Vive Le Canada - Hamilton City Council has been warned

Hamilton City Council has been warned that suing citizens might come back on them.

According to the Hamilton Spectator Newspaper yesterday, Hamilton, Ontario City Councillor Brian McHattie has warned his fellow Council members that suing others “might come back on us” and he has convinced politicians that it would be wise to get more legal advice.

If you are not already aware, the City of Hamilton Ontario voted 8 to 7 to sue ex-Minister of Heritage Sheila Copps plus ex-Minister of the Environment David Anderson and 60-some-odd other employees of the Ministry of the Environment for $75 million dollars for trying to subject the Red Hill Expressway to a full environmental assessment. This means they are suing Canada. In addition to this the city also voted 8 to 7 to sue seven young eco-hero demonstrators for hundreds of thousands of dollars for their involvement in a tree-sitting demonstration in the Red Hill Valley at a time when tree-clearing and earth-blasting was taking place.

Both of these lawsuits are tragic and Canadians should be concerned about the messages they are sending and the legal precedents they may set. Hopefully the City of Hamilton will soon recognize and admit they have made an error drop these lawsuits. If they don’t, many more of your tax dollars will be spent filling the pockets of lawyers to punish well-meaning citizens. I am hopeful these cases will be dropped, and here is why.

First, Councillors who voted against the lawsuits continue to try to convince the others that this is not a wise move for the city and this effort (seen by many as vicious and vindictive) could very easily harm the city more than it might benefit the city in some financial way.

Second, I believe that Councillor Mchattie may be right and that these legal actions could come back at them in ways that might find them digging themselves out of a deep and dirty hole (deeper than the holes they are blasting in the Niagara Escarpment and in the valley); and I believe the litigious eight may be now be waking up to that possibility. Just one possible way their lawsuits could backfire, as Councillor McHattie pointed out to them, is that some politician could stand in the House of Commons to argue that the government shouldn’t have any dealings with Hamilton because of the lawsuits, but I suspect there are other negatives that could come back at them as well.

Third, today’s article in the Spectator it says that in response to another councillor’s motion that the city should not do business with companies who are suing the city, Mayor Larry Di Ianni told the committee of the whole that “anyone who felt their dispute with the city had merit should not be prevented from doing business with it.” Why then would some citizens who also felt their dispute with the city had merit, but did not sue the city, be subjected to lawsuits by it? I have a hunch that the City of Hamilton is beginning to see the lack of logic in the 2 lawsuits.

At best the logic behind these lawsuits had been stretched from the beginning and now the city is caught in a lose-lose situation. (Especially since the federal government has now stated it will pay for the court costs of the federal employees named in the suit and this lawsuit will certainly be vigorously fought.)

Fourth, in today’s paper Mayor Di Ianni is quoted as saying “we are not always right.” That may be one of the most astute things he has said in a while. Council may not always be right, and perhaps they can be forgiven for that, but it sure would be refreshing to hear them to admit where wrong to launch legal action against well-meaning citizens.

In conclusion, perhaps a lesson that Hamilton City Council needs to learn is how to take a deep breath and let it out slowly, and count to ten, and relax. They have a great city. To bad they seem hell-bent on inflicting considerable damage on themselves and their wonderful citizens. Maybe they won’t. Maybe they will come to their senses. Maybe they will count to ten and say they are sorry for not thinking before they took a leap of faith in some bad legal advice.

Stay tuned for more on this.

Canadabob

[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typs on June 28, 2005]