0 0 0 0 0 1

Cv- i H- GaS30
Cour t Fi l e No.
O N TA R I O
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
J U D I T H A N N M A C D O N A L D
Applicant
- and-
R O B E RT F O R D a n d D O U G L A S F O R D J R .
Respondents
N O T I C E O F A P P L I C AT I O N
T O T HE RE S P ONDE NT S
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the applicant. The claim made by
the applicant appears on the following page.
THIS APPLICATION will come on for a hearing on a date to be xed by tlie Registrar at
10:00 a.m., or as soon aer that time as the application can be heard, at 393 University Avenue,
Toronto, Ontario, MSG 1E6.
IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, to receive notice of any step in the
application or to be served with any documents in the application, you or an Ontario lawyer
acting for you must forthwith prepare a notice of appearance in Form 38A prescribed by the
Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the applicant's lawyer or, where the applicant does not have
a lawyer, serve it on the applicant, and le it, with proof of service, in this court ofce, and you
or your lawyer must appear at the hearing.
I F YOU WI SH TO PRESENT AFFI DAVI T OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE
TO T HE COURT OR TO EXAMI NE OR CROSS- EXAMI NE WI T NESSES ON T HE
APPLICATION, you or your lawyer must, in addition to serving your notice of appearance,
serve a copy of the evidence on the applicant's lawyer or, where the applicant does not have a
lawyer, serve it on the applicant, and le it, with proof of service, in the court ofce where the
application is to be heard as soon as po.ssible, but at least four days before the hearing.
0 0 0 0 0 2
IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN YOUR
ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE
THIS APPLICATION BUT ARE UNABLE 10 PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE
AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.
September 19,2014
Issued By:.
Local Registrar
393 University Avenue
10th Floor
Toronto ON MSG 1E6
T O : R O B E R T F O R D
do 100 Queen St West, 2"*^ oor
To r o n t o O N M 5 H 2 N 2
T O : D O U G L A S F O R D J R .
do 100 Queen St West Suite C40
To r o n t o O N M5 H 2 N 2
3
0 0 0 0 0 3
A P P L I C AT I ON
1 . T H E A P P L I C A N T MA K E S A P P L I C AT I ON F OR :
(a) a declaration that the respondent Robert Ford's seat on Toronto ClQr Council is
vacant, pursuant to section 10(1 Ka) of the Municipal Conict of Interest Act,
(b) a declaration that the respondent E)ouglas Ford Jr.'s seat on Toronto City Council is
vacant, pursuant to section IO(l)(a) of the Act;
(c) an order pursuant to section 10(lXb) of the Act, disqualifying the respondent
Robert Ford from being a member of Toronto City Council for a period of seven years;
(d) an order pursuant to section 10(1 Kb) of the Act, disqualifying the respondent
Douglas Ford Jr. from being a member of Toronto City Council for a period of seven
year s;
(e) a declaration that the respondents violated section S of the Act;
(0 costs of this application on a substantial indemnity basis;
(g) such further and other relief as the circumstances of the case may require and this
Honourable Court deems to be just.
2 . T HE GROUNDS F OR T HE A P P L I CAT I ON A RE :
(a) the respondents and their family own and control Doug Ford Holdings Inc., its
subsidiary Deco Labels & Tags Ltd., and Deco Adhesive Products (198S) Ltd.
(collectively, "the respondents' business");
(b) the respondents, the respondents' business, and clients of the respondents' business
have pecuniary interests with respect to the following matters that were the subject of
consideration at Toronto City Council or its committees:
0 0 0 0 0 4
4
i. a ban on the sale of bottled water in civic centres;
ii. an initimive to reduce food packa^ng waste in Toronto;
Hi. the adoption and implementation of healthy vending criteria for the sale of
beverages in Parks, Forestry and Recreation vending machines;
iv. changes to the Tripartite Agreement to permit Porter Airlines to y jets into
and out of the Toronto island airport, and to extend the airport's runway;
V. the appointment of Darius Mosun to the board of the Toronto Parking
Authority; and
vi. adjustments to the formula and rates for calculating fees under the city's
industrial waste surcharge agreement program;
(c) the respondents failed to disclose these interests described at paragraph 2(b) above,
or the general nature thereof, prior to the consideration of agenda items relating to these
matters at Council or committees, as required by s 5( 1 )(a) of the Act,
(d) the respondents took part in discussions of, or voted on, questions in respect of the
matters described at paragraph 2(b) above, contrary to s 5(1 )(b) of the Ac/; and in
particulan
i. the respondent Robert Ford attended Council on December 1, 2008 for its
consideration of item PW20.1, and both respondents attended Council on April
13, 2011 for its consideration of item GM2.16, and voted on these items and on
amendments to them;
ii. the respondent Douglas Ford Jr. attended the Government Management
Committee on October 12,2011 for its consideration of GM8.8, and voted on the
item;
0 0 0 0 0 5
5
Hi. the respondents attended Council on September 22, 2011 for its
consideration of item CA9.5, and the respondents voted in &vour of appointii^
Darius Mosun to the Toronto Parking Authority board, and against a motion to
refer the appointment back to the Civic Appointments Committee for further
consideration;
iv. the respondent Robert Ford attended, and in most cases chaired, meetings of
the Executive Committee on April 23, 2013, July 3, 2013, September 23, 2013,
December S, 2013 and March 2S, 2014, at which it considered agenda items
EX31.27. EX33.18, EX34.14. EX36.7 and EX40.1. respectively, relating to Porter
Airline's request for amendments to the Tripartite Agreement governing the
Toronto island airport, and the respondent voted on these agenda items and
amendments to them;
V. the respondents attended Council on May 7,2013 and April 1, 2014, for its
consideration of item EX31.27 and EX40.I, respectively, and took part in
discussions of, and voted on, the items and amendments to them, including an
amendment that shifted Porter Airline's obligation to pay approximately $275,000
for Phase I of the city's evaluation of Porter's request to Toronto Port Authority;
a n d
vi. the respondents attended Council on November 27, 2012 and December 17,
2013, for its consideration of items EX25.9 and EX36.17, respectively, with
respect to industrial waste surcharge agreements and permits and related fees, and
voted on these items and amendments to them;
0 0 0 0 0 6
6
(e) the respondents attempted before, during or after meetings of City Council or its
committees to inuence the voting on questions in respect of the matters described at
paragraph 2(b) above, contrary to s S( 1 )(c) of the Ac/; and in particular
i. before item GM2.16 returned to Council for consideration, the respondent
Douglas Ford Jr. spoke publicly in opposition of the healthy vending initiative
and, to emphasise his oppositicm, took a swig of Coke;
ii. the respondent E>oug]as Ford Jr. took several minutes of the Government
Management Conunittee's October 12, 2011 meeting to criticize the ci^s healthy
vending initiative;
iii. the respondent Robert Ford interfered with the 2011 civic ^pointments
process, including by circulating a list of preferred candidates, which included
Darius Mosun, to like-minded councillors;
iv. the respondent Robert Ford advocated in support of Porter Airlines and
Porter's plans to extend the Toronto island airport's runway, including at a media
scrum on or around April 11,2013;
V. the respondent Robert Ford wrote to the Executive Committee on April 22,
2013 to recommend that the city expedite its reporting process on Porter Airlines'
request to make certain amendments to the Tripartite Agreement governing
Toronto's island airport in order for Porter to y commercial jets into and out of
the airport, and specically the respondent encouraged the Committee to add
Porter's request as an agenda item for its April 23,2013 meeting; and
vi. the respondents attempted to inuence voting on item EX31.27 during the
May 7,2013 Council meeting;
0 0 0 C C 7
7
(f) the respondents' interests, and their contraventions of the Act, came to the
applicant's knowledge on or after August 13,2014; in particular:
i. the applicant was not aware that Deco Adhesive Products (1985) Ltd. and
Apollo Health and Beauty Care were invoiced for industrial waste surcharge
agreements or permits until August 13, 2014, when she reviewed a staff report
entitled "Sewers and Water Supply By-laws 2013 Compliance and Enforcement
Annual Report", which was on the agenda for the August 13,2014 meeting of the
Public Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting; and
ii. the applicant was not aware that Nestl6 Canada, Coca Cola, Cara Operations
Ltd., Porter Airlines and Soheil Mosun Ltd. were clients of the respondents'
business until she read an investigative report from the Globe and Mail ("Mayor
Ford's business contracts raise question of conict") on or around its date of
publication, on August 20,2014;
(g) as disclosed in the afdavit of Judith MacDonald, afTirmed September 18,2014;
(h) Municipal Conict of Interest Act, RSO 1990, c M.50, including sections 5, 8, 9
and 10;
(i) Rules of Civil Procedwe, RRO 1990, Reg 194, Rule 14; and
(j) such further and other material as counsel may advise and the Honourable Court
permit.
0 0 0 0 0 8
8
3. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WILL BE USED AT THE
HEARI NG OF THE APPL I CATI ON:
(a) the afdavit of Judith MacDonald, afnned September 18, 2014, and exhibits
thereto; and
(b) such further and other material as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court
may permit
September 19,2014 DEWART GL EASON L L P
102-366 Adelaide St W
Toronto ON M5V 1R9
Sean Dewart, LSUC #: 267088
Tim Gleason, LSUC #: 43927A
Jonathan Scl^hter, LSUC #: 638S8C
Tel : 416- 971- 8000
Fax: 416-971-8001
Lawyers for the applicant
J
U
D
I
T
H

A
N
N

M
A
C
D
O
N
A
L
D
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
R
O
B
E
R
T

F
O
R
D

e
t

a
i
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
C
V
-
C
o
u
r
t

F
i
l
e

N
o
.
O
N
T
A
R
I
O
S
U
P
E
R
I
O
R

C
O
U
R
T

O
F

J
U
S
T
I
C
E
P
r
o
c
e
e
d
i
n
g

C
o
m
m
e
n
c
e
d

a
t

T
O
R
O
N
T
O
N
O
T
I
C
E

O
F

A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
D
E
W
A
R
T

G
L
E
A
S
O
N

L
L
P
L
a
w
y
e
r
s
1
0
2
-
3
6
6

A
d
e
l
a
i
d
e

S
t

W
T
o
r
o
n
t
o

O
N

M
5
V

1
R
9
S
e
a
n

D
e
w
a
r
t
,

L
S
U
C

#
;

2
6
7
0
8
B
T
i
m

G
l
e
a
s
o
n
,

L
S
U
C

#
:

4
3
9
2
7
A
J
o
n
a
t
h
a
n

S
c
h
a
c
h
t
e
r
.

L
S
U
C

#
:

6
3
8
5
8
C
T
e
l
:

4
1
6
-
9
7
1
-
8
0
0
0
F
a
x
:
4
1
6
-
9
7
1
-
8
0
0
1
L
a
w
y
e
r
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
0 0 0 0 1 0
Court File No.:
ONTARI O
SUPERI OR COURT OF JUSTI CE
B E T W E E N :
J U D I T H A N N MA C D O N A L D
Applicant
- a n d -
ROBERT FORD a n d
DOUGL AS FORD J R.
Respondents
A F F I D AV I T OF J U D I T H MA C D ON A L D
(AfFmned September 18,2014)
I, JUDITH ANN MACDONALD, of the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario,
SOL EMNLY AFFI RM a s f o l l o ws :
1. I am a resident of Toronto who is actively engaged in civic affairs and municipal politics.
I regularly attend and/or monitor meetings of Toronto City Council, its committees, and city
boards. I therefore have knowledge of the matters to which I depose in this afdavit.
The respondents' business
2. As set out below, it is a matter of public record that the respondents and their family own
and control a number of corporations, including Deco Labels & Tags Ltd., Deco Adhesive
Products (1985) Ltd., and Doug Ford Holdings Inc. (collectively, "the respondents' business").
00001 1
- 2 -
3. Deco Labels & Tags Ltd. is a federally incorporated company. The respondent Douglas
Ford Jr. is a director of the corporation. A copy of the Corporations Canada prole for Deco
Labels & Tags Ltd. is marked as Exhibit "A" to this afdavit.
4. Doug Ford Holdings Inc. (formerly Deco Adhesive Products Ltd.) and Deco Adhesive
Products (1985) Ltd. are both federally incorporated companies. The respondents, Robert Ford
and Douglas Ford Jr., are directors of both corporations, along with their mother, Diane Ford,
and their brother, Randal Ford. Copies of the Corporations Canada prole for Doug Ford
Holdings Inc. and for Deco Adhesive Products (1985) Ltd. are marked, respectively, as Exhibits
"B" and "C" to this afdavit.
5. A forensic audit of the respondent Robert Ford's election spending in the 2010 election
conrmed that Deco Labels & Tags Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Doug Ford Holdings
Inc., and that the respondent Robert Ford has an ownership interest in the holding company. A
copy of the "Compliance Audit Report For the City of Toronto Re: Rob Ford", dated February 1,
2013, is marked as Exhibit "D" to this afdavit.
6. I understand that the respondents work, or worked, for the respondents' business, and
collected income in the form of salaries or sales commissions -om some or all of these
corporations; however, these are private corporations and they are not required to disclose their
fmancial records, employment details, or client lists.
7. The Toronto Star reported that the respondent Robert Ford was chief nancial ofcer of
Deco Labels for years, and remained so until at least 2010. During his time as city councillor,
the respondent Robert Ford continued to represent Deco Labels publicly, in his capacity as CFO.
The Toronto Star reported that the respondent Robert Ford's mayoral schedule contained entries
- 3 -
0 0 0 0 1 2
for "family business" and "Deco all day" in his schedule. A copy of this article ("Mayor Ford's
family business raises conict questions") is marked as Exhibit "E" to this afdavit.
8. The Toronto Star reported that the respondent Douglas Ford was president of Deco
Labels throughout his term as councillor. The Toronto Star article ("Doug Ford has third-worst
attendance, missed 53 per cent of 2014 city council votes") is marked as Exhibit "F" to this
af davi t .
Improper inuence for the benet of clients of the respondents' business
9. On August 20, 2014, the Globe and Mail reported that Nestle Canada, Coca Cola, Cara
Operations Ltd., Porter Airlines and Soheil Mosun Ltd. were clients of the respondents' business.
A copy of the Globe and Mail report ("Mayor Ford's business contracts raise question of
conict") is marked as Exhibit "G" to this afdavit (the "Globe and Mail report").
10. The respondents' business does not disclose the names of its clients. In fact, according to
the Globe and Mail report, in response to reporters' questions about a client which the respondent
Robert Ford allegedly assisted in lobbying city ofcials with respect to the city's in-house
printing. Ford stated:
If that's a conict, then I'm going to have a conict with almost eveiy business or
every person in this city, because we've been around for 52 years. We've dealt from
those little ma-and-pa shops to huge grocery stores to almost every company. So 1
guess I'm in a conict... I'd have to declare a conict with everybody.
11. The Globe and Mail reported that in response to follow-up questions from reporters with
respect to the same conict of interest, the respondent Robert Ford stated that "We have done
business with every single company almost in Ontario. We are right around the world". The
National Post reported that he stated that "Our business is our business. I don't ask you how
much money you've got in the bank... this is personal." Copies of the Globe and Mail article
00001 3
- 4 -
("Ties to company he helped at City Hall 'irrelevant,' mayor says") and the National Post article
("Rob Ford says he 'can't recall' if business at centre of allegations was client of his family rm
(they were)") are marked, respectively, as Exhibits "H" and "I" to this afdavit.
12. The respondents, as a result of their pecuniary interest in the respondents' business, stood
to benet if they took positions in their roles as mayor and city councillor that would benet
their business or its clients.
Ban on the sale of bottled water at civic centres
13. On December 1, 2008, Council adopted motions to reduce food packaging waste,
including plastic water bottles, under agenda item PW20.1. The history of agenda item PW20.1
is marked as Exhibit "J" to this afdavit.
1 4 . I t e m PW2 0 . 1 d e a l t wi t h b o t t l e d wa t e r a s f o l l o ws :
17. The City of Toronto:
a. prohibit the sale or distribution of bottled water at Civic Centres immediately, with due
regard for any current contracts related to the purchase or sale of bottled water;
b. authorize and direct appropriate staff from Solid Waste Management Services, Parks,
Forestry and Recreation, Facilities and Real Estate, Purchasing and Materials Management, Toronto
Public Health, Toronto Water and the bottled water industry, to work together to develop and
implement a program that prohibits the sale and distribution of bottled water at all remaining City
facilities by December 31,2011; and
c. authorize appropriate staff to prohibit plastic water bottle sales at each City facility upon
completion of improved access to tap water at all City facilities as water bottled sales are phased out,
having due regard to existing contracts and unique public health and safety related situations and
authorized special events in City facilities, by December 31, 2011.
1 5 . T h e Co u n c i l r e c o r d f o r i t e m PW2 0 . 1 i n d i c a t e s t h a t c o i mc i l l o r s c o n s i d e r e d a
communication -om Coca-Cola Bottling Company's Vice President - Ontario.
16. According to the Globe and Mail report (Exhibit "G"), both Coca-Cola and Nestle
Canada are clients of the respondents' business, and both produce and sell bottled water. Item
PW20.1 directly affected these companies' interests by "prohibit[ing] the sale or distribution of
- 5 -
00001 4
bottled water at Civic Centres immediately". In fact, as the Globe reported, Coca-Cola's bottled
water brand, "Dasani", was sold at City Hall prior to the ban. This relationship to the
respondents' business was unknown to the public at the time PW20.1 was before council.
Although, as described at paragraphs 10-11 above, the respondent believes that he may be in a
"conict with almost every business or every person in this city" as a result of his business's
success, the respondents also regard their clients' identities as personal and private.
17. The record for Council agenda item PW20.1 indicates that the respondent Robert Ford
was present at Council for this decision. An excerpt of Council's decisions from December 1,
2008 (meeting no. 27) is marked as Exhibit "K" to this afdavit.
18. There is no record that the respondent Robert Ford disclosed that Coca-Cola and Nestle
were clients of his business, or that he disclosed the amount of business his companies transact
with these beverage companies. There is no record that he disclosed to Council that he had an
interest in decisions with respect to the sale of bottled water.
19. Additionally, on April 13, 2011, Council considered agenda item GM2.16, which related,
inter alia, to cold drink vending machines in Toronto. The history of agenda item GM2.16 is
marked as Exhibit "L" to this afdavit.
20. Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti moved to amend the agenda item by adding the following:
That City Council rescind its previous direction to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation to
phase out the sale of bottled water at Parks and Recreation facility locations to permit the General Manager to
include the sale of bottled water in the Cold Drink Vending Request for Proposal.
21. Councillor Mammoliti's amendment would directly affect the clients of the respondents'
business; however, there is no record that the respondents disclosed their business's interest in
00001 5
- 6 -
the bottled water issues, including the amount of business their companies transact with Coca-
Cola and Nestl6.
22, Further, the Council record for GM2.16 indicates that the respondents were present for
the decision, and that both voted in favour of the amendment.
23. The respondent Robert Ford has attempted to inuence Council's decision with respect to
bottled water, after voting on these items. According to a Toronto Sun report, for example, on
October 22, 2012, he stated: "Yeah, I'd like to lift that ban... When we're going to do it, I'm not
quite sure but sooner rather than later." A copy of this article ("Toronto Mayor Rob Ford vows
to nix water bottle ban") is marked as Exhibit "M" to this afdavit.
Initiative to reduce food packaging waste
24. The same 2008 item that dealt with bottled water, item PW20.1 (Exhibit "J"), dealt with
food packaging as follows:
9. The City of Toronto request food service retail representatives, food service trade associations
and/or other food service stakeholders who currently use plastic take out food containers and operate in the
City, to develop, by December 31, 2010, a reusable and/or rellable take out food container, or ^e out food
service protocol that does not conict with any regulation under the Health Protection and Promotion Act,
which will allow customers to choose a reusable option for take-out food packaging.
10. The General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services be requested to report back to Council
by January 1,2011, on the progress of Part 9, above, and on the use of bans and/or nancial tools on plastic take
out food containers that may be appropriate at that time, the report to also include information as it pertains to
food safety and cross-contamination risk of using customer supplied reHllable containers
11. The City of Toronto ban the sale or distribution of plastic take-out food containers (as dened in
Appendix C) that are not compatible with the City of Toronto Blue Bin program by February 28,2011.
12. The General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services work with industry stakeholders to
achieve a goal of having 50% of plastic takeout food containers used in Toronto, from a baseline of 2008 usage,
compatible with the City of Toronto Blue Bin program by December 31, 2009.
13. The General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services be requested to report back to Council
if the interim target of 50% compatibly is not achieved by December 31,2009.
14. The General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services continue to consult with multiple
stakeholders reecting the types and sizes of businesses in the retail industry through the implementation of
t hese r ecommendat i ons. . . .
- 7 -
0 0 0 0 1 , 6
25. The aspects of item PW20.1 relating to food packaging would directly affect restaurant
businesses in Toronto. According to the Globe and Mail report (Exhibit "G"), Cara Operations
Ltd., which owns Swiss Chalet and Harvey's, is a customer of the respondents' business.
PW20.1 would therefore affect Cara's interests. The relationship of this company to the
respondents' business was unknown to the public. Although, as described at paragraphs 10-11
above, the respondent believes that he may be in a "conict with almost every business or every
person in this city" as a result of his business's success, the respondents also regard their clients'
identities as personal and private.
26. Similarly, the respondents' business itself, as a manufacturer of packaging, had a direct
interest in the outcome of this debate, which was not declared in 2008.
27. There is no record that the respondent Robert Ford disclosed his interest in the food
packaging issues, including the amount of business his companies transact with Cara Operations,
or other restaurant chains which may do business with the respondents.
Healthy vending criteria
28. Prior to the 2010 municipal elections, the Government Management Committee and City
Council each considered a proposal for healthy vending criteria in city-owned cold drink vending
machines. This proposal would have required that, over ve years, vending machines gradually
shift to 100% "healthy vending" {i.e., selling only healthy drinks such as milk and juice, as
opposed to energy drinks and soda drinks), as well as requiring limits on the size of non-water
beverage containers. The history of agenda item GM31.19 is marked as Exhibit "N" to this
a f d a v i t .
00001 7
- 8 -
29. Council failed to reach a decision and instead extended existing drink vending contracts
for a one-year period, deferring the matter until after the 2010 election.
30. On March 29,2011, the Government Management Committee revisited the issue of drink
vending machine contracts in agenda item GM2.16 (see Exhibit "L", above). The Committee
recommended that Council direct, inter alia, that the criteria for cold drink vending sales be
limited to 50% healthy vending. The Committee did not adopt Councillor Pam McConnell's
motion to amend the agenda item to phase in 100% healthy vending within ve years.
31. Before item GM2.16 returned to Council, the respondent Douglas Ford Jr. publicly
opposed the healthy vending initiative. According to a National Post report, he stated: "Once
you get rid of all the sodas and the water, are you going to go after my butter tarts downstairs,
too?...Where does it stop? Where does the socialism stop?" To emphasize the point, he then
"took a swig of Coke". A copy of this article ("City arena pop ban zzes out") is marked as
Exhibit "O" to this afdavit.
32. Item GM2.16 came before Council on April 12 and 13, 2011. Council requested that the
criteria for cold drink vending sales and distributions be limited to 50% healthy vending. The
history of this agenda item (Exhibit "L") includes a letter from Nestle Waters' Director of
Corporate Affairs among the background information and communications before Council.
33. The respondents were present at Council for this decision, according to the history of
agenda item GM2.16. There is no record that the respondents disclosed their business's interest
in the drinks vending issues, including the amount of business their companies transact with
Coca-Cola and Nestle.
- 9 -
0 0 0 0 1 8
34. Both respondents voted on the item. The respondents also voted against Councillor Paula
Fletcher's motion to amend the agenda item to phase in 100% healthy vending within ve years,
which also would have affected the interests of the respondents' business and its clients.
35. On October 12, 2011, the Government Management Committee recommended, imder
agenda item GM8.8, that Council delegate authority to the General Manager of Parks, Forestry
and Recreation to negotiate and execute a license agreement with The Pepsi Beverage Company
to supply cold drinks in vending machines. (Coca-Cola Refreshments Canada was one of two
other companies that submitted a proposal for this contract.) The Committee adopted this
recommendation. The respondent Douglas Ford Jr. participated in the vote. The history of
agenda item GM8.8 is marked as Exhibit "P" to this afdavit.
36. The respondent Douglas Ford Jr. attempted to inuence councillors on the healthy drinks
policy. The Globe and Mail reported that, at Government Management Committee, the
respondent Douglas Ford Jr. took several minutes to criticize the healthy-drinks policy for
requiring the successful bidder to supply 50% healthy drinks: "we have the nanny state social
engineering, telling us to force-feed [healthy drinks to] kids... Why do we even need to be in the
vending business. Let Mrs. Jones decide what Little Johnny is going to drink or eat. Don't try to
force it or dictate it." A copy of this article ("Doug Ford rips council for healthy-drinks policy")
is marked as Exhibit "Q" to this afdavit.
37. There is no record that the respondent Douglas Ford Jr. disclosed his business's interest in
the drinks vending issue. Additionally, there is no record that the respondent Douglas Ford Jr.
disclosed that Coca-Cola was a client of his business. Instead, he participated in discussions
00001 9
- 1 0 -
with respect to, and voted on, a beverage-supply agreement for which Coca-Cola Refreshments
Canada submitted a bid.
Toronto Parking Authority appointment
38. On September 22, 2011, Council considered civic appointments, including the
appointment of Darius Mosun to the Toronto Parking Authority (TPA) board. The history of
agenda item CA9.5 is marked as Exhibit "R" to this afdavit.
39. The Globe and Mail report referred to above (Exhibit "G") indicates that Mr. Mosun's
design rm, Soheil Mosun Ltd., was a customer of the respondents' business. This working
relationship was unknown to the public. Although, as described at paragraphs 10-11 above, the
respondents believe that they may be in a "conict with almost every business or every person in
this city" as a result of their business's success, they also regard their clients' identities as
personal and private.
40. The Council record for CA9.5 indicates that the respondents were present at Council
when it adopted the Civic Appointments Committee's recommendations with respect to the TPA
board; however, there is no record that the respondents disclosed their business's dealings with
Mr. Mosun' s rm.
41. Both respondents voted in favour of appointing Mr. Mosun as a TPA director. Prior to
this vote, both respondents voted against a motion by Councillor Shelley Carroll, to refer the
TPA appointments item back to the Civic Appointments Committee for further consideration.
42. In September 2012, Toronto's Ombudsman, Fiona Crean, released a report critical of the
public appointments process under the respondent Robert Ford's mayoralty. She concluded that
- 1 1 -
0 0 0 0 2 0
the policy in place for civic appointments was not followed, and that the Mayor's ofce
interfered in the process. She criticized the screening process for conicts of interest and she
reiterated that councillors are restricted from endorsing candidates in accordance with Council's
Code of Conduct and Council rules. A copy of the Ombudsman's report. An Investigation into
the Administration of the Public Appointments Policy, is marked as Exhibit "S" to this afdavit.
43. The Ombudsman's investigation and a report from the Toronto Star revealed that the
respondent Robert Ford circulated a list of preferred candidates to the city manager's ofce and
to like-minded councillors. A copy of the Toronto Star report on the Mayor's preferred
appointments ("Allies' ofces got Mayor Rob Ford's list of job picks, emails show") is marked
as Exhibit "T" to this afdavit.
44. It was not known at the time of the appointments that the respondent Robert Ford was
pressuring councillors to appoint Mr. Mosun. It was not known that Mr. Mosun's rm was a
client of the respondents' business until the Globe and Mail published its August 20, 2014 article.
Porter Airlines advocacy with respect to its operations at Toronto's island airport
45. The Globe and Mail report (Exhibit "G") indicates that Porter Airlines was a customer of
the respondents' business. In particular, the report indicates that Porter is one of about 160 client
accounts at Deco assigned to the respondent Robert Ford, and that salespeople (including the
respondents) receive commissions whenever one of their accounts places an order. This was
unknown to the public. Although, as described at paragraphs 10-11 above, the respondents
believe that they may be in a "conict with almost every business or every person in this city" as
a result of their business's success, they also regard their clients' identities as personal and
private.
000021
- 1 2 -
46. During their time in ofce, the respondents have repeatedly supported Porter Airlines,
and advocated policies that would benet Porter. For example, in 2011, the respondents voted at
a City Coimcil meeting in favour of a resolution permitting the construction of an underground
pedestrian tunnel to the airport that serves as Porter Airline's hub.
47. In April 2013, Porter announced plans to y jets into and out of this airport. The
respondents eagerly provided their support. For example, on April 11, 2013, the Toronto Star
published a story about the respondent Robert Ford's support for Porter Airlines' proposal to
employ commercial jets at the island airport. A copy of this article ("Mayor Rob Ford backs jets
at Toronto's island airport") is marked as Exhibit "U" to this afdavit.
48. The Toronto Star article quoted the respondent Robert Ford as saying:
The extension of the runway, obviously there's an agreement through three levels that
we have to obviously reopen. Overall I don't see this being a bad thing, I think it's a
good thing. ... 1 don't see really what the downfall is. This is great... Porter's been a
huge asset to the city... I support [Porter's president and CEO] Mr. Deluce and like I
said Billy Bishop airport and Porter Airlines. Now, if they want to expand, and you
know it helps out people and it helps out businesses and it creates jobs, there's no
downfal l to i t.
49. According to the Globe and Mail, Robert Deluce, the president and CEO of Porter
Airlines, met privately with the respondent Robert Ford on February 12, 2013 and with ofcials
in the mayor's ofce on March 19, 2013 to discuss Porter's plan to extend the main nmway and
operate commercial jets out of the island airport. These meetings were not initially recorded in
the lobbyist registry, though the registry has since been updated. A copy of the Lobbyist
Registry's entries for lobbying by or on behalf of Porter Airlines, subject matter registration
numbers SM18774, SM18775 and SM18792, are marked, respectively, as Exhibits "V", "W" and
"X" to this afdavit. A copy of the Globe and Mail article ("Ford had advance brieng on
airport expansion plans") is marked as Exhibit "Y" to this afdavit.
0 0 0 0 2 2
50. On April 22, 2013, Mr. Deluce wrote to the respondent Robert Ford with respect to
Porter's plans to expand its operations at the island airport. His letter described Porter's
conditional agreement to purchase jets that were not permitted to y into and out of the island
airport under existing regulations. In order to realize Porter's expansion plans, he requested that
the parties to the Tripartite Agreement governing the airport consider two amendments: (1) to
exempt the jets that Porter had conditionally purchased from the existing commercial jet ban in
place at the airport, and (2) to approve an extension of the main runway by 168 meters on each
end, into the water. He explained that the timelines for deliveries of the jets required the city's
approval in July 2013. A copy of Mr. Deluce's letter is marked as Exhibit "Z" to this afdavit.
51. On the same day, the respondent Robert Ford wrote to the city's Executive Committee to
recommend that Porter's request be considered on an expedited basis, stating as follows: "I feel it
is important to start the reporting process as quickly as possible. Therefore, I am requesting
Executive Committee add this item to its agenda for April 23, 2013..." A copy of Robert Ford's
letter to the Executive Committee is marked as Exhibit "AA" to this afdavit.
52. At the respondent Robert Ford's behest, the Executive Committee considered Porter's
request at its April 23, 2013 meeting. The respondent Robert Ford chaired this meeting. The
Executive Committee recommended that Council request the City Manager to report to the July
3, 2013 Executive Committee meeting with advice on Porter's request to amend the Tripartite
Agreement. The history of agenda item EX31.27 is marked as Exhibit "BB" to this afdavit.
53. Thus, the respondent Robert Ford attended and chaired a meeting of the Executive
Committee at which it considered the Porter matter. There is no record that he disclosed his
0 0 0 0 2 3 - 1 4 -
business's interest in this matter; however, he attempted to inuence Committee members, and
actively took part in discussion of, and voted on, the matter.
54. Item EX31.27 came before Council on May 7, 2013, and Council adopted the Executive
Committee's recommendations. During Councils' meeting, the respondents both took part in
discussions of item EX31.27:
(a) at around 8:41pm, the respondent Douglas Ford Jr. stated:
... Well, folks, we have a service that people want in the city. Right? We have a
market that can sustain it. In all my years in business, I've never seen a group of
people attack an entrepreneur - attack his character and integrity - a man that put a lot
on the line during the recession, that took a risk, that another airline couldn't succeed.
And he's been successful. This isn't, this isn't about Mr. Deluce right now. This is
about the 2 million people, or close to 2 million people, that use the island airport
annually. This is about the $2 billion that goes back into our economy every year
because we had a risk taker. This is about the 2,500 jobs that this airline are
employing people. This is about the thousand additional Jobs right here at risk. Folks,
I've been to a lot of cities around the world. I've never seen a city that has shot down
a business and an entrepreneur coming to a city, saying I'm going to create a thousand
new Jobs. What, what this comes down to is 500 metres within a boundary that exists?
I've own Porter numerous times. I've, I've stood on the edge of the water. Maybe my
hearing is not as good as everyone else's, but 1 can't even hear these planes! I can't
hear the planes. ... Again, this, this comes down to a company that wants to create
Jobs. Wants to make it exible for the residents - not Just here in Toronto, but the
GTA. I spoke to a couple of businesspeople that ew in, they said this is the only
airport you could literally work and live downtown and walk to the airport. This is
about making the airline industry more competitive. That when we go to book a trip
on spring break, we're stuck with three airlines right now. How you drive down the
cost is competition. You drive down the cost with competition, and Porter has proved
to this city - and across the country as far as they can y - that there is an alternative.
And a better alternative, with better service....
(b) at around 8:46pm, the respondent Robert Ford stated:
... Um, folks, this, I believe - from what I've heard from the questions, the briengs
that I've had with staff - this is going to benet us. This is going to be huge for the
city. It's gonna give people choices. It's gonna bring in tourism. That, that puts more
money in all our pockets, folks. It's, it's a huge asset. I'm Just asking you to support
the report. If it comes back, and you don't like it, don't vote for it. But 1 think we
should at least keep the door open, let Mr. Pennachetti and his staff do their work, and
then in July, it will come to the Executive...
- 1 5 -
0 0 0 0 2 4
55. Throughout the May 7 Council meeting, the respondents voted in Porter's interest, as
detailed in the history of agenda item EX31.27 (Exhibit "BB"). In particular, the respondents
voted in Porter's interests, on the following amendments:
(a) against an amendment that Council delete the recommendations of the Executive
Committee, and instead deny Porter's request for an exemption to the commercial jet ban
and for an extension to the airport's runway, as proposed by Councillor McConnell;
(b) against an amendment that any of the studies to be conducted with respect to
Porter's request exclude any airport expansion into the Toronto Island Park system south
of the current southern boundaries of the airport, as proposed by Councillor Adam
Vaughan;
(c) against an amendment that any of the requested studies to be conducted exclude
changes to the existing noise guidelines for individual airplanes or amendments to the
provisions and guidelines that set the Noise Exposure Forecast contours currently in
place, as proposed by Councillor Vaughan;
(d) against an amendment that Council advise the Toronto Port Authority and the
federal Minister of Transportation of Council's expectation that all protections and
provisions for General Aviation govemed and protected by the Tripartite Agreement be
upheld and enforced by the Toronto Port Authority, as proposed by Councillor Vaughan;
and
(e) in favour of an amendment authorizing Deputy City Manager John Livey to enter
into sole source agreements if necessary for external consulting services related to the
studies and work program described in Mr. Livey's May 6, 2013 report ("Request from
0 0 0 0 2 5
- 1 6 -
Porter Airlines for Exemption to Commercial Jet Ban at Billy Bishop Toronto City
Airport"), as proposed by Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday.
56. Finally, the respondents voted in favour of adopting item EX31.27, including the
Executive Committee's recommendation that Council request the City Manager to report back to
the Executive Committee with advice on Porter's request to amend the Tripartite Agreement. In
particular, the respondents voted to shift third-party obligations from Porter Airlines to Toronto
Port Authority to pay for Phase 1 of the city's evaluation of Porter's request, then estimated at
$275,000.
57. Entries from the lobbyist registry (Exhibits "V", "W" and "X") show that during the
period from January 1, 2013 to May 7, 2013, lobbyists for or on behalf of Porter met or
communicated with the respondent Robert Ford, or members of his ofce, on at least 14 dates:
February 12; March 19; April 9, 12, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, and 28; and May 2, 3, 6, and 7. The
entries also show that during the same period, lobbyists for or on behalf of Porter met or
communicated with the respondent Douglas Ford Jr., or members of his ofce, on at least 12
dates: January 14; March 4, 10,13,20,28; April 8, 9,19,29; and May 6 and 7.
58. On July 3, 2013, the Executive Committee considered item EX33.18, in which it received
the Deputy City Manager, Cluster B's June 17, 2013 update on the review of Porter's request to
amend the Tripartite Agreement. The Executive Committee voted to request the Deputy City
Manager to expand the study area for his trafc study. The history of agenda item EX33.18 is
mar ked as Exhi bi t " CC" t o t hi s af davi t .
59. The respondent Robert Ford attended and chaired this meeting as a member of the
Executive Committee. There is no record that he disclosed his business's interest in this matter;
- 1 7 -
0 0 0 0 2 6
however, he voted in favour of receiving the report, and against the amendment to expand the
study area of the trafc study.
60. On September 24, 2013, the Executive Committee considered item EX34.14, in which
the Committee received two further updates from the Deputy City Manager on the review of
Porter's request to amend the Tripartite Agreement. The respondent Robert Ford chaired this
meeting. The record shows that the Executive Committee considered an email from Mr. Deluce,
dated September 18, 2013. The history of agenda item EX34.14 is marked as Exhibit "DD" to
t hi s af dav i t .
61. There is no record that the respondent Robert Ford disclosed his business's interest in this
matter; however, he voted to limit the length of public presentations, and to limit questions of
speakers, staff, and other speaking time. He also voted against amendments proposed by
Councillor Peter Milczyn requiring the Deputy City Manager to measure and report on the noise
impact of jets, and requesting that the Deputy City Manager study where and how new fuel tanks
would be accommodated and provide the regulatory requirements for any new eld tank farm.
62. On December 5, 2013, the Executive Committee voted to defer item EX36.7, which
related to Porter's request to amend the Tripartite Agreement, and public presentations on item
EX36.7. The history of agenda item EX36.7 is marked as Exhibit "EE" to this afdavit.
63. The respondent Robert Ford attended this meeting as a member of the Executive
Committee. There is no record that the respondent Robert Ford disclosed his business's interest
in this matter; however, he voted against deferring the item.
0 0 0 0 2 7
- 1 8 -
64. On March 25, 2014, the Executive Committee considered a series of recommendations
from the Deputy City Manager's March 19, 2014 report, under agenda item EX40.1. This report
provided an update on the city's continued review of Porter's April 2013 request to amend the
Tripartite Agreement to permit jets and extend the runway at the island airport. A copy of this
report ("Request to Amend the Tripartite Agreement for Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport -
Supplementary Report") is marked as Exhibit "FF" to this afdavit The history of agenda item
EX40.1 is marked as Exhibit "GG" to this afdavit.
65. The respondent Robert Ford attended the March 25, 2014 meeting and voted in Porter's
interest as follows:
(a) against an amendment that Council direct that no negotiations to re-open the
Tripartite Agreement be considered at that time, as proposed by Councillor Milczyn;
(b) against an amendment to restrict the airport's hours of operation to achieve an
earlier curfew and to reduce the airport's hours of operation on weekends, as conditions
precedent for the agreement to manage growth at the airport, as proposed by Councillor
Milczyn; and
(c) against an amendment that Council direct that conunercial jet-powered aircrafts
be limited to 25% of daily ights (slots), as proposed by Coimcillor David Shiner.
66. In addition, the respondent Robert Ford moved to amend item EX40.1, to delete
recommendation 5 from the Deputy City Manager's March 19, 2014 report {i.e., that "City
Council request the Deputy City Manager, Cluster B, to report back to the Executive Committee
with the outcome of the negotiations including all recommended Tripartite Agreement
amendments"), and replace it with text authorizing city ofcials "to enter into all necessary
- 1 9 -
00CG28
agreements, to provide for the addition of certain jet aircraft that meet noise restrictions
contained within the Tripartite Agreement, and the construction of the accompanying runway
extensions", among other things.
67. The respondent Robert Ford voted in favour of his own motion to amend item EX40.1,
which motion ultimately lost. He then voted in favour of adopting item EX40.1 as amended.
68. Item EX40.1 came before Council on April 1, 2014, for consideration. The respondents
attended this Council meeting and voted in Porter's interest as follows:
(a) against an amendment stating that Council's approval of item EX40.1 does not in
any way imply Council's support for or against the airport expansion or the introduction
of Jets, as proposed by Councillor Pam McConneli;
(b) against an amendment that Council direct the Deputy City Manager to include as
part of the negotiations that "any costs of the infrastructure associated with amendments
to the Tripartite Agreement shall be bome as a per passenger fee, a landing fee or any
other airport fees with no costs to the city", as proposed by Councillor Mike Del Grande;
(c) against an amendment that Council direct the Deputy City Manager to include as
part of the negotiations that "any costs of the infrastructure associated with amendments
to the Tripartite Agreement shall beat no cost to the city and not from any funding
envelopes available to the City including the Build Canada Fund", as proposed by
Councillor Josh Matlow;
(d) against an amendment that added further restrictions on the island airport's hours
of operation to achieve an earlier curfew and a reduction of hours of operation for the
0 0 0 G 2 9
- 2 0 -
island airport on weekends, as conditions precedent for the agreement to manage growth
at the airport, as proposed by Councillor Milczyn;
(e) against an amendment that Council request the Deputy City Manager to review all
existing safety documents related to the island airport and report to Council with a
comprehensive review of all Transport Canada exemptions and rationale for these
exemptions, and that Council request Transport Canada to communicate any future safety
exemptions related to runway expansion and the rationale for these exemptions, as
proposed by Councillor Mike Layton;
(f) in favour of an amendment that Council direct the Deputy City Manager to ensure
that any potential changes to the Tripartite Agreement are not dependent on any
particular airline carrier or its commercial arrangements, including an initial public
offering, as proposed by Councillor Michelle Berardinetti;
(g) against an amendment directing that the Airport Master Plan and Environmental
Assessment include a review and analysis of the impact that the airport's potential
expansion might have on the bird populations in the inner harbour area, and the potential
danger that existing bird populations and bird colonies may pose to air trafc and air
passengers, as well as directing the Deputy City Manager to consult organizations
including Bird Studies Canada, Animal Alliance of Canada, Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority and the Toronto Field Naturalists during the preparation of the
Airport Master Plan and Environmental Assessment, as proposed by Councillor Glenn De
Baeremaeker;
- 2 1 -
0 0 0 0 3 0
(h) against an amendment directing the Deputy City Manager to include in his report
back the consideration of the health impacts identied by the Medical Ofcer of Health,
as proposed by Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam;
(i) against an amendment requiring the Deputy City Manager to inform Council if he
becomes aware of any ownership changes of the air carriers or the airport facilities, as
proposed by Councillor Adam Vaughan;
(j) against an amendment that Council direct the Deputy City Manager to ensure that
the creation of a new road extension of Dan Leckie Way not be included in any
negotiations or plans to facilitate airport expansion, as proposed by Councillor Vaughan;
and
(k) against a motion to refer item HL27.3 (Board of Health recommendations with
respect to the expansion of the island airport and the introduction of commercial jets) to
the Deputy City Manager, as moved by Councillor Colle, and against amendments to
Councillor Colle's motion as proposed by Councillor Wong-Tam and Councillor Denzil
Minnan-Wong with respect to this matter.
69. The respondents voted in favour of adopting EX40.1 to request amendments to the
Tripartite Agreement.
70. There is no record that the respondents disclosed their business's interest in any of these
matters concerning Porter's expansion proposal or changes to the Tripartite Agreement. Instead,
the respondents took part in discussions of, and votes on, these matters.
71. It was not known at the time of these votes that Porter was a customer of the respondents'
business, that the respondent Robert Ford had been the salesperson responsible for Porter's
000031
- 2 2 -
account at the respondents' business, or that the respondent Robert Ford collected commissions
for sales to Porter.
Failure to declare pecuniary interest with respect to the Industrial Waste Surcharge
Agreement
72. On August 13, 2014, I was in Toronto City Hall at the same time as a meeting of the
Public Works and Infrastructure Committee. Out of curiosity, I reviewed a staff report entitled
"Sewers and Water Supply By-laws 2013 Compliance and Enforcement Annual Report", dated
July 28, 2014, which was on the published agenda for the meeting. This staff report and its
appendices are marked as Exhibit "HH" to this afdavit.
73. Appendix C to the Toronto Water staff report lists "Organizations invoiced for Industrial
Waste Surcharge Agreements, or Permits, as of December 31, 2013". Deco Adhesive Products
(1985) Ltd. and Apollo Health and Beauty Care are both listed as organizations invoiced for
industrial waste surcharge agreements ("IWSAs") or permits.
74. Apollo Health and Beauty Care is a client of the respondents' business. The Globe and
Mail reported that by 2012 Apollo had become one of Deco's most valuable clients, and that the
newspaper's sources estimate that Apollo's business amounted to approximately $1 million in
annual revenue for the respondents' business. Copies of the Globe and Mail articles ("Toronto
Mayor Rob Ford arranged meeting between client of family rm, water ofcials", dated
November 26, 2012, and "Rob Ford asked city staff to consider expropriation to help client",
dated September 8,2014) are marked, respectively, as Exhibits "11" and "JJ" to this afdavit.
75. Further, Appendix D to the Toronto Water staff report indicates that Apollo is subject to
three compliance plan agreements. These agreements give companies additional time to obtain
- 2 3 -
000032
equipment or implement measures to remedy violations of the city's sewer by-law, providing
some temporary leniency to companies with respect to the pollutants they discharge into the
sewage system. In 2013, there was a total of 43 compliance plan agreements with the city.
76. The respondents have already been the subject of complaints to the Integrity
Conunissioner with respect to their alleged inuence peddling in favour of Apollo. The
complaints alleged, inter alia, that the respondents arranged or attended meetings with top city
ofcials at Apollo's plant to discuss a sewage-spill investigation, and that the mayor assisted
Apollo in its efforts to lobby for a property-tax decrease. The respondents did not disclose their
business relationship with Apollo when they arranged and attended meetings for Apollo's
benet, or assisted in Apollo's lobbying efforts; nor did they do so at the August 13, 2014
meeting of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee.
77. On November 27, 2012, Council adopted item EX25.9 as amended, which affected fees
charged pursuant to IWSAs. The history of agenda item EX25.9 is marked as Exhibit "KK" to
thi s afdavi t.
78. The history of this agenda item shows that Councillors Layton and Perks declared interest
in this agenda item; each has a spouse who works for an organization which receives grants to
deliver, or which oversees, a city program that designates Blue Flag beaches. As a result, the
portion of the item addressing the Blue Flag program was voted on separately, with Councillors
Layton and Perks absenting themselves for this vote.
79. Although the respondents attended this meeting, there is no record that the respondents
disclosed that they had an interest in this matter by virtue of their business's participation in the
IWSA program. Additionally, there is no record that the respondents disclosed that they had an
0 0 0 0 3 3 - 2 4 -
interest in this matter by virtue of the participation of their business's client, Apollo, in the IWSA
p r o g r a m.
80. The respondents voted to adopt item EX25.9 as amended.
81. On December 17, 2013, Council adopted item EX36.17 as amended. The history of
agenda item EX36.17 is marked as Exhibit "LL" to this afdavit.
82. EX36.17 included new service fees for inspections of sewage works and for sanitary
d i s c h a r g e p e r m i t s , a n d p r o p o s e d t h a t : ,
1. Ci t y Counci l approve: . . .
d. Effective January 1, 2014, Chapter 441 - Fees and Charges, Appendix D, Schedule 3,
Wastewater Services be amended to include the new service fees for CCTV inspections of sewage
works impacted by private construction, based on actual costs, and for sanitary discharge permits,
as well as clarication of the existing minimum fees and fee basis for industrial waste surcharge
agreements and permits and sanitary discharge agreements, as set out in Appendix D to the report
(October 30, 2013) from the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Ofcer, and the General
Manager, Toronto Water;
83. Coimcillor Layton moved to amend item EX36.17 as follows, in a manner that would
increase the fees owing by participants of the IWSA program to allow full cost recovery for
wastewater services provided by the City:
That City Council direct that, effective April 1, 2014, City Council approve that the industrial
waste surcharge program formula for the calculation of surcharge fees be applied to all treatable
parameters that exceed the sewers by-law limits, instead of only the one parameter that exceeds
the sewer by-law limits by the greatest amount, allowing full cost recovery for the wastewater
services provided by the City, such surcharge to be phased in over a six year period to mitigate
impacts to existing companies.
84. Speaker Frances Nunziata held this motion to be out of order, as the amendments were
not subject to public notice. Councillor Perks challenged the Speaker's ruling, and a majority of
councillors voted to uphold her decision (i.e., not to allow an amendment by Councillor Layton
to adjust how fees are charged imder IWSAs).
- 2 5 -
0 0 0 0 3 4
85. Again, the history of this agenda item shows that Councillors Layton and Perks each
declared an interest in this agenda item because their spouses work for organizations that receive
grants from the city.
86. There is no record that the respondents disclosed that they had an interest in this matter
by virtue of their business's participation in the IWSA program. Additionally, there is no record
that the respondents disclosed that they had an interest in this matter by virtue of the participation
of their business's client, Apollo, in the IWSA program.
87. The respondents voted in favour of upholding the Speaker's ruling. Subsequently, the
respondents voted against Council's motion to adopt item EX36.17.
Knowledge of the facts deposed to in this afdavit
88. Until I read the Globe and Mail report (Exhibit "G"), it had not come to my knowledge
that the respondents' business clients included Nestle Canada, Coca Cola, Cara Operations Ltd.,
Porter Airlines, or Soheil Mosun Ltd.
0 0 0 0 3 5
- 2 6 -
89. On August 13, 2014, I reviewed the agenda for the Public Works and Infrastructtire
Committee being held on that day, and read the Toronto Water staff report and its appendices
(Exhibit "HH") for the rst time. Until then, it had not come to my knowledge that the
respondents' business and Apollo Health and Beauty Care are enrolled in the IWSA program.
M
A
C
D
O
N
A
L
D
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
R
O
B
E
R
T

F
O
R
D

e
t

a
l
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
O
N
T
A
R
I
O
S
U
P
E
R
I
O
R

C
O
U
R
T

O
F

J
U
S
T
I
C
E
P
r
o
c
e
e
d
i
n
g

c
o
m
m
e
n
c
e
d

a
t

T
o
r
o
n
t
o
A
F
F
I
D
A
V
I
T

O
F
J
U
D
I
T
H

A
N
N

M
A
C
D
O
N
A
L
D
(
A
f

r
m
e
d

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
8
,
2
0
1
4
)
D
E
W
A
R
T

G
L
E
A
S
O
N

L
L
P
L
a
w
y
e
r
s
3
6
6

A
d
e
l
a
i
d
e

S
t
r
e
e
t

W
e
s
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
2
T
o
r
o
n
t
o

O
N

M
5
V

1
R
9
S
e
a
n

D
e
w
a
r
t
,

L
S
U
C

#
:

2
6
7
0
8
B
T
i
m

G
l
e
a
s
o
n
,

L
S
U
C

#
:

4
3
9
2
7
A
J
o
n
a
t
h
a
n

S
c
h
a
c
h
t
e
r
,

L
S
U
C

#
:

6
3
8
5
8
C
T
e
l
:

(
4
1
6
)

9
7
1
-
8
0
0
0
F
a
x
:

(
4
1
6
)

9
7
1
-
8
0
0
1
L
a
w
y
e
r
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
l
a
i
n
t
i
f
f