Friends of Lansdowne has filed a 117-page factum with the Ontario Superior Court presenting our evidence that the City of Ottawa acted illegally when it approved the Lansdowne Partnership Plan. City Councils all over Ontario and Canada will be watching this landmark case, which is unprecedented in its scope and arguments. If Friends of Lansdowne wins, we will make new law for Ontario and set new standards for accountability and good governance at the municipal level. Read the FOL factum here. Then come out and hear the case argued at the Elgin Street Courthouse, starting Tuesday, June 21 and running several days.

There has been much public discussion of the recent rulings on the Lansdowne Legal Challenge. This memorandum by lawyer, Steven Shrybman, corrects some misinformation that has been reported in the media: Memo to Friends of Lansdowne dated Feb 17-11

Here's the link to the blog that reported the initial City Hall response on the ruling http://www.cbc.ca/ottawa/blogs/cityhall/.

Friends of Lansdowne v. Ottawa

Summary of Master MacLeod’s Reasons for Decision, February 14, 2011

Master MacLeod’s Reasons for Decision concern three procedural motions heard by the Ontario Superior Court on January 31, 2011 in the context of an application by Friends of Lansdowne Inc. to quash the by-laws approving the Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Plan (LPP). Two of the motions were brought by Friends of Lansdowne (FOL), itself. The first, was to compel production of documents relating to the redevelopment plan that both the City of Ottawa and its private partner, Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) have refused to release. The second was for an order settling the question of the liability regarding costs of the proceedings for the individual applicants, Doug Ward and Gary Sealey.

The third motion was brought by the City of Ottawa and supported by (OSEG) which had previously been granted intervener standing in the proceedings. This motion was for an order to strike affidavits filed by Friends of Lansdowne. The affidavits attest to the financial costs of the LPP and fiscal impacts it will have on Ottawa taxpayers. They include a report by Rosen and Associates, one of Canada’s leading investigative accounting firms.

In his introduction, Master MacLeod notes that the issue that will be before the court on the hearing of the application is whether or not the actions of the City, in approving the Lansdowne redevelopment, are prohibited by the Municipal Act or by the city’s own internal rules and regulations. He also recognizes that while Lansdowne Park has been a central feature in Ottawa for almost a century and a half, the rehabilitation and development of the park has been the subject of much disagreement.

On all three motions FOL was largely successful.

Friends of Lansdowne (FOL) Inc. has won another round in its legal battle against the City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) over approval of the Lansdowne Partnership Plan. In a decision released by the Court February 14, 2011, FOL scored a hat-trick -- winning favourable rulings on all three motions argued two weeks ago before Master MacLeod of the Ontario Superior Court.

First of all, Master MacLeod ruled that the City of Ottawa must disclose the financial details of the partnership plan that it was refusing to produce.

Secondly, the Master determined that expert evidence provided by Friends of Lansdowne will be considered by the Ontario Superior Court. The City had tried to exclude independent financial reports by tax expert, Professor Harry Kitchen, and investigative accountants, Rosen and Associates, concluding that the City had grossly misrepresented the financial consequences of the Partnership Plan.

Finally, Master MacLeod confirmed that Friends of Lansdowne Inc. has full standing before the court.

According to Carleton University business professor, Ian Lee, the rulings mark a victory for transparency and public accountability. “For the past two years, the City has used smoke and mirrors and bogus claims of revenue neutrality to hide the facts of this development scheme from the public. Finally, we may get to learn what this deal will really cost taxpayers”.

Read the decisions of the ruling here.

Read the backgrounder on the MacLeod decisions here.