Meeting’s purpose intended to reduce rancour among council members, court hears

Poissant testified earlier this week that Probe offered him a vote trade — Probe’s support on a proposed Suncor development on land owned by Poissant’s parents in exchange for the reeve doing what he could to bring an end to an issue involving the reimbursement of legal fees to several councillors.

Court heard Probe and others recouped legal fees they paid in the course of the 2014 Barclay Inquiry. The issue became a contentious one in the RM, causing a split in council and among ratepayers, with some disapproving of the fact the RM reimbursed the councillors. Probe was reimbursed for approximately $50,000, court heard.

Meanwhile, the proposed Suncor deal came with its own issues, making it the second of the two most contentious topics before council at that time. In Probe’s view, as he testified this week, the Suncor proposal was fraught with safety concerns located, as it would have been, next to an alllevel crossing at the busy junction of Fleming Road and the TransCanada Highway.

Probe denied having offered Poissant a vote trade, instead telling the court he’d approached the reeve in the hopes of helping to usher the embattled RM into more harmonious times.

Probe insisted he’d offered his support on the Suncor deal — until then withheld — if safety concerns were addressed, not in exchange for a personal benefit in terms of Poissant’s backing him on the legal fees issue.

But Crown prosecutor David Belanger argued the words heard spoken by Probe on the tape — “I’m not going to do one without the other” — back up the Crown’s theory of the case.

Belanger said no further interpretation is needed to understand what is meant by that statement — in the Crown’s view, that Probe wouldn’t support Suncor without Poissant’s backing on the legal fees issue.

But defence lawyer Aaron Fox said the words, taken in a different context, could also mean his client wasn’t prepared to back Suncor without first seeing movement on the safety concerns.

Questions posed by Elson to the lawyers suggest Probe’s recorded statement and its meaning will play a crucial role in the deciding of the case.

“This whole case is about words, and it’s about words said and how one interprets words said,” Elson said.