At an August 2016 Ontario Municipal Board hearing I helped some residents who had been treated unfairly by the TSBP committee of adjustment (“COA”). I acted as their advisor, advocate, and representative. The COA decision was successfully appealed.
Clerk Angie Cathrea and Mayor Janice Jackson immediately went after me.
Without council approval, and without legitimate authority, they commissioned lawyer Steven O’Melia, using taxpayer’s money, to write to me (Attachment 1), accusing me of breaching section 26.1 of the law society Act (practicing law without a licence).
In the September 20, 2016 council meeting there was a heated discussion of the letter and its allegations. Also allegations of conflict of interest, and harassment (of clerk Cathrae), and improper use of confidential documents were made against me.
The discussion was well documented in a September 26, 2016 Wiarton Echo article (Attachment 2). Also at http://www.wiartonecho.com/2016/09/26/accusations-fly-at-sbp-council-meeting .
I challenged Cathrea and Jackson to put their allegations before a court or tribunal with the authority to judge. But of course their baseless allegations would then have constituted mischief, which is a serious offence carrying serious penalties, so they chose not to.
Instead of taking me before a competent court, Cathrea and Jackson again hired O’Melia, again at taxpayers’ expense, to file a complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada, again accusing me of practicing law without a licence in contravention of the Law Society Act.
The Cathrae/ Jackson objective was clearly to use taxpayers’ dollars to get me charged and convicted.
In my May 3, 2017 submission (Attachment 3) to the Law Society, I showed how the lawyer Stephen O’Melia, a lawyer of at least 20 years, had deliberately and with improper purpose misquoted the law to try to make it look like I had breached the Act, when in fact it was crystal clear that I had not.
Apparently the Law Society caught on to O’Melia’s attempt to deceive. The Law Society rejected Omelia’s argument and complaint as lacking.
O’Melia is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada – the very organization investigating his complaint against me. I expected that the Society would soften the dismissal of his complaint, and I submit that they did soften it. Still the dismissal of the complaint was a clear rebuke.
In findings released August 31, 2017 (attachment 4), Law society investigator Alan Grant said:
“The investigation revealed insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Craig Gammie breached the Law Society Act (“the Act”).”
In my submission that was soft-speak for:
The complaint made by Clerk Cathrae and Janice Jackson against Mr. Gammie and submitted by O’Melia was absolutely devoid of merit.
Note that the Law Society has no jurisdiction to enforce the law, so its findings must be considered in that context.
The meritless complaint against me cost taxpayers a lot of money.
The meritless complaint against me was another in a long string of baseless, malicious allegations, all of which cost the taxpayers money, and none of which have been found by any competent court to have any merit. None. …. Not one.
What we have had for several years is one staff member and some council members waging their private wars against me and using the taxpayers’ treasury as their war chest.
Taxpayers should be outraged.
It could happen to you.
Attachments 1 through 4 are here:
Craig, to respond to your belief that you did not breach copyright law – beliefs have nothing to do with it. There are copyright laws in Canada. There is a copyright notice on my story posted on the wiartonecho.com website which you can clearly see by scrolling to the bottom of the page: http://www.wiartonecho.com/2016/09/26/accusations-fly-at-sbp-council-meeting Copyright is not – as you wrote in your note on Appendix 2 – a “privilege” – it is protected by Copyright legislation in Canada. If you would like to learn more about Copyright, you can visit “A guide to copyright” at the Government of Canada’s website here: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr02281.html#whatCopyrightProtects As I did not grant permission for you to reprint the story, I appreciate that you have removed it as an item from your list of appendices at my request. Please note I have not given permission for any of my writing or photographs to be reproduced here at your blog, all of which are similarly copyrighted.
Zoe: I read the act. I believe I did not contravene. But I have removed your article from my blog. Because your complaint was just a diversionary tactic and I choose to focus on the issue of O’Melia, J. Jackson and A. Cathrae making up a ridiculous malicious false allegation for no other purpose than to put me through stress. Your diversionary tactic failed.
Do you have a comment on the real issue?
Pingback: Clerk’s Violation of Protection of Privacy Law Swept Under the Carpet | Craig Gammie's Commentary