Contrecoeur trial hears first witnesses

On Tuesday, the Contrecoeur fraud trial heard from three investigators who helped execute search warrants at the offices of Union Montreal — the party that ruled Montreal city hall for a decade — and at three private companies.

The search of Union Montreal was in 2013, while the searches of a construction firm, an urban planning firm and an accounting firm were in 2010.

The three Sûreté du Québec officers, one of whom has since retired, were the first witnesses to testify in the case against the former No. 2 politician at city hall, Frank Zampino; businessman Paolo Catania; and four past executives of Catania’s former construction firm, Construction Frank Catania et Associés Inc.

They were arrested in May 2012 on conspiracy and fraud charges relating to the 2007 sale of cityowned land known as Faubourg Contrecoeur to Catania’s firm at a fraction of its municipal assessment to build a residential development valued at $300 million.

The Crown called upon the officers to identify a series of documents the police seized during the raids, which the Crown wanted to enter into evidence.

The dozens of exhibits included entries from Zampino’s agenda while he was chairman of the executive committee, the top decision-making body at city hall. They even included some public records, such as Union Montreal’s financial statements from 2005 to 2009 and an annual report for the city’s real estate arm, the Société d’habitation et de développement de Montréal (SHDM).

The city mandated the SHDM to manage the sale of the Contrecoeur land.

However, defence lawyers objected to having many of the exhibits admitted into evidence, in part because the dates on some of the records fall outside the periods mentioned in the indictments against the accused.

The defence also objected to some documents being entered into evidence because, the lawyers argued, the officers can’t testify to the authenticity of their content.

Court of Quebec Judge Yvan Poulin, who is presiding over the trial, said he would take the objections under advisement.

However, Poulin also questioned the Crown’s approach, saying the prosecution would normally enter exhibits into evidence when non-police witnesses, who had a first-hand role in producing or handling the documents, are called to testify.