0 0 0 0 0 1

Cv- iH-GaS30Court F i le No.

O N T A R I OSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N :

J U D I T H A N N M A C D O N A L D

Applicant

- and-

R O B E R T F O R D a n d D O U G L A S F O R D J R .

Respondents

N O T I C E O F A P P L I C A T I O N

T O T H E R E S P O N D E N T S

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the applicant. The claim made bythe applicant appears on the following page.

THIS APPLICATION will come on for a hearing on a date to be fixed by tlie Registrar at10:00 a.m., or as soon afier that time as the application can be heard, at 393 University Avenue,Toronto, Ontario, MSG 1E6.

IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, to receive notice of any step in theapplication or to be served with any documents in the application, you or an Ontario lawyeracting for you must forthwith prepare a notice of appearance in Form 38A prescribed by theRules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the applicant's lawyer or, where the applicant does not havea lawyer, serve it on the applicant, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, and youor your lawyer must appear at the hearing.

IF YOU WISH TO PRESENT AFFIDAVI T OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCET O T H E C O U R T O R T O E X A M I N E O R C R O S S - E X A M I N E W I T N E S S E S O N T H EAPPLICATION, you or your lawyer must, in addition to serving your notice of appearance,serve a copy of the evidence on the applicant's lawyer or, where the applicant does not have alawyer, serve it on the applicant, and file it, with proof of service, in the court office where theapplication is to be heard as soon as po.ssible, but at least four days before the hearing.

0 0 0 0 0 2

IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN YOURABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSETHIS APPLICATION BUT ARE UNABLE 10 PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BEAVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.

September 19,2014 Issued By:.Local Registrar393 University Avenue10th FloorToronto ON MSG 1E6

T O : R O B E R T F O R Ddo 100 Queen St West, 2"* floorT o r o n t o O N M 5 H 2 N 2

T O : D O U G L A S F O R D J R .do 100 Queen St West Suite C40To r o n t o O N M 5 H 2 N 2

3

0 0 0 0 0 3

A P P L I C A T I O N

1 . T H E A P P L I C A N T M A K E S A P P L I C A T I O N F O R :

(a) a declaration that the respondent Robert Ford's seat on Toronto ClQr Council is

vacant, pursuant to section 10(1 Ka) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act,

(b) a declaration that the respondent E)ouglas Ford Jr.'s seat on Toronto City Council is

vacant, pursuant to section IO(l)(a) of the Act;

(c) an order pursuant to section 10(lXb) of the Act, disqualifying the respondent

Robert Ford from being a member of Toronto City Council for a period of seven years;

(d) an order pursuant to section 10(1 Kb) of the Act, disqualifying the respondent

Douglas Ford Jr. from being a member of Toronto City Council for a period of seven

years ;

(e) a declaration that the respondents violated section S of the Act;

(0 costs of this application on a substantial indemnity basis;

(g) such further and other relief as the circumstances of the case may require and this

Honourable Court deems to be just.

2 . T H E G R O U N D S F O R T H E A P P L I C A T I O N A R E :

(a) the respondents and their family own and control Doug Ford Holdings Inc., its

subsidiary Deco Labels & Tags Ltd., and Deco Adhesive Products (198S) Ltd.

(collectively, "the respondents' business");

(b) the respondents, the respondents' business, and clients of the respondents' business

have pecuniary interests with respect to the following matters that were the subject of

consideration at Toronto City Council or its committees:

0 0 0 0 0 44

i. a ban on the sale of bottled water in civic centres;

ii. an initimive to reduce food packa^ng waste in Toronto;

Hi. the adoption and implementation of healthy vending criteria for the sale of

beverages in Parks, Forestry and Recreation vending machines;

iv. changes to the Tripartite Agreement to permit Porter Airlines to fly jets into

and out of the Toronto island airport, and to extend the airport's runway;

V. the appointment of Darius Mosun to the board of the Toronto Parking

Authority; and

vi. adjustments to the formula and rates for calculating fees under the city's

industrial waste surcharge agreement program;

(c) the respondents failed to disclose these interests described at paragraph 2(b) above,

or the general nature thereof, prior to the consideration of agenda items relating to these

matters at Council or committees, as required by s 5( 1 )(a) of the Act,

(d) the respondents took part in discussions of, or voted on, questions in respect of the

matters described at paragraph 2(b) above, contrary to s 5(1 )(b) of the Ac/; and in

particulan

i. the respondent Robert Ford attended Council on December 1, 2008 for its

consideration of item PW20.1, and both respondents attended Council on April

13, 2011 for its consideration of item GM2.16, and voted on these items and on

amendments to them;

ii. the respondent Douglas Ford Jr. attended the Government Management

Committee on October 12,2011 for its consideration of GM8.8, and voted on the

item;

0 0 0 0 0 55

Hi. the respondents attended Council on September 22, 2011 for its

consideration of item CA9.5, and the respondents voted in &vour of appointii^

Darius Mosun to the Toronto Parking Authority board, and against a motion to

refer the appointment back to the Civic Appointments Committee for further

consideration;

iv. the respondent Robert Ford attended, and in most cases chaired, meetings of

the Executive Committee on April 23, 2013, July 3, 2013, September 23, 2013,

December S, 2013 and March 2S, 2014, at which it considered agenda items

EX31.27. EX33.18, EX34.14. EX36.7 and EX40.1. respectively, relating to Porter

Airline's request for amendments to the Tripartite Agreement governing the

Toronto island airport, and the respondent voted on these agenda items and

amendments to them;

V. the respondents attended Council on May 7,2013 and April 1, 2014, for its

consideration of item EX31.27 and EX40.I, respectively, and took part in

discussions of, and voted on, the items and amendments to them, including an

amendment that shifted Porter Airline's obligation to pay approximately $275,000

for Phase I of the city's evaluation of Porter's request to Toronto Port Authority;

a n d

vi. the respondents attended Council on November 27, 2012 and December 17,

2013, for its consideration of items EX25.9 and EX36.17, respectively, with

respect to industrial waste surcharge agreements and permits and related fees, and

voted on these items and amendments to them;

0 0 0 0 0 6

6

(e) the respondents attempted before, during or after meetings of City Council or its

committees to influence the voting on questions in respect of the matters described at

paragraph 2(b) above, contrary to s S( 1 )(c) of the Ac/; and in particular

i. before item GM2.16 returned to Council for consideration, the respondent

Douglas Ford Jr. spoke publicly in opposition of the healthy vending initiative

and, to emphasise his oppositicm, took a swig of Coke;

ii. the respondent E>oug]as Ford Jr. took several minutes of the Government

Management Conunittee's October 12, 2011 meeting to criticize the ci s healthy

vending initiative;

iii. the respondent Robert Ford interfered with the 2011 civic ^pointments

process, including by circulating a list of preferred candidates, which included

Darius Mosun, to like-minded councillors;

iv. the respondent Robert Ford advocated in support of Porter Airlines and

Porter's plans to extend the Toronto island airport's runway, including at a media

scrum on or around April 11,2013;

V. the respondent Robert Ford wrote to the Executive Committee on April 22,

2013 to recommend that the city expedite its reporting process on Porter Airlines'

request to make certain amendments to the Tripartite Agreement governing

Toronto's island airport in order for Porter to fly commercial jets into and out of

the airport, and specifically the respondent encouraged the Committee to add

Porter's request as an agenda item for its April 23,2013 meeting; and

vi. the respondents attempted to influence voting on item EX31.27 during the

May 7,2013 Council meeting;

0 0 0 C C 7

7

(f) the respondents' interests, and their contraventions of the Act, came to the

applicant's knowledge on or after August 13,2014; in particular:

i. the applicant was not aware that Deco Adhesive Products (1985) Ltd. and

Apollo Health and Beauty Care were invoiced for industrial waste surcharge

agreements or permits until August 13, 2014, when she reviewed a staff report

entitled "Sewers and Water Supply By-laws 2013 Compliance and Enforcement

Annual Report", which was on the agenda for the August 13,2014 meeting of the

Public Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting; and

ii. the applicant was not aware that Nestl6 Canada, Coca Cola, Cara Operations

Ltd., Porter Airlines and Soheil Mosun Ltd. were clients of the respondents'

business until she read an investigative report from the Globe and Mail ("Mayor

Ford's business contracts raise question of conflict") on or around its date of

publication, on August 20,2014;

(g) as disclosed in the affidavit of Judith MacDonald, afTirmed September 18,2014;

(h) Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, RSO 1990, c M.50, including sections 5, 8, 9

and 10;

(i) Rules of Civil Procedwe, RRO 1990, Reg 194, Rule 14; and

(j) such further and other material as counsel may advise and the Honourable Court

permit.

0 0 0 0 0 8

8

3. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WILL BE USED AT THE

H E A R I N G O F T H E A P P L I C AT I O N :

(a) the affidavit of Judith MacDonald, affinned September 18, 2014, and exhibits

thereto; and

(b) such further and other material as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court

may permit

September 19,2014 D E W A R T G L E A S O N L L P102-366 Adelaide St WToronto ON M5V 1R9

Sean Dewart, LSUC #: 267088Tim Gleason, LSUC #: 43927AJonathan Scl hter, LSUC #: 638S8CTe l : 4 1 6 - 9 7 1 - 8 0 0 0Fax:416-971-8001

Lawyers for the applicant

JUD

ITH

AN

N M

AC

DO

NA

LD

ApplicantR

OB

ER

T F

OR

D e

t a

i

Respondents

CV

-C

ourt File

No.

ON

TA

RIO

SU

PE

RIO

R C

OU

RT

OF

JU

ST

ICE

Proceeding Comm

enced at TORO

NTO

NO

TIC

E O

F A

PP

LIC

AT

ION

DE

WA

RT

GL

EA

SO

N L

LP

Lawyers102-366

Adelaide St

WTo

ron

to O

N M

5V

1R

9

Sean Dewart, LSUC #; 26708BTim

Gleason, LSUC #: 43927A

Jonathan S

chachter. LS

UC

#: 63858C

Tel: 416-971-8000

Fax:416-971-8001

Lawyers for the applicant

0 0 0 0 1 0

Court File No.:

O N TA R I OSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N :

J U D I T H A N N M A C D O N A L D

Applicant

- a n d -

R O B E R T F O R D a n dD O U G L A S F O R D J R .

Respondents

A F F I D A V I T O F J U D I T H M A C D O N A L D(AfFmned September 18,2014)

I, JUDITH ANN MACDONALD, of the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario,

S O L E M N LY A F F I R M a s f o l l o w s :

1. I am a resident of Toronto who is actively engaged in civic affairs and municipal politics.

I regularly attend and/or monitor meetings of Toronto City Council, its committees, and city

boards. I therefore have knowledge of the matters to which I depose in this affidavit.

The respondents' business

2. As set out below, it is a matter of public record that the respondents and their family own

and control a number of corporations, including Deco Labels & Tags Ltd., Deco Adhesive

Products (1985) Ltd., and Doug Ford Holdings Inc. (collectively, "the respondents' business").

00001 1 - 2 -

3. Deco Labels & Tags Ltd. is a federally incorporated company. The respondent Douglas

Ford Jr. is a director of the corporation. A copy of the Corporations Canada profile for Deco

Labels & Tags Ltd. is marked as Exhibit "A" to this affidavit.

4. Doug Ford Holdings Inc. (formerly Deco Adhesive Products Ltd.) and Deco Adhesive

Products (1985) Ltd. are both federally incorporated companies. The respondents, Robert Ford

and Douglas Ford Jr., are directors of both corporations, along with their mother, Diane Ford,

and their brother, Randal Ford. Copies of the Corporations Canada profile for Doug Ford

Holdings Inc. and for Deco Adhesive Products (1985) Ltd. are marked, respectively, as Exhibits

"B" and "C" to this affidavit.

5. A forensic audit of the respondent Robert Ford's election spending in the 2010 election

confirmed that Deco Labels & Tags Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Doug Ford Holdings

Inc., and that the respondent Robert Ford has an ownership interest in the holding company. A

copy of the "Compliance Audit Report For the City of Toronto Re: Rob Ford", dated February 1,

2013, is marked as Exhibit "D" to this affidavit.

6. I understand that the respondents work, or worked, for the respondents' business, and

collected income in the form of salaries or sales commissions fi-om some or all of these

corporations; however, these are private corporations and they are not required to disclose their

fmancial records, employment details, or client lists.

7. The Toronto Star reported that the respondent Robert Ford was chief financial officer of

Deco Labels for years, and remained so until at least 2010. During his time as city councillor,

the respondent Robert Ford continued to represent Deco Labels publicly, in his capacity as CFO.

The Toronto Star reported that the respondent Robert Ford's mayoral schedule contained entries

- 3 - 0 0 0 0 1 2

for "family business" and "Deco all day" in his schedule. A copy of this article ("Mayor Ford's

family business raises conflict questions") is marked as Exhibit "E" to this affidavit.

8. The Toronto Star reported that the respondent Douglas Ford was president of Deco

Labels throughout his term as councillor. The Toronto Star article ("Doug Ford has third-worst

attendance, missed 53 per cent of 2014 city council votes") is marked as Exhibit "F" to this

a ffidav i t .

Improper influence for the benefit of clients of the respondents' business

9. On August 20, 2014, the Globe and Mail reported that Nestle Canada, Coca Cola, Cara

Operations Ltd., Porter Airlines and Soheil Mosun Ltd. were clients of the respondents' business.

A copy of the Globe and Mail report ("Mayor Ford's business contracts raise question of

conflict") is marked as Exhibit "G" to this affidavit (the "Globe and Mail report").

10. The respondents' business does not disclose the names of its clients. In fact, according to

the Globe and Mail report, in response to reporters' questions about a client which the respondent

Robert Ford allegedly assisted in lobbying city officials with respect to the city's in-house

printing. Ford stated:

If that's a conflict, then I'm going to have a conflict with almost eveiy business orevery person in this city, because we've been around for 52 years. We've dealt fromthose little ma-and-pa shops to huge grocery stores to almost every company. So 1guess I'm in a conflict... I'd have to declare a conflict with everybody.

11. The Globe and Mail reported that in response to follow-up questions from reporters with

respect to the same conflict of interest, the respondent Robert Ford stated that "We have done

business with every single company almost in Ontario. We are right around the world". The

National Post reported that he stated that "Our business is our business. I don't ask you how

much money you've got in the bank... this is personal." Copies of the Globe and Mail article

00001 3 - 4 -

("Ties to company he helped at City Hall 'irrelevant,' mayor says") and the National Post article

("Rob Ford says he 'can't recall' if business at centre of allegations was client of his family firm

(they were)") are marked, respectively, as Exhibits "H" and "I" to this affidavit.

12. The respondents, as a result of their pecuniary interest in the respondents' business, stood

to benefit if they took positions in their roles as mayor and city councillor that would benefit

their business or its clients.

Ban on the sale of bottled water at civic centres

13. On December 1, 2008, Council adopted motions to reduce food packaging waste,

including plastic water bottles, under agenda item PW20.1. The history of agenda item PW20.1

is marked as Exhibit "J" to this affidavit.

1 4 . I t e m P W 2 0 . 1 d e a l t w i t h b o t t l e d w a t e r a s f o l l o w s :

17. The City of Toronto:a. prohibit the sale or distribution of bottled water at Civic Centres immediately, with due

regard for any current contracts related to the purchase or sale of bottled water;b. authorize and direct appropriate staff from Solid Waste Management Services, Parks,

Forestry and Recreation, Facilities and Real Estate, Purchasing and Materials Management, TorontoPublic Health, Toronto Water and the bottled water industry, to work together to develop andimplement a program that prohibits the sale and distribution of bottled water at all remaining Cityfacilities by December 31,2011; and

c. authorize appropriate staff to prohibit plastic water bottle sales at each City facility uponcompletion of improved access to tap water at all City facilities as water bottled sales are phased out,having due regard to existing contracts and unique public health and safety related situations andauthorized special events in City facilities, by December 31, 2011.

1 5 . T h e C o u n c i l r e c o r d f o r i t e m P W 2 0 . 1 i n d i c a t e s t h a t c o i m c i l l o r s c o n s i d e r e d a

communication fi-om Coca-Cola Bottling Company's Vice President - Ontario.

16. According to the Globe and Mail report (Exhibit "G"), both Coca-Cola and Nestle

Canada are clients of the respondents' business, and both produce and sell bottled water. Item

PW20.1 directly affected these companies' interests by "prohibit[ing] the sale or distribution of

- 5 - 00001 4

bottled water at Civic Centres immediately". In fact, as the Globe reported, Coca-Cola's bottled

water brand, "Dasani", was sold at City Hall prior to the ban. This relationship to the

respondents' business was unknown to the public at the time PW20.1 was before council.

Although, as described at paragraphs 10-11 above, the respondent believes that he may be in a

"conflict with almost every business or every person in this city" as a result of his business's

success, the respondents also regard their clients' identities as personal and private.

17. The record for Council agenda item PW20.1 indicates that the respondent Robert Ford

was present at Council for this decision. An excerpt of Council's decisions from December 1,

2008 (meeting no. 27) is marked as Exhibit "K" to this affidavit.

18. There is no record that the respondent Robert Ford disclosed that Coca-Cola and Nestle

were clients of his business, or that he disclosed the amount of business his companies transact

with these beverage companies. There is no record that he disclosed to Council that he had an

interest in decisions with respect to the sale of bottled water.

19. Additionally, on April 13, 2011, Council considered agenda item GM2.16, which related,

inter alia, to cold drink vending machines in Toronto. The history of agenda item GM2.16 is

marked as Exhibit "L" to this affidavit.

20. Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti moved to amend the agenda item by adding the following:

That City Council rescind its previous direction to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation tophase out the sale of bottled water at Parks and Recreation facility locations to permit the General Manager toinclude the sale of bottled water in the Cold Drink Vending Request for Proposal.

21. Councillor Mammoliti's amendment would directly affect the clients of the respondents'

business; however, there is no record that the respondents disclosed their business's interest in

00001 5 - 6 -

the bottled water issues, including the amount of business their companies transact with Coca-

Cola and Nestl6.

22, Further, the Council record for GM2.16 indicates that the respondents were present for

the decision, and that both voted in favour of the amendment.

23. The respondent Robert Ford has attempted to influence Council's decision with respect to

bottled water, after voting on these items. According to a Toronto Sun report, for example, on

October 22, 2012, he stated: "Yeah, I'd like to lift that ban... When we're going to do it, I'm not

quite sure but sooner rather than later." A copy of this article ("Toronto Mayor Rob Ford vows

to nix water bottle ban") is marked as Exhibit "M" to this affidavit.

Initiative to reduce food packaging waste

24. The same 2008 item that dealt with bottled water, item PW20.1 (Exhibit "J"), dealt with

food packaging as follows:

9. The City of Toronto request food service retail representatives, food service trade associationsand/or other food service stakeholders who currently use plastic take out food containers and operate in theCity, to develop, by December 31, 2010, a reusable and/or refillable take out food container, or e out foodservice protocol that does not conflict with any regulation under the Health Protection and Promotion Act,which will allow customers to choose a reusable option for take-out food packaging.

10. The General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services be requested to report back to Councilby January 1,2011, on the progress of Part 9, above, and on the use of bans and/or financial tools on plastic takeout food containers that may be appropriate at that time, the report to also include information as it pertains tofood safety and cross-contamination risk of using customer supplied reHllable containers

11. The City of Toronto ban the sale or distribution of plastic take-out food containers (as defined inAppendix C) that are not compatible with the City of Toronto Blue Bin program by February 28,2011.

12. The General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services work with industry stakeholders toachieve a goal of having 50% of plastic takeout food containers used in Toronto, from a baseline of 2008 usage,compatible with the City of Toronto Blue Bin program by December 31, 2009.

13. The General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services be requested to report back to Councilif the interim target of 50% compatibly is not achieved by December 31,2009.

14. The General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services continue to consult with multiplestakeholders reflecting the types and sizes of businesses in the retail industry through the implementation ofthese recommenda t i ons . . . .

- 7 - 0 0 0 0 1 , 6

25. The aspects of item PW20.1 relating to food packaging would directly affect restaurant

businesses in Toronto. According to the Globe and Mail report (Exhibit "G"), Cara Operations

Ltd., which owns Swiss Chalet and Harvey's, is a customer of the respondents' business.

PW20.1 would therefore affect Cara's interests. The relationship of this company to the

respondents' business was unknown to the public. Although, as described at paragraphs 10-11

above, the respondent believes that he may be in a "conflict with almost every business or every

person in this city" as a result of his business's success, the respondents also regard their clients'

identities as personal and private.

26. Similarly, the respondents' business itself, as a manufacturer of packaging, had a direct

interest in the outcome of this debate, which was not declared in 2008.

27. There is no record that the respondent Robert Ford disclosed his interest in the food

packaging issues, including the amount of business his companies transact with Cara Operations,

or other restaurant chains which may do business with the respondents.

Healthy vending criteria

28. Prior to the 2010 municipal elections, the Government Management Committee and City

Council each considered a proposal for healthy vending criteria in city-owned cold drink vending

machines. This proposal would have required that, over five years, vending machines gradually

shift to 100% "healthy vending" {i.e., selling only healthy drinks such as milk and juice, as

opposed to energy drinks and soda drinks), as well as requiring limits on the size of non-water

beverage containers. The history of agenda item GM31.19 is marked as Exhibit "N" to this

a f fi d a v i t .

00001 7 - 8 -

29. Council failed to reach a decision and instead extended existing drink vending contracts

for a one-year period, deferring the matter until after the 2010 election.

30. On March 29,2011, the Government Management Committee revisited the issue of drink

vending machine contracts in agenda item GM2.16 (see Exhibit "L", above). The Committee

recommended that Council direct, inter alia, that the criteria for cold drink vending sales be

limited to 50% healthy vending. The Committee did not adopt Councillor Pam McConnell's

motion to amend the agenda item to phase in 100% healthy vending within five years.

31. Before item GM2.16 returned to Council, the respondent Douglas Ford Jr. publicly

opposed the healthy vending initiative. According to a National Post report, he stated: "Once

you get rid of all the sodas and the water, are you going to go after my butter tarts downstairs,

too?...Where does it stop? Where does the socialism stop?" To emphasize the point, he then

"took a swig of Coke". A copy of this article ("City arena pop ban fizzes out") is marked as

Exhibit "O" to this affidavit.

32. Item GM2.16 came before Council on April 12 and 13, 2011. Council requested that the

criteria for cold drink vending sales and distributions be limited to 50% healthy vending. The

history of this agenda item (Exhibit "L") includes a letter from Nestle Waters' Director of

Corporate Affairs among the background information and communications before Council.

33. The respondents were present at Council for this decision, according to the history of

agenda item GM2.16. There is no record that the respondents disclosed their business's interest

in the drinks vending issues, including the amount of business their companies transact with

Coca-Cola and Nestle.

- 9 - 0 0 0 0 1 8

34. Both respondents voted on the item. The respondents also voted against Councillor Paula

Fletcher's motion to amend the agenda item to phase in 100% healthy vending within five years,

which also would have affected the interests of the respondents' business and its clients.

35. On October 12, 2011, the Government Management Committee recommended, imder

agenda item GM8.8, that Council delegate authority to the General Manager of Parks, Forestry

and Recreation to negotiate and execute a license agreement with The Pepsi Beverage Company

to supply cold drinks in vending machines. (Coca-Cola Refreshments Canada was one of two

other companies that submitted a proposal for this contract.) The Committee adopted this

recommendation. The respondent Douglas Ford Jr. participated in the vote. The history of

agenda item GM8.8 is marked as Exhibit "P" to this affidavit.

36. The respondent Douglas Ford Jr. attempted to influence councillors on the healthy drinks

policy. The Globe and Mail reported that, at Government Management Committee, the

respondent Douglas Ford Jr. took several minutes to criticize the healthy-drinks policy for

requiring the successful bidder to supply 50% healthy drinks: "we have the nanny state social

engineering, telling us to force-feed [healthy drinks to] kids... Why do we even need to be in the

vending business. Let Mrs. Jones decide what Little Johnny is going to drink or eat. Don't try to

force it or dictate it." A copy of this article ("Doug Ford rips council for healthy-drinks policy")

is marked as Exhibit "Q" to this affidavit.

37. There is no record that the respondent Douglas Ford Jr. disclosed his business's interest in

the drinks vending issue. Additionally, there is no record that the respondent Douglas Ford Jr.

disclosed that Coca-Cola was a client of his business. Instead, he participated in discussions

00001 9 - 1 0 -

with respect to, and voted on, a beverage-supply agreement for which Coca-Cola Refreshments

Canada submitted a bid.

Toronto Parking Authority appointment

38. On September 22, 2011, Council considered civic appointments, including the

appointment of Darius Mosun to the Toronto Parking Authority (TPA) board. The history of

agenda item CA9.5 is marked as Exhibit "R" to this affidavit.

39. The Globe and Mail report referred to above (Exhibit "G") indicates that Mr. Mosun's

design firm, Soheil Mosun Ltd., was a customer of the respondents' business. This working

relationship was unknown to the public. Although, as described at paragraphs 10-11 above, the

respondents believe that they may be in a "conflict with almost every business or every person in

this city" as a result of their business's success, they also regard their clients' identities as

personal and private.

40. The Council record for CA9.5 indicates that the respondents were present at Council

when it adopted the Civic Appointments Committee's recommendations with respect to the TPA

board; however, there is no record that the respondents disclosed their business's dealings with

Mr. Mosun's firm.

41. Both respondents voted in favour of appointing Mr. Mosun as a TPA director. Prior to

this vote, both respondents voted against a motion by Councillor Shelley Carroll, to refer the

TPA appointments item back to the Civic Appointments Committee for further consideration.

42. In September 2012, Toronto's Ombudsman, Fiona Crean, released a report critical of the

public appointments process under the respondent Robert Ford's mayoralty. She concluded that

- 1 1 - 0 0 0 0 2 0

the policy in place for civic appointments was not followed, and that the Mayor's office

interfered in the process. She criticized the screening process for conflicts of interest and she

reiterated that councillors are restricted from endorsing candidates in accordance with Council's

Code of Conduct and Council rules. A copy of the Ombudsman's report. An Investigation into

the Administration of the Public Appointments Policy, is marked as Exhibit "S" to this affidavit.

43. The Ombudsman's investigation and a report from the Toronto Star revealed that the

respondent Robert Ford circulated a list of preferred candidates to the city manager's office and

to like-minded councillors. A copy of the Toronto Star report on the Mayor's preferred

appointments ("Allies' offices got Mayor Rob Ford's list of job picks, emails show") is marked

as Exhibit "T" to this affidavit.

44. It was not known at the time of the appointments that the respondent Robert Ford was

pressuring councillors to appoint Mr. Mosun. It was not known that Mr. Mosun's firm was a

client of the respondents' business until the Globe and Mail published its August 20, 2014 article.

Porter Airlines advocacy with respect to its operations at Toronto's island airport

45. The Globe and Mail report (Exhibit "G") indicates that Porter Airlines was a customer of

the respondents' business. In particular, the report indicates that Porter is one of about 160 client

accounts at Deco assigned to the respondent Robert Ford, and that salespeople (including the

respondents) receive commissions whenever one of their accounts places an order. This was

unknown to the public. Although, as described at paragraphs 10-11 above, the respondents

believe that they may be in a "conflict with almost every business or every person in this city" as

a result of their business's success, they also regard their clients' identities as personal and

private.

0 0 0 0 2 1 - 1 2 -

46. During their time in office, the respondents have repeatedly supported Porter Airlines,

and advocated policies that would benefit Porter. For example, in 2011, the respondents voted at

a City Coimcil meeting in favour of a resolution permitting the construction of an underground

pedestrian tunnel to the airport that serves as Porter Airline's hub.

47. In April 2013, Porter announced plans to fly jets into and out of this airport. The

respondents eagerly provided their support. For example, on April 11, 2013, the Toronto Star

published a story about the respondent Robert Ford's support for Porter Airlines' proposal to

employ commercial jets at the island airport. A copy of this article ("Mayor Rob Ford backs jets

at Toronto's island airport") is marked as Exhibit "U" to this affidavit.

48. The Toronto Star article quoted the respondent Robert Ford as saying:

The extension of the runway, obviously there's an agreement through three levels thatwe have to obviously reopen. Overall I don't see this being a bad thing, I think it's agood thing. ... 1 don't see really what the downfall is. This is great... Porter's been ahuge asset to the city... I support [Porter's president and CEO] Mr. Deluce and like Isaid Billy Bishop airport and Porter Airlines. Now, if they want to expand, and youknow it helps out people and it helps out businesses and it creates jobs, there's nodownfall to it.

49. According to the Globe and Mail, Robert Deluce, the president and CEO of Porter

Airlines, met privately with the respondent Robert Ford on February 12, 2013 and with officials

in the mayor's office on March 19, 2013 to discuss Porter's plan to extend the main nmway and

operate commercial jets out of the island airport. These meetings were not initially recorded in

the lobbyist registry, though the registry has since been updated. A copy of the Lobbyist

Registry's entries for lobbying by or on behalf of Porter Airlines, subject matter registration

numbers SM18774, SM18775 and SM18792, are marked, respectively, as Exhibits "V", "W" and

"X" to this affidavit. A copy of the Globe and Mail article ("Ford had advance briefing on

airport expansion plans") is marked as Exhibit "Y" to this affidavit.

0 0 0 0 2 2

50. On April 22, 2013, Mr. Deluce wrote to the respondent Robert Ford with respect to

Porter's plans to expand its operations at the island airport. His letter described Porter's

conditional agreement to purchase jets that were not permitted to fly into and out of the island

airport under existing regulations. In order to realize Porter's expansion plans, he requested that

the parties to the Tripartite Agreement governing the airport consider two amendments: (1) to

exempt the jets that Porter had conditionally purchased from the existing commercial jet ban in

place at the airport, and (2) to approve an extension of the main runway by 168 meters on each

end, into the water. He explained that the timelines for deliveries of the jets required the city's

approval in July 2013. A copy of Mr. Deluce's letter is marked as Exhibit "Z" to this affidavit.

51. On the same day, the respondent Robert Ford wrote to the city's Executive Committee to

recommend that Porter's request be considered on an expedited basis, stating as follows: "I feel it

is important to start the reporting process as quickly as possible. Therefore, I am requesting

Executive Committee add this item to its agenda for April 23, 2013..." A copy of Robert Ford's

letter to the Executive Committee is marked as Exhibit "AA" to this affidavit.

52. At the respondent Robert Ford's behest, the Executive Committee considered Porter's

request at its April 23, 2013 meeting. The respondent Robert Ford chaired this meeting. The

Executive Committee recommended that Council request the City Manager to report to the July

3, 2013 Executive Committee meeting with advice on Porter's request to amend the Tripartite

Agreement. The history of agenda item EX31.27 is marked as Exhibit "BB" to this affidavit.

53. Thus, the respondent Robert Ford attended and chaired a meeting of the Executive

Committee at which it considered the Porter matter. There is no record that he disclosed his

0 0 0 0 2 3 - 1 4 -

business's interest in this matter; however, he attempted to influence Committee members, and

actively took part in discussion of, and voted on, the matter.

54. Item EX31.27 came before Council on May 7, 2013, and Council adopted the Executive

Committee's recommendations. During Councils' meeting, the respondents both took part in

discussions of item EX31.27:

(a) at around 8:41pm, the respondent Douglas Ford Jr. stated:

... Well, folks, we have a service that people want in the city. Right? We have amarket that can sustain it. In all my years in business, I've never seen a group ofpeople attack an entrepreneur - attack his character and integrity - a man that put a loton the line during the recession, that took a risk, that another airline couldn't succeed.And he's been successful. This isn't, this isn't about Mr. Deluce right now. This isabout the 2 million people, or close to 2 million people, that use the island airportannually. This is about the $2 billion that goes back into our economy every yearbecause we had a risk taker. This is about the 2,500 jobs that this airline areemploying people. This is about the thousand additional Jobs right here at risk. Folks,I've been to a lot of cities around the world. I've never seen a city that has shot downa business and an entrepreneur coming to a city, saying I'm going to create a thousandnew Jobs. What, what this comes down to is 500 metres within a boundary that exists?I've flown Porter numerous times. I've, I've stood on the edge of the water. Maybe myhearing is not as good as everyone else's, but 1 can't even hear these planes! I can'thear the planes. ... Again, this, this comes down to a company that wants to createJobs. Wants to make it flexible for the residents - not Just here in Toronto, but theGTA. I spoke to a couple of businesspeople that flew in, they said this is the onlyairport you could literally work and live downtown and walk to the airport. This isabout making the airline industry more competitive. That when we go to book a tripon spring break, we're stuck with three airlines right now. How you drive down thecost is competition. You drive down the cost with competition, and Porter has provedto this city - and across the country as far as they can fly - that there is an alternative.And a better alternative, with better service....

(b) at around 8:46pm, the respondent Robert Ford stated:

... Um, folks, this, I believe - from what I've heard from the questions, the briefingsthat I've had with staff - this is going to benefit us. This is going to be huge for thecity. It's gonna give people choices. It's gonna bring in tourism. That, that puts moremoney in all our pockets, folks. It's, it's a huge asset. I'm Just asking you to supportthe report. If it comes back, and you don't like it, don't vote for it. But 1 think weshould at least keep the door open, let Mr. Pennachetti and his staff do their work, andthen in July, it will come to the Executive...

- 1 5 - 0 0 0 0 2 4

55. Throughout the May 7 Council meeting, the respondents voted in Porter's interest, as

detailed in the history of agenda item EX31.27 (Exhibit "BB"). In particular, the respondents

voted in Porter's interests, on the following amendments:

(a) against an amendment that Council delete the recommendations of the Executive

Committee, and instead deny Porter's request for an exemption to the commercial jet ban

and for an extension to the airport's runway, as proposed by Councillor McConnell;

(b) against an amendment that any of the studies to be conducted with respect to

Porter's request exclude any airport expansion into the Toronto Island Park system south

of the current southern boundaries of the airport, as proposed by Councillor Adam

Vaughan;

(c) against an amendment that any of the requested studies to be conducted exclude

changes to the existing noise guidelines for individual airplanes or amendments to the

provisions and guidelines that set the Noise Exposure Forecast contours currently in

place, as proposed by Councillor Vaughan;

(d) against an amendment that Council advise the Toronto Port Authority and the

federal Minister of Transportation of Council's expectation that all protections and

provisions for General Aviation govemed and protected by the Tripartite Agreement be

upheld and enforced by the Toronto Port Authority, as proposed by Councillor Vaughan;

a n d

(e) in favour of an amendment authorizing Deputy City Manager John Livey to enter

into sole source agreements if necessary for external consulting services related to the

studies and work program described in Mr. Livey's May 6, 2013 report ("Request from

0 0 0 0 2 5 - 1 6 -

Porter Airlines for Exemption to Commercial Jet Ban at Billy Bishop Toronto City

Airport"), as proposed by Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday.

56. Finally, the respondents voted in favour of adopting item EX31.27, including the

Executive Committee's recommendation that Council request the City Manager to report back to

the Executive Committee with advice on Porter's request to amend the Tripartite Agreement. In

particular, the respondents voted to shift third-party obligations from Porter Airlines to Toronto

Port Authority to pay for Phase 1 of the city's evaluation of Porter's request, then estimated at

$275,000.

57. Entries from the lobbyist registry (Exhibits "V", "W" and "X") show that during the

period from January 1, 2013 to May 7, 2013, lobbyists for or on behalf of Porter met or

communicated with the respondent Robert Ford, or members of his office, on at least 14 dates:

February 12; March 19; April 9, 12, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, and 28; and May 2, 3, 6, and 7. The

entries also show that during the same period, lobbyists for or on behalf of Porter met or

communicated with the respondent Douglas Ford Jr., or members of his office, on at least 12

dates: January 14; March 4, 10,13,20,28; April 8, 9,19,29; and May 6 and 7.

58. On July 3, 2013, the Executive Committee considered item EX33.18, in which it received

the Deputy City Manager, Cluster B's June 17, 2013 update on the review of Porter's request to

amend the Tripartite Agreement. The Executive Committee voted to request the Deputy City

Manager to expand the study area for his traffic study. The history of agenda item EX33.18 is

marked as Exh ib i t "CC" t o t h i s a f fidav i t .

59. The respondent Robert Ford attended and chaired this meeting as a member of the

Executive Committee. There is no record that he disclosed his business's interest in this matter;

- 1 7 - 0 0 0 0 2 6

however, he voted in favour of receiving the report, and against the amendment to expand the

study area of the traffic study.

60. On September 24, 2013, the Executive Committee considered item EX34.14, in which

the Committee received two further updates from the Deputy City Manager on the review of

Porter's request to amend the Tripartite Agreement. The respondent Robert Ford chaired this

meeting. The record shows that the Executive Committee considered an email from Mr. Deluce,

dated September 18, 2013. The history of agenda item EX34.14 is marked as Exhibit "DD" to

t h i s a f fi d a v i t .

61. There is no record that the respondent Robert Ford disclosed his business's interest in this

matter; however, he voted to limit the length of public presentations, and to limit questions of

speakers, staff, and other speaking time. He also voted against amendments proposed by

Councillor Peter Milczyn requiring the Deputy City Manager to measure and report on the noise

impact of jets, and requesting that the Deputy City Manager study where and how new fuel tanks

would be accommodated and provide the regulatory requirements for any new field tank farm.

62. On December 5, 2013, the Executive Committee voted to defer item EX36.7, which

related to Porter's request to amend the Tripartite Agreement, and public presentations on item

EX36.7. The history of agenda item EX36.7 is marked as Exhibit "EE" to this affidavit.

63. The respondent Robert Ford attended this meeting as a member of the Executive

Committee. There is no record that the respondent Robert Ford disclosed his business's interest

in this matter; however, he voted against deferring the item.

0 0 0 0 2 7 - 1 8 -

64. On March 25, 2014, the Executive Committee considered a series of recommendations

from the Deputy City Manager's March 19, 2014 report, under agenda item EX40.1. This report

provided an update on the city's continued review of Porter's April 2013 request to amend the

Tripartite Agreement to permit jets and extend the runway at the island airport. A copy of this

report ("Request to Amend the Tripartite Agreement for Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport -

Supplementary Report") is marked as Exhibit "FF" to this affidavit The history of agenda item

EX40.1 is marked as Exhibit "GG" to this affidavit.

65. The respondent Robert Ford attended the March 25, 2014 meeting and voted in Porter's

interest as follows:

(a) against an amendment that Council direct that no negotiations to re-open the

Tripartite Agreement be considered at that time, as proposed by Councillor Milczyn;

(b) against an amendment to restrict the airport's hours of operation to achieve an

earlier curfew and to reduce the airport's hours of operation on weekends, as conditions

precedent for the agreement to manage growth at the airport, as proposed by Councillor

Milczyn; and

(c) against an amendment that Council direct that conunercial jet-powered aircrafts

be limited to 25% of daily flights (slots), as proposed by Coimcillor David Shiner.

66. In addition, the respondent Robert Ford moved to amend item EX40.1, to delete

recommendation 5 from the Deputy City Manager's March 19, 2014 report {i.e., that "City

Council request the Deputy City Manager, Cluster B, to report back to the Executive Committee

with the outcome of the negotiations including all recommended Tripartite Agreement

amendments"), and replace it with text authorizing city officials "to enter into all necessary

- 1 9 - 00CG28

agreements, to provide for the addition of certain jet aircraft that meet noise restrictions

contained within the Tripartite Agreement, and the construction of the accompanying runway

extensions", among other things.

67. The respondent Robert Ford voted in favour of his own motion to amend item EX40.1,

which motion ultimately lost. He then voted in favour of adopting item EX40.1 as amended.

68. Item EX40.1 came before Council on April 1, 2014, for consideration. The respondents

attended this Council meeting and voted in Porter's interest as follows:

(a) against an amendment stating that Council's approval of item EX40.1 does not in

any way imply Council's support for or against the airport expansion or the introduction

of Jets, as proposed by Councillor Pam McConneli;

(b) against an amendment that Council direct the Deputy City Manager to include as

part of the negotiations that "any costs of the infrastructure associated with amendments

to the Tripartite Agreement shall be bome as a per passenger fee, a landing fee or any

other airport fees with no costs to the city", as proposed by Councillor Mike Del Grande;

(c) against an amendment that Council direct the Deputy City Manager to include as

part of the negotiations that "any costs of the infrastructure associated with amendments

to the Tripartite Agreement shall beat no cost to the city and not from any funding

envelopes available to the City including the Build Canada Fund", as proposed by

Councillor Josh Matlow;

(d) against an amendment that added further restrictions on the island airport's hours

of operation to achieve an earlier curfew and a reduction of hours of operation for the

0 0 0 G 2 9 - 2 0 -

island airport on weekends, as conditions precedent for the agreement to manage growth

at the airport, as proposed by Councillor Milczyn;

(e) against an amendment that Council request the Deputy City Manager to review all

existing safety documents related to the island airport and report to Council with a

comprehensive review of all Transport Canada exemptions and rationale for these

exemptions, and that Council request Transport Canada to communicate any future safety

exemptions related to runway expansion and the rationale for these exemptions, as

proposed by Councillor Mike Layton;

(f) in favour of an amendment that Council direct the Deputy City Manager to ensure

that any potential changes to the Tripartite Agreement are not dependent on any

particular airline carrier or its commercial arrangements, including an initial public

offering, as proposed by Councillor Michelle Berardinetti;

(g) against an amendment directing that the Airport Master Plan and Environmental

Assessment include a review and analysis of the impact that the airport's potential

expansion might have on the bird populations in the inner harbour area, and the potential

danger that existing bird populations and bird colonies may pose to air traffic and air

passengers, as well as directing the Deputy City Manager to consult organizations

including Bird Studies Canada, Animal Alliance of Canada, Toronto and Region

Conservation Authority and the Toronto Field Naturalists during the preparation of the

Airport Master Plan and Environmental Assessment, as proposed by Councillor Glenn De

Baeremaeker;

- 2 1 - 0 0 0 0 3 0

(h) against an amendment directing the Deputy City Manager to include in his report

back the consideration of the health impacts identified by the Medical Officer of Health,

as proposed by Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam;

(i) against an amendment requiring the Deputy City Manager to inform Council if he

becomes aware of any ownership changes of the air carriers or the airport facilities, as

proposed by Councillor Adam Vaughan;

(j) against an amendment that Council direct the Deputy City Manager to ensure that

the creation of a new road extension of Dan Leckie Way not be included in any

negotiations or plans to facilitate airport expansion, as proposed by Councillor Vaughan;

and

(k) against a motion to refer item HL27.3 (Board of Health recommendations with

respect to the expansion of the island airport and the introduction of commercial jets) to

the Deputy City Manager, as moved by Councillor Colle, and against amendments to

Councillor Colle's motion as proposed by Councillor Wong-Tam and Councillor Denzil

Minnan-Wong with respect to this matter.

69. The respondents voted in favour of adopting EX40.1 to request amendments to the

Tripartite Agreement.

70. There is no record that the respondents disclosed their business's interest in any of these

matters concerning Porter's expansion proposal or changes to the Tripartite Agreement. Instead,

the respondents took part in discussions of, and votes on, these matters.

71. It was not known at the time of these votes that Porter was a customer of the respondents'

business, that the respondent Robert Ford had been the salesperson responsible for Porter's

0 0 0 0 3 1 - 2 2 -

account at the respondents' business, or that the respondent Robert Ford collected commissions

for sales to Porter.

Failure to declare pecuniary interest with respect to the Industrial Waste SurchargeAgreement

72. On August 13, 2014, I was in Toronto City Hall at the same time as a meeting of the

Public Works and Infrastructure Committee. Out of curiosity, I reviewed a staff report entitled

"Sewers and Water Supply By-laws 2013 Compliance and Enforcement Annual Report", dated

July 28, 2014, which was on the published agenda for the meeting. This staff report and its

appendices are marked as Exhibit "HH" to this affidavit.

73. Appendix C to the Toronto Water staff report lists "Organizations invoiced for Industrial

Waste Surcharge Agreements, or Permits, as of December 31, 2013". Deco Adhesive Products

(1985) Ltd. and Apollo Health and Beauty Care are both listed as organizations invoiced for

industrial waste surcharge agreements ("IWSAs") or permits.

74. Apollo Health and Beauty Care is a client of the respondents' business. The Globe and

Mail reported that by 2012 Apollo had become one of Deco's most valuable clients, and that the

newspaper's sources estimate that Apollo's business amounted to approximately $1 million in

annual revenue for the respondents' business. Copies of the Globe and Mail articles ("Toronto

Mayor Rob Ford arranged meeting between client of family firm, water officials", dated

November 26, 2012, and "Rob Ford asked city staff to consider expropriation to help client",

dated September 8,2014) are marked, respectively, as Exhibits "11" and "JJ" to this affidavit.

75. Further, Appendix D to the Toronto Water staff report indicates that Apollo is subject to

three compliance plan agreements. These agreements give companies additional time to obtain

- 2 3 - 0 0 0 0 3 2

equipment or implement measures to remedy violations of the city's sewer by-law, providing

some temporary leniency to companies with respect to the pollutants they discharge into the

sewage system. In 2013, there was a total of 43 compliance plan agreements with the city.

76. The respondents have already been the subject of complaints to the Integrity

Conunissioner with respect to their alleged influence peddling in favour of Apollo. The

complaints alleged, inter alia, that the respondents arranged or attended meetings with top city

officials at Apollo's plant to discuss a sewage-spill investigation, and that the mayor assisted

Apollo in its efforts to lobby for a property-tax decrease. The respondents did not disclose their

business relationship with Apollo when they arranged and attended meetings for Apollo's

benefit, or assisted in Apollo's lobbying efforts; nor did they do so at the August 13, 2014

meeting of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee.

77. On November 27, 2012, Council adopted item EX25.9 as amended, which affected fees

charged pursuant to IWSAs. The history of agenda item EX25.9 is marked as Exhibit "KK" to

this affidavit.

78. The history of this agenda item shows that Councillors Layton and Perks declared interest

in this agenda item; each has a spouse who works for an organization which receives grants to

deliver, or which oversees, a city program that designates Blue Flag beaches. As a result, the

portion of the item addressing the Blue Flag program was voted on separately, with Councillors

Layton and Perks absenting themselves for this vote.

79. Although the respondents attended this meeting, there is no record that the respondents

disclosed that they had an interest in this matter by virtue of their business's participation in the

IWSA program. Additionally, there is no record that the respondents disclosed that they had an

0 0 0 0 3 3 - 2 4 -

interest in this matter by virtue of the participation of their business's client, Apollo, in the IWSA

p r o g r a m .

80. The respondents voted to adopt item EX25.9 as amended.

81. On December 17, 2013, Council adopted item EX36.17 as amended. The history of

agenda item EX36.17 is marked as Exhibit "LL" to this affidavit.

82. EX36.17 included new service fees for inspections of sewage works and for sanitary

d i s c h a r g e p e r m i t s , a n d p r o p o s e d t h a t : ,

1. City Counci l approve:. . .

d. Effective January 1, 2014, Chapter 441 - Fees and Charges, Appendix D, Schedule 3,Wastewater Services be amended to include the new service fees for CCTV inspections of sewageworks impacted by private construction, based on actual costs, and for sanitary discharge permits,as well as clarification of the existing minimum fees and fee basis for industrial waste surchargeagreements and permits and sanitary discharge agreements, as set out in Appendix D to the report(October 30, 2013) from the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, and the GeneralManager, Toronto Water;

83. Coimcillor Layton moved to amend item EX36.17 as follows, in a manner that would

increase the fees owing by participants of the IWSA program to allow full cost recovery for

wastewater services provided by the City:

That City Council direct that, effective April 1, 2014, City Council approve that the industrialwaste surcharge program formula for the calculation of surcharge fees be applied to all treatableparameters that exceed the sewers by-law limits, instead of only the one parameter that exceedsthe sewer by-law limits by the greatest amount, allowing full cost recovery for the wastewaterservices provided by the City, such surcharge to be phased in over a six year period to mitigateimpacts to existing companies.

84. Speaker Frances Nunziata held this motion to be out of order, as the amendments were

not subject to public notice. Councillor Perks challenged the Speaker's ruling, and a majority of

councillors voted to uphold her decision (i.e., not to allow an amendment by Councillor Layton

to adjust how fees are charged imder IWSAs).

- 2 5 - 0 0 0 0 3 4

85. Again, the history of this agenda item shows that Councillors Layton and Perks each

declared an interest in this agenda item because their spouses work for organizations that receive

grants from the city.

86. There is no record that the respondents disclosed that they had an interest in this matter

by virtue of their business's participation in the IWSA program. Additionally, there is no record

that the respondents disclosed that they had an interest in this matter by virtue of the participation

of their business's client, Apollo, in the IWSA program.

87. The respondents voted in favour of upholding the Speaker's ruling. Subsequently, the

respondents voted against Council's motion to adopt item EX36.17.

Knowledge of the facts deposed to in this affidavit

88. Until I read the Globe and Mail report (Exhibit "G"), it had not come to my knowledge

that the respondents' business clients included Nestle Canada, Coca Cola, Cara Operations Ltd.,

Porter Airlines, or Soheil Mosun Ltd.

0 0 0 0 3 5 - 2 6 -

89. On August 13, 2014, I reviewed the agenda for the Public Works and Infrastructtire

Committee being held on that day, and read the Toronto Water staff report and its appendices

(Exhibit "HH") for the first time. Until then, it had not come to my knowledge that the

respondents' business and Apollo Health and Beauty Care are enrolled in the IWSA program.

MA

CD

ON

AL

DA

pplicantR

OB

ER

T F

OR

D et

alRespondents

ON

TA

RIO

SU

PE

RIO

R C

OU

RT

OF

JUS

TIC

E

Proceeding comm

enced at Toronto

AF

FID

AV

IT O

FJ

UD

ITH

AN

N M

AC

DO

NA

LD

(Affirmed Septem

ber 18,2014)

DE

WA

RT

GL

EA

SO

N L

LP

Lawyers366 Adelaide Street W

est, Suite 102Toronto

ON

M5V

1R9

Sean Dewart, LSUC #: 26708BTim

Gleason, LSUC #: 43927A

Jonathan Schachter, LSUC #: 63858CTel: (416) 971-8000Fax: (416) 971-8001

Lawyers for the plaintiff