Bid made to quash casino
Opponent files application for court order to halt casino rezoning over closeddoor council meeting
A citizen is taking the city to court over a plan to allow a new casino in Peterborough, arguing that the site selection came of “a tainted process” that began in secret.
Roy Brady, a vocal opponent of the planned new casino, has filed an application for a court order quashing council’s rezoning of a property at Crawford Dr. and The Parkway for a new casino.
Brady is also seeking an interim in junction to keep the city from allowing the project togo any further.
Great Canadian Gaming Corp., a private company based in Vancouver, would like to start building the casino this summer and open it in mid-2018.
The court document argues that city staff was directed to begin the process of amending the city’s Official Plan and rezoning after an “illegal meeting” held in private (in contravention of Municipal Act rules).
The document also states that building the Shorelines Casino Peterborough on the site will hurt the city.
“There will be irreparable harm if development begins on the Crawford Dr. site – to the environment, to civic participation and to the rights of the public,” the court document states.
Brady didn’t want to comment Tuesday. He applied for a judicial hearing at divisional court in Oshawa, but it was unclear on Tuesday when the case might be heard because the city hasn’t responded yet.
Nothing about the court filings was mentioned by councillors at a planning meeting on Tuesday, even though they were discussing the site plan application.
There was no debate from councillors; the site plan application was quickly approved.
Meanwhile council must vote a final time on that approval, which is expected at a meeting June 5. Citizens can speak to council about the plan, before that final vote.
Mayor Daryl Bennett was asked after the meeting on Tuesday what he thought about the application for a judicial hearing from Brady.
“Good for him,” Bennett said, referring to Brady.
“If there’s a legal action being planned, that would be out of my purview, at this point,” Bennett added. “I’m not aware of any particulars.”
The application is focused on a closed-door meeting that took place at City Hall on Nov. 16, 2015, where councillors discussed the idea of allowing a casino to be built on the property on Crawford Dr.
The public wasn’t allowed at this meeting, the document points out, and yet councillors decided at then to direct city staff to start the process of rezoning.
That was an “illegal process”, says the document, because it came from “an illegal meeting.”
The document also states that the public only found out about this six months later, when the property was identified as the site for the future casino as a passing reference in a city staff report.
Later, it was confirmed by an investigator that the city broke Municipal Act rules in its private meeting in November 2015.
The closed-meeting investigation firm Amberley Gavel looked into the meeting after a complaint from a member of the public. Amberley Gavel is contracted by the city to investigate complaints about closed-door meetings.
The firm revealed that councillors had been talking privately about negotiations over land annexation with Cavan Monaghan Township during that meeting.
But then they talked about a potential site for a casino, the report from the investigator states – and they shouldn’t have, because it had nothing to do with land acquisition.
The court document takes issue with this, stating the city “unilaterally” made a decision.
“City council acted in bad faith, in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner that was unfair,” states the document.
Discussing the casino site in private meant citizens had no chance to question whether any elected officials had any pecuniary interest in Crawford Dr. being selected as the site, the court document adds.
But Coun. Andrew Beamer, who chaired that closed-session meeting in 2015, said on Tuesday that councillors were told by a provincial mediator to keep any discussion of land acquisition private.
The casino location and the land negotiations were two “intertwined” topics, Beamer said since the township was potentially losing its casino to Peterborough; it’s difficult to broach one topic without mentioning the other.
“It is incorrect for anyone to call it an illegal meeting,” Beamer said. “Amberley Gavel gave an opinion, and we respect that. However, it is just an opinion.”
Allan Seabrooke, the city CAO, stressed that there was no penalty to the city after the investigation – so it’s incorrect to call it an illegal meeting.
“As far as calling it illegal – that’s a misnomer, in my opinion,” he said. Not really, says Brady’s lawyer. Michael Binetti, a Toronto lawyer, pointed out on Tuesday that the city paid an investigator to tell them if they broke the law – and the investigator said that indeed, they did.
“Yet the city says that wasn’t an illegal meeting,” Binetti wrote in an email. “If the meeting wasn’t permitted by law, that’s illegal.”