Sudbury Lawyer Fetish-Fails to cooperate with Provincial Ombudsman

3. City of Greater Sudbury Add comments

Dec 12/12 Marin said “There were two reasons we didn’t get cooperation from city councilors,” “One is that they wanted to come in with the city solicitor. Which they can’t do. The solicitor works for the city and he can’t represent a bunch of councilors, while being true to all of them. At one point, the city solicitor insisted that not only he be present during all the interviews, but that we couldn’t talk to his clients directly (and) we would have to submit questions through him. “The city solicitor is in a conflict of interest. In this case, he ran interference with our investigation. On behalf of Sudburians we apologize to the Ombudsman for the mentality of some of city councilors. There was also a poor show of support from citizens. GSPS (council’s muscle) have been known to intimidate witnesses before testifying in Sudbury courts and possibly citizens from attending to show support. Their influence can afford some councilors the resources and protection they need to oppose the Ombudsman.

Marin politely called Kett and Canapini both liars when he replied, “That’s what I was told, I received a letter to that effect. You might want to take that up with your city solicitor,” After being caught in a lie and without addressing Marins “letter”, Kett said neither he or Canapini have any “issue with the Ombudsman’s office…but have an issue with Marin personally”… The outcome of any Ombudsman investigation including Elton fiasco is a matter of public record.

…Canapini asked the Ombudsman to show him where it says in the Ombudsman Act he cannot represent these councillors”. Its not in the Ombudsman Act because municipalities are EXPECTED to cooperate with the Provincially appointed and impartial Ombudsman . Refusal to cooperate and retaining legal counsel implies there is something to hide … Canapini is wrong when he says the party being investigated is the ENTIRE council and not for individual councillors. He self proclaims “I am the lawyer for council”. In fact, he would only be the lawyer for the councillors that are in support of continuing closed door meetings and opposing the Ombudsman. The council members who did not participate or support closed doors meetings don’t need a lawyer. Therefore Canapini.s complaint to the Law society was frivolous, vexatious and a further waste of taxpayers money.

So when the Ombudsman asks.. “What is different in Sudbury? Why the lawyer fetish? What law do you have that is different from the rest of Ontario?” Answer … Sudbury is a cesspool of lawyers each with several “puppets” to mask their conflict of interest in and out of council. Marin said “the greatest power his office has is moral suasion”: And if that doesn’t work, more inevitably come to the conclusion that Sudbury is a village without morals to be known as LawLawLand … run by unaccountable, legally protected incompetents who provide municipal, police and CAS services to Sudburians.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

WP Theme & Icons by N.Design Studio
Entries RSS Comments RSS Log in