Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by chris-r

joanne chianello is reporting on twitter that the "friends of lansdowne" have lost their appeal.

Amen!!!

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Chris-R

Joanne Chianello is reporting on Twitter that the "Friends of Lansdowne" have lost their appeal.

https://twitter.com/#!/jchianello/st...87298326380544

Decision: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decision...12ONCA0273.htm

Now how long before Ian Lee is back in the media announcing his plans to go to the Supreme Court?

He was on CBC this morning pontifiating about the "Constitutional importance" of the case. Not sure what the Constitution has to do with this, but apparently Lee has added constitutional law to his expertise on municipal procurement, urban planning, public service staffing and mortgage insurance. No wonder CBC quotes him incessantly - them Carleton professors is smart!

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

read it quickly.

It was written by Justice Susan Lang and endorsed by the two others on the panel. A 3-0 decision.

FOL challenged Justice Hackland's decision on three points where it said he erred in Law.

The Appeal's Court dissected Hackland's decison on each of the three points and strongly upheld all of his rulings. Basically they did not disagree one iota on even the smallest point of how Hackland arrived at his decision.

As Rick Chiarelli said earlier today---The LPP has now been approved by City Council, the OMB, the Superior Court of Ont. and the Appeals Court of Ont.

The judgements have been so strong that I doubt that the Supreme Court would even hear the case let alone overturn the previous judgements. Therefor , I do not think that the City would be incurring much risk in going ahead now with construction, even if FOL does try to appeal to the SC.

I trust that FOL realizes that they will meet a lot of scorn and derision from the public if they try to delay the LPP any longer.

[Chris-R]

Originally Posted by phil235

Now how long before Ian Lee is back in the media announcing his plans to go to the Supreme Court?

He was on CBC this morning pontifiating about the "Constitutional importance" of the case. Not sure what the Constitution has to do with this, but apparently Lee has added constitutional law to his expertise on municipal procurement, urban planning, public service staffing and mortgage insurance. No wonder CBC quotes him incessantly - them Carleton professors is smart!

He does seem to single-handedly reduce the (admittedly small) value of my degree from there. At least, locally. I don't think many are sure what the hell he meant by the issue being "Constitutional". I suppose you could make the argument that pretty well anything could be. Of course, it's probably just setting out the dishes for another higher appeal.

Failing that, perhaps we'll hear about it on a human rights basis for an upcoming complaint made to the Human Rights Commission. That would would work well with the whole "If I don't like it, it's probably illegal or against some rule" school of thought that the FoL/LPC folks appear to operate by.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Chris-R

He does seem to single-handedly reduce the (admittedly small) value of my degree from there. At least, locally. I don't think many are sure what the hell he meant by the issue being "Constitutional". I suppose you could make the argument that pretty well anything could be. Of course, it's probably just setting out the dishes for another higher appeal.

Failing that, perhaps we'll hear about it on a human rights basis for an upcoming complaint made to the Human Rights Commission. That would would work well with the whole "If I don't like it, it's probably illegal or against some rule" school of thought that the FoL/LPC folks appear to operate by.

I'm not sure why the media continue to quote him as an expert on all of these things that he is clearly not an expert in. For instance, I have knowledge in the area of public service employment law issues, and the guy doesn't have a clue. You'd get a more informed view asking a random passer-by on the street.

In this case, to see him present a hastily conducted case study of a project across the street from his house as objective academic research is ridiculous. I don't know much about Carleton, but I assume there must be some profs there with a little more academic integrity.

I'm hoping the reason that no one asked for costs in the appeal is that they took the reasonable approach and agreed beforehand that there would be no appeal. Then again, reasonableness is not FOL's strong suit.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

On reading the court of appeals web site , I noticed a claim (boast) that only three percent of the appeals court rulings have ever been overturned by the Supreme Court.

So Ian Lee can huff and puff all he wants , but the chances of FOL winning now is tiny.

So, I repeat that the City should go ahead with this project now as the chances of them losing an appeal is extremely small--and it seems that there are no legal reasons stopping them from proceding.

I'm hoping the reason that no one asked for costs in the appeal is that they took the reasonable approach and agreed beforehand that there would be no appeal. Then again, reasonableness is not FOL's strong suit

.

I assume that costs are not asked for because FOL filed this case before the court when the City still had that foolish law in place stating that they would not seek costs.

On the other hand John martin filed his case after the city reversed this law , so the city is seeking some costs from him.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

On reading the court of appeals web site , I noticed a claim (boast) that only three percent of the appeals court rulings have ever been overturned by the Supreme Court.

So Ian Lee can huff and puff all he wants , but the chances of FOL winning now is tiny.

So, I repeat that the City should go ahead with this project now as the chances of them losing an appeal is extremely small--and it seems that there are no legal reasons stopping them from proceding.

Also, I doubt that the Supreme Court would be interested in a question of interpretation of a provision of the Ontario Municipal Act that has been unanimously decided by the Ontario CA. They won't get leave.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

.

I assume that costs are not asked for because FOL filed this case before the court when the City still had that foolish law in place stating that they would not seek costs.

On the other hand John martin filed his case after the city reversed this law , so the city is seeking some costs from him.

That policy was repealed before the appeal was launched. There wouldn't be any reason not to seek costs on appeal, but you could be right and that's why they didn't ask.

[JFFournier]

Here's the last line of the decision document.

"Neither Friends nor Ottawa seek costs. I understand the issue of costs of the intervener before the application judge remains under reserve. I would make no order for the intervener’s costs for the appeal."

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Just heard Ian Lee being interviewed on CFRA at app 1;20.

talk about back tracking. he does not sound so gung ho now on going to the SC

And on one hand he can not speak for the FOl board--but on the other hand he says they will decide to appeal or not within a couple of weeks--not the sxity days they have. do not know how he can say that if he can not speak on behalf of the FOL board.


I

I would make no order for the intervener’s costs for the appeal."

So, perhaps OSEG can seek costs.

[JFFournier]

Some more information from the OBJ:

http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/Constr...on-contracts/1

The city has received three preliminary submissions for the construction of the stadium, parking garage and site services - PCL Constructors Canada Inc., EllisDon Corp. and Pomerleau are in the running - and the tender is scheduled to close in early May, according to the committee report.

...

A separate tender for the soil excavation and remediation, demolition of the Coliseum building and foundation construction for the relocation of the Horticultural Building will be awarded to a company prior to the award of the main stadium and garage construction works, and this separate package will also be managed by the city. The tender has been submitted to the three aforementioned pre-qualified companies and the city is ready to receive contract bids, said Wayne Newell, the city's general manager of infrastructure services.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

So, perhaps OSEG can seek costs.

Well, if they can, they no doubt will, because developers are evil. Then Roger Greenberg will push an old lady into incoming traffic, steal a kid's tricycle so he can ride home to finish his day by drowning puppies.

Sometimes he names them first...

[phil235]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Well, if they can, they no doubt will, because developers are evil. Then Roger Greenberg will push an old lady into incoming traffic, steal a kid's tricycle so he can ride home to finish his day by drowning puppies.

Sometimes he names them first...

I laughed out loud at this one.

[JFFournier]

Cfra

the group "friends of lansdowne" will not decide immediately whether to appeal today's unanimous court of appeal ruling against their application to quash the lansdowne park redevelopment project.

Carleton university business professor ian lee, a spokesperson for the group, tells cfra's "ron corbett unscripted" they have to meet with their lawyers first, and will likely decide in a week or two.

However, lee admits that the unanimity of the judge's ruling doesn't give them many grounds to appeal. He had hoped that the judges might have supported at least some of the group's arguments, but says that simply wasn't the case.

Lee says, even if the "friends" are at the end of the line, he thinks they've won a victory changing attititudes at city hall. He doesn't think any future city council will ever cancel an open competitive bidding process and replace it with a sole-source deal.

[matty14]

Was wondering how long it would take until one of the Fools claimed the legal system was corrupt... Didn't even take a couple hours. I was listening to CFRA and some guy named Jack called in saying the reason FoL lost was because of the Chief Justice was able to hand-pick the panel instead of a "lot" selection, and therefore the conservative leaning justices corruptly sided with the evil developers.

Sigh. I really hope this is really the end.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by matty14

Was wondering how long it would take until one of the Fools claimed the legal system was corrupt... Didn't even take a couple hours. I was listening to CFRA and some guy named Jack called in saying the reason FoL lost was because of the Chief Justice was able to hand-pick the panel instead of a "lot" selection, and therefore the conservative leaning justices corruptly sided with the evil developers.

Sigh. I really hope this is really the end.

My biggest problem with the FOL approach are these claims of corruption, bias and bad faith. It's fine to disagree with a proposal, but those claims are the equivalent of schoolyard name-calling.

I've read all of the Friends' materials through this whole process. They lost because their case wasn't very good. In large part, they were trying to make political arguments in court once the arguments failed at council. And the courts rightly rejected them.

On an amusing note, the GCA recently asked me to consider joining their board. What to do, what to do...

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Well, if they can, they no doubt will, because developers are evil. Then Roger Greenberg will push an old lady into incoming traffic, steal a kid's tricycle so he can ride home to finish his day by drowning puppies.

Sometimes he names them first...

That was hilarious and made my day.

On a semi-related note, wow; the Court of Appeal basically systematically dismissed every single one of the allegations made by FOL. And it was a unanimous decision. Hope the FOL take this as their ultimate defeat and the city takes this as the green light to get shovels in the ground already.

[JeffB]

Originally Posted by phil235

I've read all of the Friends' materials through this whole process. They lost because their case wasn't very good. In large part, they were trying to make political arguments in court once the arguments failed at council. And the courts rightly rejected them.

They also went more for an emotional argument than a legal/factual one. I think there are plenty of sound arguments that sole-sourcing isn't the best practice, but that doesn't make it illegal. And just because this project is being sole-sourced doesn't mean sole-sourcing will be came the basis of all future policy. It just means that here we have a stadium in disrepair, a group wanting to use said facility, and a plan to try to fix it up while trying to develop a method to pay for the renovations. This isn't something that is going to happen very often.

[Cre47]

Well it was pretty obvious the City would win. Fol has no credibility. Worst though are the Conservancy fringe.

At least it is a piece of good news that forgets the catastrophic economic news the city had thanks once again by Harper and his no-good Conservative brigade.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Cre47

At least it is a piece of good news that forgets the catastrophic economic news the city had thanks once again by Harper and his no-good Conservative brigade.

That's what was really lost here - a $250 million project is exactly what this city needs given the current goings-on, but that argument was really never made very strongly.