Montgomery asks municipal commission to dismiss case
A lawyer for Côte-des-neiges— Notre-dame-de- Grâce Mayor Sue Montgomery asked the Quebec Municipal Commission Tuesday to throw out its case against her, arguing it has compromised her right to a fair hearing.
“The whole process has been tainted,” said Eric Oliver during the hearing before Thierry Usclat, an administrative judge for the commission.
By joining the city of Montreal as a co-plaintiff in seeking an injunction against Montgomery, the commission showed bias against her and thus can’t be an impartial judge, Oliver argued.
The hearing was the latest episode in the legal battle between Montgomery and the city of Montreal over allegations that her chief of staff, Annalisa Harris, harassed two civil servants in the borough.
Neither Montgomery nor Harris attended the hearing.
The commission has accused Montgomery of 19 ethical breaches, including failing to maintain a harassment-free workplace and not implementing an order by the city’s comptroller general to prevent contact between Harris and civil servants. The commission has said it wants to add nine more charges to the list, for a total of 28. Each charge carries a possible penalty ranging from a reprimand to a 30-day suspension.
Oliver said the municipal commission showed it was already prejudiced against Montgomery when it requested the injunction to force her to implement the comptroller general’s orders.
Last month, the commission withdrew from the case after Quebec Superior Court Justice Bernard Synnott questioned how it could be both Montgomery’s legal opponent and an impartial judge in her case.
“At first glance, it seems to the Court that the CMQ (municipal commission) does not have the necessary standing to bring this action for an injunction linked to this matter,” Synnott wrote in a decision on May 29.
He added that there was no proof that Montgomery retaliated against borough staff for co-operating with the commission’s investigation.
“The evidence submitted so far tends to prove the opposite,” he said, noting that the commission’s investigation was confidential, so Montgomery was not supposed to know which employees cooperated.
On Friday, Feb. 14, comptroller general Alain Bond announced the city was laying a complaint against Montgomery with the municipal commission. The same day, at 4:30 p.m., the commission served Montgomery with a legal notice informing her that its investigators would question her the following Monday morning.
Oliver said the lack of advance notice, and the fact that the commission did not provide any information on the focus of its investigation, infringed Montgomery’s legal rights. She did not have adequate time to prepare or consult her lawyer, he said.
“There is no respect for the fundamental rights of my client,” Oliver said.
Both the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights guarantee the right to a fair trial, he added.
Judge Usclat said Montgomery should have known what questions would be asked since her case has been amply covered in the media.
Oliver said he would never counsel a client to depend on media reports to prepare for a case. He also complained that the commission shared the recording of Montgomery’s interview with the city, when it was supposed to remain confidential, and criticized the commission for supporting the city’s contention that Montreal should not be responsible for Montgomery’s legal costs.
The city was later ordered to pay her legal bills.
Oliver also accused the city of smearing Montgomery’s reputation by leaking stories to the media.
Dave Tremblay, a lawyer for the commission, said it acted within its rights in investigating Montgomery and in seeking the injunction. He said the commission was justified in asking for the injunction, insisting that Montgomery did retaliate against staff for taking part in the commission’s investigation.
“That was the context in which the action was filed,” he said.
Usclat said he would take the matter under advisement and render a written judgment. If he rejects Montgomery’s motion, the commission will hear the case at a later date.
On July 9, Oliver argued in Quebec Superior Court that the comptroller general usurped Montgomery’s authority in ordering her to fire Harris.
Montreal’s harassment policy specifies that the “designated authority” for dealing with cases is the elected official who employs the person said to have committed the harassment — in this case, Montgomery, Oliver said.
Synnott is expected to rule in that case this fall.