Last Friday Sault Ste. Marie's E4m, which at one time served as Integrity Commissioner for the City of Elliot Lake, released its final report on Coun. Ed Pearce's case, Pearce has offered his take on their report.
Pearce said there was no need in law for the non-profit to issue the document.
The following is the statement from Coun. Pearce.
The city has received what purports to be a “final report” from the former Integrity Commissioner for Elliot Lake – E4M -- seeking to defend its questionable decision to appeal the penalty of a reprimand imposed on me for breaching the Conflict of Interest provisions of the Municipal Act to the Divisional Court.
The appeal, which was vigorously opposed by council was dismissed out of hand with the Divisional Court noting that E4m had misread the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, premised its position on a false presumption of how the legislation operated and presented hyperbolic statements to the court to emphasize points that E4m had actually conceded in its legal arguments before the lower court judge.
As stated in the final judgement of the Divisional Court:
There is nothing that supports [the Integrity Commissioner’s] understanding. It is based on a false presumption that the legislation, as amended, far from leading to increased discretion in the determination of what, in any particular circumstance, is an appropriate penalty, remains narrow, even arbitrary in what it directs. On its face this is wrong.
Further the Court states;
In summary… the Respondent was a valued and dedicated contributor to the community of Elliot Lake and that while he made an error, the overwhelming fact is that, in the situation at hand, he acted for the benefit of that community and not his own. These facts, all from the reasons of the application judge, demonstrate the basis on which he was able to and did exercise his discretion to impose a reprimand as the appropriate remedy.
The Press Release disguised as a “report to council” is misleading and self-serving, to say the least. It calls on Elliot Lake City Council to pay the $16,000 in costs awarded to me by the Divisional Court when Wishart Law and E4M are fully aware that it is their responsibility to pay the $16,000, not the City of Elliot Lake.
The press release also fails to mention that I had publicly apologized to Council and offered not to fight the charge in an effort to expedite what was a very minor infraction of the Act. E4m and its lawyers at Wishart Law and Cassels Brock in Toronto refused my offer opting instead to put me and the city through a three-year ordeal that has cost the city over $100,000, depleted my life savings and affected both my health and that of my wife.
As noted, E4m is not the city’s Integrity Commissioner and, contrary to the assertions of its public relations firm, it has no obligation at law to issue any reports to council. This was nothing more than a public relations effort to whitewash their failure as Integrity Commissioner and shift the burden of costs even further onto the citizens of Elliot Lake.