Lawyer denies councillor Gammie shut out of land claim discussions;  Gammie responds (6-4)

On October 8th the Amabel Property Owners Association put on a land claim meeting (see Wiarton Echo website October 9th), themed “why are the residents being kept in the dark (again)”.

I stated at the meeting that I had been shut out of the council land claim discussion.    I talked about an April 7, 2015 closed meeting in which lawyer Jonathan Lisus asked me to come to his Toronto office to share insights and evidence, to which I agreed and council agreed.  I said that after that council meeting Janice Jackson inexplicably emailed Mr. Lisus saying she would be the only one corresponding with the lawyer or his firm.  I stated that the planned and agreed meeting never occurred.

In an apparent attempt to discredit me, Janice Jackson got Karen Kochany, at the October 8 meeting, to read a letter ostensibly written by Mr. Lisus to Janice Jackson, that letter including:

“I write to confirm that since my engagement in this case I and other members of my law firm have had multiple communications with councillor Gammie, including a several hour meeting attended by myself, you and councillor Gammie.  Councillor Gammie’s views are incorporated in the town’s defence of the land claim and will continue to be.”

Assuming “since my engagement” means “since I was hired”, then Mr.  Lisus was “engaged” February 27, 2015 by council resolution.  The “several-hour meeting “ that Mr. Lisus refers to was December 22, 2014, a full two months before he was “engaged”.

The statement that “since my engagement in this case [there was] a meeting attended by myself, you [Jackson]and councillor Gammie” is thus clearly false.

I had a few brief communications with secretarial staff at the law firm that were about scheduling a meeting, and that were not about the case, but I did not ever have any conversations with any members of Mr. Lisus’s legal team, at any time before or after Mr. Lisus was engaged.

The statement:  “other members of my law firm have had multiple communications with councillor Gammie” implies that I had conversations regarding the details of the case with some legal person at the law firm other than Mr. Lisus.   This too is false.

I had only two brief conversations with Mr. Lisus after his engagement, one being in the closed session of April 7, 2015, in which my position was not discussed, and the second being a private short chat with Mr. Lisus on May 28, 2015 in which I informed him about a few details of the land patents I had just sent him.  The conversation by no means covered even a tiny part of my insights and evidence.

So Mr. Lisus’ claim of multiple correspondence with him after his engagement is also false.

I have views that Mr. Lisus has not even seen. So unless Mr. Lisus can read minds, the statement that “Councillor Gammie’s views are incorporated in the town’s defence of the land claim and will continue to be” is unsupportable and I believe false.

There are very technical and complex parts of my written public documents that we have never discussed, and that I would not expect Mr. Lisus to understand from only a reading of a website copy of a presentation or report.  I doubt that even my public views are incorporated into the case, (but I cannot know this to be true).

Because we never had our meeting as planned and agreed April 7, I have no assurance that Mr. Lisus has understood or used any of my publicly stated viewpoints.

Contrary to the spin mill, I did not state in the October 8th meeting or anywhere else that there was an agenda harmful to the residents going on in the background.  I did however give several reasons why I wondered if there was something happening, including:

    1. A favourable TSBP-commissioned report from 2014 was never released to public,
    2. David Dobson theory of 7th street post has critical flaw from a misreading of a compass direction / July ratepayer group meeting Janice Jackson spoke favourably about the David Dobson 7th street post , “N E < Ind. Res.”  theory / David Dobson filed a lawsuit (as a crossclaim) against the town in 2013,
    3. August 13, 2016 council meeting I tried to talk about the land claim and was shut down by Janice Jackson as soon as I mentioned the David Dobson theory,
    4. Janice Jackson sent emails around telling people the October 8 meeting was improper,
    5. The meeting of Craig Gammie and Mr. Lisus planned at April 7 2015 council meeting  was inexplicably quashed by Janice Jackson.

With the October 7 Lisus letter and all of the fiction it makes, I am changing my “wonder” (if there is a hidden agenda) to “very suspicious”.

And with the letter and its clear fibs I am wondering whose side some people are really on.

Residents who want to keep our beach should be wary.

Craig Gammie

Sauble Beach


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Lawyer denies councillor Gammie shut out of land claim discussions;  Gammie responds (6-4)

  1. yabder4 says:

    Craig, you continue to miss a vital fact in your defense. The information presented by you is based on the Balantyne Report commissioned by the Province of Ontario. It all sounds good and makes sense to the casual observer but the Province has disavowed and abandoned that report in their negotiations with the Feds, and SON. Since you are well aware the report has been abandoned, there is no explanation for your public meeting except as a political stunt to win over weak minds. In addition, the lawyer hired by the town may have already considered that report and doesn’t need you opinions.
    In my OPINION (which is not open for your rebuttals) from the research i have done since 2006, the SON wants the land not the money but would have happily settled ( I believe) for the land and token monetary compensation. The only land affected in this suit is the actual beach from Main St. to about 6th St. West of the shore road and the only “residents” affected are the TSBP and 5 other private individuals with deeds to land on the beach. All will receive some compensation from the Feds and Province but SON will not be successful in keeping the land if it goes to full litigation as the Feds perhaps may only need to use expropriation at fair market value to solve their problem. But then again, with the recent rulings on land claims, i doubt that the Feds would pursue this avenue for the sake of a few landowners. As for the Crown Patents, we all see how far that got in the Duffy’s Farmgate fiasco. In the end, “Atlas shrugged”. It’s time YOU shrugged and let the TSBP and the hired lawyers do their job.

  2. cgammie says:

    Yabder: Contrary to your assertion, my October 8th presentation was not based on the Ballantyne report. I did not even mention the Ballantyne report.

    You predict a plaintiff win. Time will tell.


  3. yabder4 says:

    The core of your thesis was the Ballantyne report.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s