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