff. Maybe Slingerland can claim that it is implied that the date of her letter should be taken as the date for countdown, but that would be too ludicrous even for Slingerland. She can claim that she made an error not to clearly state the date, but that would be too childish. In one example of case law provided Siddiqui vs. Canadian Broadcasting Corp (2000), 50 O.R. (301) 607 at paragraph 10 it states “That failure to comply with the requirements in S5(1) constitutes an absolute bar, not a mere irregularity.” What that means is that excuses to cover ignorance do not work.

Using quotes is something that Slingerland does badly, or maybe it is quite intentional. In Slingerland's Statement of Claim paragraph 23, she decides that 90% of a paragraph was not necessary to quote. Instead Slingerland takes only 17 words, puts dot, dot, dot between them, and voila she had made her point. The paragraph published in the Mayorgate article had a total of 86 words. In Slingerland's paragraph 23(a) this is all she wrote and attributed to Mayorgate and to me, “By-laws... and all those safeguards that have been put in place... have been disregarded and abused.”

This is the paragraph as published in the Mayorgate article. “The Paderewski Society Home is operated as a non-profit entity with a definitive set of By-Laws and a Board of Directors elected annually. There are set policies relating to Conflict of Interest, Privacy of Information, Fraud Prevention, Purchasing and Tendering, and more. Its by-laws provide a clear guideline to the operation and management of the Home for the continuing benefit of all. Yet those safeguards that have been put in place to create harmony and mutual respect have been disregarded and abused.”

In Slingerland's paragraph 23(b) she quotes me again, “No one at Martens Lingard has explained the full facts surrounding the Annual General Meeting of July 24 2013, nor have they explained any of the abuse or intimidation.”

Here Slingerland does take my sentence in full, but she omits one major point. I had published copies of the letters signed by one Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP. Anyone reading those letters would indeed see that no explanation was given.

Why did Slingerland select less than one fifth of the words that I wrote to display as a quote? Why did Slingerland then decide to quote my words relating to a letter by her and yet not state that I had in fact published a copy of the actual letter? Is deceit not malicious, and is it not an intended falsehood? Why did Slingerland select 17 words out of 86? Was it to create deception? This was not a single attempt at ploughing the verbal field by Rachel Slingerland.

In her paragraph 29(c) Slingerland uses 36 words with the dot, dot, dot in between. My paragraph as published had 112 words without the dot, dot, dot. At least this time Slingerland had a better ratio than in her paragraph 23. Once again Slingerland omits the fact that I had published copies of not one but two letters of the period, both signed by Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP. Not only had I published copies of letters from Martens Lingard LLP but also copied and published two letters from Niagara Regional Housing.

Speaking of letters and Slingerland's Statement of Claim, one major point begins to jump up and down demanding attention. As publisher of Mayorgate and a journalist, (or if you are sensitive and prefer citizen journalist), I have dealt with the conflicting issue of honesty and lawyers on more than one occasion. I must add that it is as much of a conundrum as the eternal question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. No answer is right and no answer is wrong.

Lawyers play that egg game without stop, only their mantra and never ending chant is “in the best interest of the client.” Slingerland in her original notice of action had two points of attack, of accusation. One was my Mayorgate article and video interview of Leo Skorski and the second, a letter I wrote to the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (RHRA). Slingerland broke the law regarding this issue and in the end there are consequences that she cannot escape.

My Statement of Defence makes it clear that legislation and law had been breached willingly and knowingly by lawyer Rachel Slingerland. Any communication I had with the RHRA is confidential. The RHRA had contacted Niagara Regional Housing (NRH), providing details of my letter and my confidential information. An investigation by RHRA confirmed that they had made an error releasing my confidential details to NRH, and this was set out in writing.

A member of NRH's staff provided either directly to a private lawyer, Rachel Slingerland, or through a third party information protected by legislation and law. I notified both Slingerland and two senior partners, Ronald Martens and Peter Lingard of the breach of law committed by Slingerland. Upon receiving the statement of claim all mention of the details of my letter to RHRA had been omitted.

Since the RHRA's internal investigation, NRH had dumped a senior staff member. True NRH will claim it had nothing to do with this situation, after all it is a part of the Regional Government of Niagara, and truth is a key in all their operations.

Simply removing all the details from the statement of claim does not make anything go away. Slingerland made a decision, when she used illegal documentation and or information, to break the law and as a lawyer she has no excuses. This time the mantra of what is in the best interest of her client will not shelter her.

It is the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home through their lawyer Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP who accused me of making statements that I knew to be false. This Board of Directors attacked and defamed an innocent individual to try and add pressure to their intimidation. Through their lawyer this Board of Directors has claimed that I acted in anger and had intended to be malicious. Now it is the Board of Directors of the Paderewski Society Home, as named individually who will face the consequences:

S. GLOWACKI (DIRECTOR)

K. URYAZ (DIRECTOR)

W. GROBELNY (DIRECTOR)

C. ZAWADSKI (DIRECTOR)

J. KUBICA (DIRECTOR)

V. NAWROT (DIRECTOR)

L.OPIOLA (DIRECTOR)

K. GLOWACZ (DIRECTOR)

F. BARNOWSKI (DIRECTOR)

S. CIELSIA (DIRECTOR)

W. SOCHA (DIRECTOR)

T. SOTOLS (DIRECTOR)

Rev. A GZEMPA (DIRECTOR)

Polish Combatants a. Designated Representative, S. MAJERSKI

Royal Canadian Legion Polish Veteran's Branch #418 a. Designated Representative,

Y. GLOWACKI BROWN

Canadian Polish Society a. Designated Representative, W. GROBELNY

I am Mayorgate, and Mayorgate will not run from any threat or any act of harassment. Facts and truth are not what many want in public, but Mayorgate will continue to do as it has done from its inception. Mayorgate will not bow its head to anyone! It is time for an open court, and it is time for lawyer Slingerland to answer some hard questions. 

(click to enlarge)

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

How much can a Koala – Bear

In Australia, when someone reaches a level of exasperation, when enough is enough, the locals have a flippant throwaway line to ease the tension. That little Aussie phrase is, “how much can a Koala – bear?” One might see the relevancy of such a simple phrase in the continuing saga between a Regional Councillor and the Mayor of St. Catharines.

How it all began or why is no longer possible to trace. On the one side is Regional Councillor Andy Petrowski. Andy is not a shy shrinking violet. You either like him or not, few stand in between. At times Andy can be loud and animated, he is less concerned with political etiquette and more interested in getting his point across. This attribute has created enemies for Andy.

On the other side is St. Catharines Mayor Brian McMullan, a two term mayor and a political tactician. Brian McMullan does not exude warmth in his personality, at least not his public personality. He is well versed in the art of creating alliances and the old fashioned barter system of you do for me and I for you.

In the middle of these two very polarised individuals is a public fist fight. Some would say that such antics should not be permitted to be turned into a spectacle which diminishes government and its very public face. If this was simple mud slinging between two individuals who quite clearly have little liking for each other, then there would be little to comment. Yet the situation had progressed much beyond that of childish insult or flying barbs.

As it has been already stated Andy Petrowski is far from a shy child and although he has enough political enemies, in 2012 he found himself the target of accusations made publicly through a st.catharinesstandard.ca online commentary. Individuals using fictitious names, one being Tim Lewis, decided to damage Petrowski's public image. This situation reached a point where even a false police report had been made. Making a false report to the police is breach of the Criminal Code with severe penalties.

Mayor Brian McMullan in an interview with Doug Herod of The Standard admitted to knowing the identity of the individuals behind the fictitious names. That in itself makes Brian McMullan party to the breach of the Criminal Code. After this insanity subsided, things seemed to calm down somewhat. Then in August 2013, the front page of The Standard proclaims “St. Catharines mayor calls police on councillor.”

At the time reporter Jeff Bolichowski wrote on August 27^th 2013, “Mayor Brian McMullan says he called the police on St. Catharines Coun. Andy Petrowski Saturday over an alleged confrontation at Camp Wetaskiwin, a Boy Scouts camp near Short Hills Provincial Park.” It was an attention grabbing front page and although reporter Bolichowski did give Andy Petrowski equal opportunity to make his statements, the front page still was etched in people's minds.

The whole incident appeared to be nothing more than a he said, she said public fight once again. Yet it did not end there. A police incident report was filed by Brian McMullan. The report with NRP reference #2013-75533 stated: “The compl. Is the Mayor of St. Catharines and a member of Niagara Regional Council. On this date in the early morning Mayor McMullan attended Camp Wetaskiwin in Thorold to address a group in an official capacity. At approximately 9:30 am. while leaving the facility McMullan suddenly saw councillor Petrowski in his car in the parking lot. McMullan was close to his vehicle at the time and as he prepared to quickly leave he saw Petrowski striding intently toward him in an agitated state. McMullan left without engaging Petrowski. Although no incident occurred that necessitated police involvement, the complainant requested documentation.”

In this situation the police saw no reason to be involved. Yet the Standard had this as a front page story. How did The Standard get the information? Brian McMullan called the police by phone, does The Standard wire tap the police phones? If the hot shot reporters at The Standard monitor police radio then they could claim to have got wind of a front page story, but the police did not dispatch a patrol car. Then did Brian McMullan call his pals at The Standard and give them all the juicy details, or someone on his behalf? Maybe it was Tim Lewis who tipped off the guardians of news and facts?

On December 17^th 2013, things became more clear. Andy Petrowski was served with a Summons To Appear in court. The summons stated: “Whereas an information has been laid against you by Brian McMullan who says therein that he/she has reasonable grounds to fear and does fear that you will cause personal injury to or will damage the property of Brian McMullan.”

Now Mayor Brian McMullan had gone from filing an official complaint to the police in late August, to filling a document with the courts claiming he feared for his safety. The summons further states: “in the words or to the effect following, that is to say. Andy Petrowski, in a stalking manner, approached Brian McMullan in a aggressive, bizarre manner and confronted him by saying “there you are.” The loud and belligerent approach and their previous antecedents caused Brian McMullan to fear for his safety.”

In the police incident report #2013-75533 there is no claim of any verbal engagement. The police saw no reason to get involved. Yet nearly four months later Brian McMullan claimed to fear for his safety and that of his property. Maybe McMullan was concerned about cans of spray paint? Regardless of whether one asks serious questions as to motive or reasoning, this was an official filing with the Ontario Court of Justice.

Along came January 24^th 2014, Andy Petrowski's birthday and his appearance at courtroom 7 to answer charges laid by Mayor Brian McMullan. Andy Petrowski had no flippancy in mind and took this quite seriously. He retained the services of lawyer G. Radojcic, a man known for his spunk. Brian McMullan had one too, M. DelGobbo at the ready. Counsel for the Crown, T. Jacob was also present. Here the stage was set and under oath, with the threat of perjury, all the truth and nothing but the truth would be extracted.

After examining the transcript of proceedings with Information No. 145-0178, Ontario Court of Justice Her Majesty The Queen v. Andy Petrowski, only shock remains. The obligatory identification of bodies was first conducted, Andy Petrowski and his lawyer were there, Brian McMullan was nowhere in sight only his representative at law DelGobbo. Where was Brian McMullan, after all it was he who made the serious accusations that he feared Andy Petrowski. Would he not have to give testimony under oath? In any case Mayor Brian McMullan did not appear, maybe he was savouring a soothing cup of Chinese tea somewhere.

Once the identification process was completed, and everybody was familiar with each other, Brian McMullan's counsel had this to say: “After reviewing the matter with the complainant and obtaining instructions from him, and considering the overall circumstances, and I've advised Mr. Jacob of our – the complainant's position, he does not wish to proceed further with the, with the application.” The judge responds with an okay, and DelGobbo continues, “and wishes to discontinue it and thanks the court for its time on the...” Again the judge drops an okay, DelGobbo finishes with, “day in question.” Counsel for the Crown, Jacob doesn't want to touch anything. The judge then responds: “Yeah, I think that that would be the appropriate endorsement to be made on the face of the information then. The application is withdrawn at the request of the applicant.”

Brian McMullan had made a sworn statement that he feared Andy Petrowski and that he feared for his safety. He dragged the Provincial Court and had Her Majesty The Queen go versus Andy Petrowski on court record. He forced Andy Petrowski to retain a lawyer with spunk, which could not of been cheap. He himself did not bother to make an appearance, even though everybody else was there because of his accusations. What was all of this really about?

The judge's words ring loud and clear, “...the appropriate endorsement to be made on the face of the information then.” Right at the beginning of the identification process DelGobbo ensures that the judge and everyone present hear who McMullan is when DelGobbo says, “Your Honour, Mr. McMullan is the complainant. He is the mayor of the City of St. Catharines.” Outside the courthouse a witness saw one of The Standard's hot shot reporters, Grant LaFleche talking to DelGobbo. There it would of been interesting to hear what was said.

No front page headlines of the Mayor of the City of St. Catharines dropping his charges, wasting public money and the court's time. No explanation on how he no longer felt fear for his safety. No explanation by Brian McMullan. What was his true motivation about this whole incident? Was Brian McMullan looking for another damaging front page against Councillor Petrowski? Who provided The Standard with the original story about the police being called? Now, why didn't Grant LaFleche or Doug Herod or even Marlene Bergsma report how McMullan withdrew his complaint?

DelGobbo said to the judge, “After reviewing the matter with the complainant and obtaining instructions from him, and considering the overall circumstances...”. Indeed considering the overall circumstances from start to finish of this situation, from the police being called, the front page of the newspaper, to the anti-climatic fizzle in front of a judge, only questions remain in the air, and a foul smell.

One might ask why bring this whole story out now as the court date was January 24^th? Andy Petrowski was indeed asked this question, his response came via email and he said; “I am not interested in exposing this out of any sort of vengeance, it's a principle sort of thing to make sure McMullan needs to know his deeds will not go unknown or unspoken so as to protect others from his near evil ways. I hope that makes sense.”

Mayor Brian McMullan was approached by email to provide his side to all of this, to maybe provide his explanation. No response had been received at time of publishing.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

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