TSBP Clerk /mayor censor another report – could shenanigans cost us the beach?

In previous commentaries I have indicated that several of my reports were censored, without legitimate authority, without grounds, and without reasons being provided.

The latest to be censored is report Gammie 02-2107.  The report is attached as it was submitted to the clerk.

The subject is the Sauble land claim.

I had read the first nations (plaintiff) amended claim of April 2016.  They are still claiming that they own to about 7th street.   I had also read the TSBP amended statement of defence of December 2016.

I felt that with my background on the Sauble Land claim issue, I could improve our defence considerably, and reduce the risk of us losing the beach to the first nation.

All I was asking for in the censored report was for council to grant me authority to meet with town lawyer Johnathon Lisus to discuss the land claim and our defence.

Clerk Cathrae scuttled my report, refusing to put it on a council agenda.

I asked Ms. Cathrae for her authority for the censorship, and the grounds.

Although Ms. Cathrae would not answer directly, it became clear that she was using the part of rule 12.1 which says that the mayor (not the clerk) can reject reports “felt to be in violation of law”.

It also became clear that the “law” that the Clerk felt that my report “violated” was these two resolutions:

R-19-2016  That the Mayor and Deputy Mayor meet with staff on a quarterly basis to review the legal update and bring back to Council as a whole anything they feel needs to have discussion for any decisions.

R-32-2016That Council has already determined that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor will meet with staff quarterly to discuss legal and that this issue not be brought back to Council for the remainder of this term.

First of all, it is clear that the clerk lacks the legitimate authority to censor my reports, regardless of the grounds.  The authority (when there are legitimate grounds), is reserved for the Mayor.

Second, the grounds provided for censoring are preposterous.

The two resolutions are not “law”, and are not anything that my report could possibly be “in violation of law”, so the report does not violate anything.

Even the report recommendations, (as distinct from the report itself), if implemented, would not “violate the law”, and would not even violate the resolutions.

I suspect that the Clerk is not really acting on her own, but rather is being directed by the Mayor.  If true, then it is the Mayor who has done wrong, not so much the clerk.

Every day I become more convinced that something is going on behind the scenes and that Janice Jackson is taking very questionable measures to keep the residents in the dark regarding the Sauble Land claim.

I can only pray that the Mayor’s shenanigans do not cost us the beach.






Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

More of Janice Jackson’s malicious allegations against Councillor Gammie turn out to be groundless 7-3

Section A 7.6 of our rules prescribes:

“Any notes taken by Council members in Closed Session will be given to the Clerk at the end of the Closed Session. The notes will be destroyed by the Clerk.”

Clearly the rule allows taking notes in closed session, as long as they are surrendered at the end of the meeting.   Clearly the rule cannot possibly be breached until the end of a meeting.

May 12, 2015 at the very beginning of a closed session council meeting, Mayor Janice Jackson accused me of making notes on my computer in breach of section A 7.6.

We were just starting the closed session.  We were a long ways from the end of the meeting.

I argued the obvious – that I could not possibly have breached the rule because we were nowhere near the end of the meeting.

I guess Mayor Jackson did not agree, because she called the OPP and asked them to arrest me for trespassing and to remove me from town hall.

While we were waiting for the police, I proposed a resolution.  I said that while I would not admit to the breach (of A7.6) that I was (falsely) accused of, I would delete the computer file I was working on, close my computer, put it away and make notes on paper instead.

Mayor Jackson accepted my proposal.  When the OPP arrived we both told the officer that the problem was resolved, and that no further action was required.

Then just as the police officer was about to leave, new allegations were levelled:  that I had photographed confidential documents with my cellphone, that I had audio recorded closed session with my computer , and that I had audio recorded closed session with my cell phone.

I was told to apologize for these new allegations or be charged with trespassing and removed.

Because the new allegations were false and unproven, there was no way I was going to apologize, so I refused, and I was handcuffed, marched out, searched, charged, and humiliated.

A week later in council chambers I was told once again to apologize or be evicted.  Once again I refused to apologize for breaking rules I did not break, and so I was arrested and removed and charged and humiliated.

Janice Jackson told reporters that I was out forever if I did not apologize and the apology was accepted by council.

I told reporters that I was going to court to get an injunction to prevent the mayor from keeping me out of council.

Two days later, on May 21, even though I still proclaimed my innocence, and I had not apologized, Mayor Jackson dropped the “out forever” threat, and I was back in council.

I took that as a clear admission on her part that her allegations that I broke any or all those rules were all groundless.  I considered it vindication.

That left me with trespass charges.

Over the 18 odd months since I was charged, there have been many pretrials.

At a pretrial a justice of the peace tries to get the parties to reach a settlement so that matter does not have to go to court for a trial.

At every pretrial I insisted that I had not breached the council rules that Mayor Jackson had claimed I breached, and I refused to admit to any breach of the council rules or the Trespass to Property Act, and I refused to consider any resolution other than dismissal of the charges or proceed to court.

The sixth or seventh pretrial was on January 18, 2017.  As before, I admitted to no wrongdoing.  Still, I got a dismissal of all charges.

And while the prosecutor did not formally admit that he had no case, and did not formally admit that the allegations made against me by Janice Jackson were not provable, the conclusion I drew from his request for dismissal is that he had no viable case.

I considered the dismissal a second vindication of my position that Janice Jackson’s allegations of serious breach of council rules were false and groundless.

I will go one further.  I will say that the allegations levelled by Jackson were knowingly false.

I have had many allegations levelled at me over the past six years, many of which made headlines.   Most I have proven false.  The ones not proven false were shown to be unsubstantiated.

I currently have at least four allegations against me:

  • That I breached the code of conduct by disclosing information from the June 7, 2016 closed session,
  • That I breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act in the June 7, 2016 closed session,
  • That I harassed (workplace harassment) the clerk for two years straight,
  • That I breached the Law Society Act (practicing law without a licence) in an August 12, 2016 OMB hearing.

Over and over I have asserted that the allegations are groundless.  Over and over I have refused to recognize Janice Jackson’s kangaroo court.  Over and over I have challenged my accusers to put the allegations before a proper adjudicator.

Yet no one has picked up the challenge.

I am very confident that the allegations will never go before a tribunal with the authority to adjudicate.

But if they do I am confident that the charges will again be dismissed.

Janice Jackson’s barrage of false allegations are bullying, and are harmful, and are an abuse of her position.

No resident should have to suffer through that.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Response to Wiarton Echo article: “OMB Questions SBP Councillor’s Role at Hearing” (7-2)

The Wiarton Echo ran a story January 20 titled:  “OMB Questions SBP Councillor’s Role At Hearing”.

 I was interviewed by editor Zoe Kessler on January 17th and again on January 19th about the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) “report” cited in the article.

I explained to Zoe that OMB board member Duncan’s duty was to focus on the planning matter before him and I explained that OMB board member Duncan had no business opining on an alleged conflict of interest at a council meeting that he was not involved in.

Zoe chose to leave all that out of the article.

I also explained to Zoe that the Law Society of Upper Canada had no authority to investigate, prosecute, adjudicate, or anything, and I challenged her to find otherwise in the Law Society Act.

She did not find anything.  I doubt if she even looked.

I explained to Zoe that the real story is that someone (not me) took closed session information  from the June 7, 2016  closed council meeting about the OMB case and gave it to a witness in the August 12 OMB hearing, in clear breach of council’s code of ethics.  I explained to Zoe that the witness actually swore to the closed session information.  I also told Zoe who leaked the information.

Zoe left that out too.   She told me she wasn’t going to touch that one.

Concerned that the article was inaccurate because of too many omissions, I decided to present the other perspective using the comments provisions on the Wiarton Echo Facebook page.  And I did.

I posted comments, and replied to comments by others.

It was a good conversation on the Facebook page.  There was no name calling, no defamation.  All reasonably civil.

But on Sunday the Facebook page and the comments disappeared.

It appears that the Echo is taking a page from someone’s manual and is censoring comments.  (Or maybe the Minister of Propaganda is exerting control of the press.)

For those who were following the Facebook conversation, and for those who weren’t but are interested, I have recreated the Echo Facebook page and all the comments.

My comments are verbatim; I had saved a copy.   Comments of others are from my memory.

Here’s the Echo Article:

OMB Questions SBP Councillor’s Role At Hearing

TOWN OF SOUTH BRUCE PENINSULA – In a recent decision and order by the Ontario Municipal Board, Justin Duncan, board member, said the OMB found it “very concerning” that Craig Gammie, a councillor for the town of South Bruce Peninsula, failed to see a potential conflict of interest when he acted as a representative for a town resident at an OMB appeal hearing.

Duncan raised several concerns in his Dec. 16 decision regarding an appeal of a minor variance granted to the owners of 600 Mallory Beach Road in the town of South Bruce Peninsula.

Duncan said, “It was only during the course of the evidence of the last witness to be heard…that it became known to the Board that Mr. Gammie is a Town Councillor who participated in an in-camera session of Town Council where it was decided that legal counsel would not be sent to this hearing to represent the town.”

Duncan said after this information was revealed, Gammie was asked to consider “whether his role as representative of the Appellant was in conflict with his role as City [sic] Councillor.”

According to Duncan’s report, Gammie had responded there was no conflict as he had not received financial remuneration.

Duncan’s report said while the board was “not charged specifically with making a finding under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act,” it was “responsible for controlling the integrity of its own process.”

Duncan continued, “the Board finds it very concerning that a Town Councillor would fail to see the potential for a real conflict in this situation, which gives rise to the question of whether his vote at the Council meeting was as a member of Council or as agent for the Appellant.”

Duncan stressed Counc. Gammie’s “potential conflict” would not be taken into account in the assessment of the appeal.

At an interview Jan. 17 at SBP council chambers in Wiarton, Gammie questioned how Duncan had received information from a closed council session, adding, “I have never been an agent for the Appellant until the very day of the [OMB] hearing.

“On the day of the hearing, I became an agent of the Appellant.”

Gammie added, “When I was in that council meeting, everything I said, everything I did, every vote I did, was as a member of council.”

Gammie reiterated his belief that, “there are a dozen reasons why it’s not a breach of the Municipal Conflict of Interest [Act]. The fact that there was no money is only one of them.”

In contrast to Gammie’s position, Duncan’s report echoes concerns previously expressed by Gammie’s fellow council members.

In a letter from the town’s legal counsel dated Aug. 31, Steven O’Melia of Miller Thomson LLP raised concerns that Gammie may have contravened the Law Society Act in representing and/or giving advice to residents at the Aug. 12 OMB appeal hearing.

O’Melia added legal counsel was concerned “about the appearance of potential impropriety given that you may have, or be perceived to have, information that could assist a private participant in a legal proceeding.”

At a Sept. 20 council meeting, council voted to make a complaint to The Law Society of Upper Canada on behalf of the town in regard to the matter (Counc. Gammie declared a conflict of interest and refrained from voting).

In an interview Jan. 17, Mayor Janice Jackson said The Law Society has confirmed receipt of the information and said it will assign an investigator “in the new year.”

“We’re taking that as any time now,” Jackson said, adding she expects to hear a decision within the next three or four months.

Jackson said, should Counc. Gammie be found guilty, he would face a fine of up to $25,000 for a first offence. A second offence would include a fine of up to $50,000, she said.

As for the outcome, in an interview Jan. 19 Counc. Gammie said, “I quite frankly believe when the Law Society actually looks at this on the surface they will decline to investigate any further. They will realize it is frivolous and vexatious and they will tell the town so.”

Gammie said he did not believe the Law Society had any authority to investigate in the first place as he is not a member of the Law Society.


Here are the Facebook comments Thread 1 –

Craig Gammie replied to the main article:

Regarding Mr. Duncan’s thinly veiled allegation that I breached the Municipal Conflict of interest Act:

For there to be a finding that I breached the act, there must be a pecuniary interest.  In other words I have to benefit financially if a particular decision goes my way. And the conflict of interest must be present at the time of the meeting where the breach is alleged.  If a conflict arises after the meeting it does not count, because a conflict that arises after a decision is made cannot possible influence or change that decision.

There is no decision that could have been made June 7 that I could have benefitted financially from.   And the alleged conflict arose after the meeting. Two clear reasons why there was no potential conflict, and no actual conflict of interest.

OMB panelist Justin Duncan stated as a fact that there was a “potential” conflict and claimed by strong innuendo that there was an actual conflict and that I breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

He was wrong.   He set himself up as another Kangaroo court.  Not as bad as Janice Jackson’s Kangaroo court, but still improper.   If Duncan wants to accuse me of breach of the Municipal Conflict of interest act, or of having a “potential” conflict, he should go to the proper authority, which is not the OMB, and is not Justin Duncan, but is the Superior Court of Justice.  But Duncan won’t do that.  Because he knows that his allegations are groundless and vexatious and he knows that there are serious consequences for making unsupportable or vexatious or frivolous claims to the Superior Court of Justice.

Unless a competent adjudicator says otherwise, I am not guilty of the allegations levelled against me.

Regarding the possible breach of the code of conduct June 7, 2016:

The municipal act provides for any resident to petition council to commission an inquiry into whether a member of council has contravened the code of conduct, and provides for council to assign an integrity commissioner to conduct such an inquiry.

Concerned that a member had breached the code on June 7, 2016 by leaking closed session information, I requested, via a report to council, that council commission such an inquiry.

Mayor Janice Jackson, exercising authority she does not legitimately possess, censored my report, and prevented my petition from coming before council, and prevented my concerns from being put to a proper adjudicator :


Regarding the allegation by lawyer O’Melia that I contravened the Law Society Act:

The council made similar allegations at the September 20, 2016 council meeting.  I called it a Kangaroo court and challenged any or all of my accusers to take their allegations before someone with the legitimate authority to adjudicate the allegations. They did not do that.  Instead they got the town lawyer, at great expense to the taxpayer, to make a complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada.

But the law society of Upper Canada has no legitimate authority to adjudicate or to try me or to charge me or to prosecute me.  They have the authority to discipline their members, but I am not a member, so they cannot try or discipline me.

They don’t even have any real investigative powers.   They can ask people to give statements, but they cannot summon them.  They can ask for documentary evidence (like closed minutes), but they cannot compel them.    Their powers are extremely limited.

I predict that none of my accusers will take their accusations before someone who has the legitimate authority to adjudicate on the merits of the accusations.  Because the people who have that authority do not take kindly to people making unsupportable or frivolous or vexations allegations.  And the allegation that I breached the Law society act is just that – unsupportable, frivolous and vexatious.

The law society act section allegedly contravened  is there so unscrupulous people don’t pretend to be lawyers and take people’s money for providing legal services that they are not qualified or authorized to provide.  The section is there to protect the public.

I have not been accused of taking people’s money for providing legal services that I am not authorized  to provide.    I am not accused of taking people’s money at all. I am not accused of contravening the purpose of the act.

It is clear that Omelai is not going after me to protect the public.

So he must be going after me for some other reason.

In his allegation, when Omelia paraphrased the law that he claims I contravened, he left out a key part of the law.  He left out the part that says “subject to section 2…, .  He left out the part that says  —  if the exception in section 2 is available, you can provide legal services without a licence.

The only plausible reason for leaving that part out is because if you leave it in it quickly becomes clear that I have not contravened the law.   And if I have not contravened then there are no grounds for the accusation.  So I can deduce that the allegations are made not to protect the public, which is a proper purpose, but rather to harm me, which is an improper purpose, which makes the allegations vexatious.

Unless a competent adjudicator says otherwise, I am not guilty of the allegations levelled against me.

I ask how you would feel if a serious but false allegation were levelled at you in a very public forum.   I ask how you would feel if there was a never-ending barrage of false allegations levelled at you.

I had no idea municipal politics could be so rough.  I had no idea how dirty some of the players can play.

I know better now.  But I won’t back down.


Here’s the reader’s digest version from the Charter of Freedoms and Rights

Proceedings in criminal and penal matters

  1. Any person charged with an offence has the right ……. (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

MaryAnn Wilhelm replied to Craig Gammie:

I commend you for stepping up to the plate to defend your position. It’s a good read.

Thread 2:

MaryAnn Wilhelm responded to the main article:

They got elected by attacking the Indians.  Just likeTrump got elected by going after immigrants.

Craig Gammie replied:  The first nations sued us for the beach.  I was defending against the lawsuit.   Not at all like Trump.

MaryAnn Wilhelm replied to C. Gammie:  And how is that going?

Craig replied to MaryAnn Wilhelm:

Janice Jackson is trying to make sure I am kept out of the picture.   She has even resorted to lying about my involvement.

She told a reporter that I have phoned TSBP Lawyer Lisus “on a daily basis” since his engagement in February 2015.

On my blog I said that her claim was a “huge, ridiculous, malicious, and obvious lie”:


Mid-December Jackson told me she had proof that I phoned TSBP Lawyer Lisus “on a daily basis”.

I said “show me”.

She has not provided the proof.

I maintain my submission that she lied.

Other blog postings regarding the land claim:



How is that going?  Not as well as I had hoped.  But I will find ways to go around the roadblock.

Doug Jordan replied to Craig Gammie:  I remind you that a letter was read at your Amabel Property Owners October 8th land claim meeting from lawyer Jonathan Lisus… that’s the proof.  If you want more proof you should pay Lisus to give you proof.

Craig Gammie replied to Doug Jordan:

The October 7th lawyer’s letter proves nothing.  It’s not even evidence of anything.   The person who made the claim (that Gammie phones the lawyer daily) and promised to back it up with phone records is the one who must supply the evidence/ proof.

Thread 3:

Doug Jordan responded to main article:   The whole world, not just TSBP, should be concerned about this behavior.

Craig Gammie responded to Jordan:  No .. the world should be concerned about some people assuming that allegations are facts.

Thread 4 

Jon Turner responded to main article:   About as expected lol

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Propaganda Minister Jackson Censors All Correspondence Critical Of Her Regime

For the third time in several months, Propaganda Minister Janice Jackson has censored a report submitted to council by this councillor, refusing, without legitimate reason, to include the report in a council agenda, and refusing to allow council discussion of the report.

The first was report Gammie 04-2016, submitted August 10, 2016.


That report was critical of Ms. Jackson’s stance on enforcement of the fireworks by-law, and critical of OPP commander Thompson’s alleged breach of the rules regarding confidentiality of a complaint.

Jackson censored the report, indicating that “the Council table is not the location to bring forward such concerns” but failing to demonstrate that she had the legitimate authority or grounds to censor.

The second was report GAMMIE 09-2016, December 20, 2016 .

That report alleged that a member of council breached the code of ethics  by disclosing confidential information from the June 7, 2016 closed session of council to a witness in the August 12, 2016 OMB hearing at TSBP.  The report requested that council assign an integrity commissioner to investigate.


Propaganda Minister Jackson again censored my report, refusing to put it on a council agenda, and indicting “I sent the report back to you because it went against our policy.”,

But Ms. Jackson failed to indicate where she got the authority to censore or how my report contravened policy.

The third instance was December 27th, 2016, when I submitted Gammie 10-2016, accusing Matt Jackson of breaching both our code of ethics and our code of conduct.  Specifically, I submitted that:

On October 6, 2015, in a speech in open council, without mentioning my name, Matt Jackson: delivered a mean spirited, vengeful, vindictive  vilification against me, made disparaging remarks about me; made me out to be a very bad person; alleged that my request for investigation filed with the Ombudsman was senseless and frivolous; and publicly maligned my motives.

In the report I requested that an integrity commissioner be assigned to investigate and report to council.  But Minister of Propaganda Jackson censored Gammie 10-2016 too.  When I asked where she though she got the authority and the grounds for censoring the report, she refused to state how she has authority to censor and would not state any grounds for the censorship, but instead handed me a copy of our procedural manual, and told me to go find the authority and grounds myself.

Later she promised to put the “authority” and “grounds” in writing, but she never did.

The censored report Gammie 10-2016 is below.  The attachments referred to in the report are attached separately.

The report is at:


This is getting ridiculous.  The mayor clearly cannot handle views that do not line up with her own.  The mayor clearly cannot handle criticism.  The mayor cannot even handle criticism directed at those sniveling sycophants that surround her.

So she gives herself authority that she cannot legitimately possess, and censors anything that displeases her.

Elected officials use reports and motions to get issues before council for discussion and decisions.  That’s part of the democratic process.

This censorship of my reports without legitimate authority or grounds is a serious blow to democracy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Censorship of another Councillor’s Report – What is the mayor trying to cover up? (6-7)

An application for minor variance re 600 Mallory Beach Road was made October 30, 2015. The application was heard by the Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) on April 27, 2016.  A neighbour at 598 Mallory Beach Road objected to the variance.

It has been reported that at the April 27 Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) meeting, COA member Councillor Vukovic angrily waved her finger at the objectors,  disparaged them (“shame, shame, shame”), and belittled them for not having a modern septic system (“do you mean that you go in a

pail? “).

The COA granted the variance subject to several conditions that the applicant had to meet.

The objectors appealed the COA decision to the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”).

The appeal to the OMB was discussed by council in closed session June 7, 2016.

The OMB hearing was August 12, 2016.  An OMB decision was handed down December 12, 2016.

It is clear from the OMB decision paragraph 34 that someone in attendance at the June 7, 2016 closed session of council had passed closed session information to the applicant or to someone working with the applicant, in clear violation of the council code of ethics in place at the time.

The Municipal Act provides for council to hire an integrity commissioner to investigate possible breaches of a council code of ethics.

I felt that there had been a serious breach of the code of ethics by a member of council, and that the act had been done in an attempt to prejudice the OMB hearing to the advantage of the variance applicants and to the disadvantage of the appellants.

Because I felt that the breach was very serious, I wrote a report to council recommending that an integrity commissioner be hired to investigate the alleged breach of the code of ethics.  My report as submitted is attached below.

Using authority she does not legitimately possess, the report was censored in its entirety by the mayor, Janice Jackson.

The report did not make it onto the December 20, 2016 council agenda.

The TSBP procedural by law provides that the mayor can refuse to put a report on the council agenda if any of these conditions are present:

1) the report is in violation of law,

2) the report is in violation of policy,

3) the report would harm the Town.

When I asked specifically why my report had been completely censored, the response I got from the mayor gave no indication of a “violation of law” or of “harm the Town”.  But the mayor did claim this: “I sent the report back to you because it went against our policy.”

It is clear that Ms. Jackson was somehow claiming that my report was a “violation of policy” (number 2 criterion).

In fact my report as submitted is neither a “violation of policy” nor “against our policy”.

The policy (Policy A 3.1 Code of Conduct) merely says:

10.3 Any individual may make written complaint to the Clerk with respect to

member adherence to the Code of Conduct.

10.4 The complaint will be forwarded to the Ombudsman’s Office to review the

complaint and take any action deemed necessary by that organization.

Ms. Jackson’s claim that my report violated policy invalid, for several reasons:

1) My concern was about member adherence to the code of ethics in place at the time between June 7 and August 12, 2016.  That concern is properly addresses by hiring an integrity commissioner, not by looking to a code of conduct which was not even passed until two months later.

2) Even if the code of conduct had been in place from June 7 to August 12 (which it wasn’t), the code of conduct does not indicate or imply that the only allowable way to deal with a concern is to file a complaint with the clerk so it can be forwarded to the Ombudsman. The code says “an individual may make written complaint to the Clerk”.  The word “may” clearly means that filing a complaint with the clerk is discretionary, meaning that other forms of addressing alleged code violations are not prohibited in any way by the policy.

3) Even if hiring an Integrity commissioner were a violation of policy (which it is not), that would not make my report a violation of policy, because the report does not hire the commissioner but merely recommends such.

4) Restricting by policy the way a complaint can be handled would be contrary to the municipal act, and would thus be of no force.

It follows that hiring an integrity commissioner to investigate an alleged breach of the code of ethics in place at the time is not in violation of the current policy.  It further follows that my report is not in violation of policy 3.1 .

Thus my report is not a violation of the policy or even contradictory or non-adhering to policy.

It follows that Ms. Jackson had and has absolutely no legitimate grounds to censor my report.

Ms. Jackson has a history of shutting out views that she disagrees with, especially views that are critical of her actions or actions of her allies.

She has abused her authority by: illegally having me arrested for trespassing as I sat in my council seat during a council meeting; having a town lawyer file a ridiculous and unsupportable complaint to the upper Canada law society; having the TSBP land claim lawyer write a letter to Ms. Jackson falsely claiming that I had multiple contacts with that lawyer (https://craiggammieblog.com/2016/10/14/lawyer-denies-councillor-gammie-shut-out-of-land-claim-discussions-gammie-responds-6-4/) ;  claimed to the press the huge lie that I had contacted the land claim lawyer daily (http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/2016/10/09/gammie-holds-sauble-land-claim-meeting); censored a report about the OPP not dong their duty with respect to fireworks bylaw enforcement; and much more.

I submit that the censorship of my report about a breach of closed session confidentiality is either naivety in the extreme or else an attempt to cover up the alleged transgression.   I believe it is the latter.

The censored report is attached below.

The censorship is of concern as it is just one more tool that the Mayor is using to shut out those with views that are different than her own.

If you share my concern, I urge you to let council know.

I would be remiss if I did not warn you that others have been silenced using various retaliatory measures, including intimidation (“something bad will happen to you if you continue to oppose me”).





Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The mayor’s big lie; can we trust her with the Sauble land claim file? (6-6)

Despite some efforts by known disrupters, the Amabel Property Owners Association successfully held a meeting October 8th to discuss the Sauble Land Claim.

The Sun Times and Wiarton Echo articles (http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/2016/10/09/gammie-holds-sauble-land-claim-meeting) about the October 8 meeting reported Janice Jackson’ comments as:

Gammie has been in contact with [land claim lawyer] Lisus on a number of occasions, and council had to limit contact from everyone, except for Jackson and Clerk Angie Cathrae. “At $900 an hour we can’t afford to have Coun. Gammie phoning him on a daily basis, which is what he was doing,” said Jackson.

Jackson’s claim that I have phoned Lisus “on a daily basis” is a huge, ridiculous, malicious, and obvious lie.

My first contact with Lisus was on or about December 19, 2014, two months before we hired him.

My phone records show that from March 1, 2016 until now I did not call Lisus or his office, not even once.   This puts to a lie Jackson’s statement that I phoned Lisus “on a daily basis”.

My journal indicates that between my first contact with Lisus on December 19, 2014, and February 28, 2016, I called Lisus twice. My phone records will confirm this.

The first call was in May 2015 and my recollection is that I only left a voicemail and did not actually talk to Lisus.  It was a very short message related to some crown patents that I had sent him.

The second was a message left about October 9, 2015 letting Lisus know that I had couriered some documents that Janice Jackson had asked a lawyer friend of mine to send to Lisus.  The documents were unrelated to the land claim.  There was absolutely no discussion of the Sauble land claim.

There is no way anyone (except Jackson and her ilk) could get “Gammie phones Lisus daily” out of those two calls in two years, especially when one of the calls was not even about the land claim.

I cannot imagine why the mayor would risk what little is left of her credibility by telling such a huge and obvious lie, a lie that she had to know I could so easily prove false.

The only plausible explanation is that I am somehow getting too close to the truth about what she is doing with the land claim file.

It begs the questions “why is she trying to discredit and shut out those residents with the best understanding of what the 1854 era treaty, maps, field note and journals really say?”

It begs the question “what is she trying to hide?”

Just as ridiculous as the “big lie” (that Gammie phoned Lisus daily) is Jackson’s threat, captured by the press as:

Saturday’s meeting was recorded and if Gammie has harmed the town’s position in the claim in any way she says action will be taken against him. “I have sent a preliminary report to Jonathan Lisus and I will follow up once I hear the recording and he wants a copy of the recording as well,” said Jackson.

Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (subject to fair and just laws restricting things like defamation).

Recent jurisprudence indicates that a municipality cannot sue a citizen for defamation.

Specifically, in the case of Montague (Township) v. Page, Judge Pedlar found:

It is the very essence of a democracy to engage many voices in the process, not just those who are positive and supportive. By its very nature, the democratic process is complex, cumbersome, difficult, messy and at times frustrating, but always worthwhile, with a broad based participation absolutely essential. A democracy cannot exist without freedom of expression, within the law, permeating all of its institutions. If governments were entitled to sue citizens who are critical, only those with the means to defend civil actions would be able to criticize government entities.

Judge Pedlar then dismissed, on summary motion (no trial), the defamation lawsuit filed by the township of Montague.

At the October 8th meeting I exercised my right to freedom of expression.

There is no way that I can be charged or successfully sued by the town for anything I said or could have said at the meeting.  Jackson’s threat is empty.

I submit that Jackson’s empty threat was made to try to get me to stop sharing the truth with residents, to try to intimidate me into stopping my research on the land claim, and to try to intimidate me into silence.

This is not the first time Janice Jackson has threatened an executive member of the Amabel Property Owners Association with legal action.  The first time was just as ridiculous and empty as the current one.

Jackson’s threat will have just the opposite effect of what she intended and must have anticipated.  Another Amabel Property Owners Association meeting regarding the land claim is in the works, for July, 2017, tentatively the 22nd.  I will continue to participate as much as possible.

Several other very unusual and unexplained actions by Janice Jackson before the “big lie” and the “empty threat” gave me cause to wonder why residents were being kept in the dark again regarding the Sauble beach Land claim, including:

  • A 2014 consultant’s report commissioned by the town and received by the town and very favourable to the town was never released to the public.
  • A meeting agreed upon April 7, 2015 in which I was to share insights and evidence with land claim lawyer Jonathan Lisus was inexplicably quashed by Janice Jackson, and instruction was given to Lisus not to correspond with me at all, effectively shutting me out.
  • January 19, 2016, a council majority gave the mayor and deputy what they interpret as authority to address all legal matters (presumably including the land claim) without the knowledge or approval of the rest of council. (Council had no legitimate authority to delegate that decision making power).
  • In an August 13, 2016 council meeting I tried to talk about the land claim and the critically-flawed Dobson theory and was rudely shut down by Janice Jackson and members of her fan club.
  • A September 26, 2016 letter from J. Jackson and J. Kirkland, written by lawyer Lisus at taxpayers’ expense, falsely stated that after the lawyer was engaged I had “seized the opportunity to discuss [my] evidence with the Town solicitor”, and without grounds accused me of “conduct in the community that has the potential to be divisive and disrespectful to the process and those involved.”
  • About October 3, 2016 Janice Jackson sent emails around telling residents that the Land Claim meeting being put on by Amabel Property Owners Association on October 8 was improper. (Amabel Property Owners Association held the October 8 meeting anyway.  Given Janice Jackson’s history of disruption, she was asked not to come.)

The prospect of ten storey hotels lining the beach and signs saying “hotel patrons only on the beach” has many residents concerned.

With her “big lie” and her ridiculous ultimatum, and all the other shenanigans, is it fair to ask whether we should continue to trust Jackson to manage or co-manage the land claim file?

Sooner or later residents will find out whether Jackson is hiding something, and if so, what.   Anyone who has any insights please share by commenting on this post at www.craiggammieblog.com

I recommend commenting under an alias.   To avoid becoming a target of bitter retaliation.


Craig Gammie

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Sauble Land Claim – What is the meaning of the 7th street post notation NE < Ind. Res.? (Craig's 6-5)

On October 8, 2016 the Amabel Property Owners Association organized a meeting of residents to talk about the Sauble Land Claim.  At that meeting I showed a picture of an 1855 draft map, made by surveyor Charles Rankin, of Amabel township, the Saugeen Reserve, and the Chief’s point reserve.  I also showed on the map what appears to be a post, along with the notation “NE < Ind. Res.”.


David Dobson had earlier come up with a theory of the meaning of the notation “NE < Ind. Res.”.

At the October 8 meeting I showed how I believed Mr.  Dobson’s theory was flawed.

My powerpoint presentation, including my critique of Mr.  Dobson’s theory, was posted to:


Mr. Dobson reviewed my presentation and took offence, posting on his blog a reply to my critique of his theory:


A long discussion followed in the form of comments to the posting, with two anonymous commenters , AM and AG, joining in.

I determined that I needed to use drawings and pictures to carry on the dialogue, so I am posting this on my own blog at:


(with a link posted on David’s blog that directs to mine).

There are three or four theories being put forward by Mr. Dobson and AM regarding the “NE < Ind. Res.” notation.

Theory 1

The first theory by Mr. Dobson is that the “NE <” in the notation refers to the NE direction of the east boundary of the chief’s point reserve.   This has been disputed by me and apparently also by AM on the grounds that the direction of the chief’s point east boundary is north westerly, definitely not northeast or north easterly.  Mr. Dobson has conceded that he erred and that theory 1 is incorrect.

Theory 2

The second theory is by AM (who is anonymous), who said:

At that notation marker if you draw a cross on the page at 90 degrees to the page (which is how you calculate bearing directions) you will find that that extension line “construction line” which passes through the marker termed “N.E < Ind. Res.” actually runs in the North Easterly direction from that cross. Merely to describe this line Mr. Rankin termed it as such on this working draft copy because in fact this line runs coincident with the Saugeen Easterly boundary that ends at Main St.

The “notation marker” is the “NE < Ind. Res.” printed on Rankin’s draft map of October 12, 1855.

Contrary to AM, drawing “a cross on the page at 90 degrees to the page“ is not how bearing directions are calculated.  The edge of the page is not a reference for Rankin’s lines and the edge of a page is rarely a reference for any survey map or plan.  Contrary to Mr. Dobson and AM, the edge of the page is not an indicator of true north.  Rankin would never have made such a huge mistake as to say that the “extension line “construction line”” which passes through the marker termed “N.E < Ind. Res.” actually runs in the North Easterly direction”.  The extension line in fact does not run north easterly from any point on the map.  It is not plausible that Rankin would term the direction of the “construction line” as “NE”.   AM erred in assuming that the construction line ran north easterly and erred in assuming that Rankin saw the construction line as running North easterly.  The error is fatal to the AM theory.

AM then says:

This line then is projected N.E. and used to intersect with the extension of the easterly boundary on Chief’s point lands which it extends right though the Sauble River, This is how that bearing of N 13 deg. W is established and as shown for the bearing of the Easterly Boundary Line on Chiefs point.

That “N.E < Ind. Res.” marker was simply a way to relate the 2 separate reserve easterly boundaries together – that’s all.

Contrary to AM the construction line is not projected N.E. and cannot be projected N.E. because it does not run N.E.  But the construction line when projected does intersect the southerly extension of the eastern boundary of the Chief’s point reserve.   And the two lines do form an angle (as any two non-parallel lines will where they intersect).

But surveyors put bearings and distances on maps, not angles.  The “N 13 ° W” on the chief’s point eastern boundary as on Rankin’s final map of 1856  is a bearing, not an angle.  It is a notation to describe the direction or bearing of a line, not the relationship between two lines.   If Rankin wished to describe an angle, which would be unnecessary and highly unlikely, he would describe it as just as “13 degrees” (13°) and he would mark it as 13 ° as in the drawing below.



Rankin did not put the 13 degrees on the map where AM says the angle is.  It just is not there.  If Rankin wanted to indicate an angle on the map formed by the intersections of the chief’s point boundary extended southeastward and the Saugeen boundary extended northward, he would have put the notation “13 degrees” at the intersection.  He did not put anything at the intersection.  He did not put “13 degrees” anywhere to refer to that angle.

The assumption that “<” refers to the angle made by the two eastern boundaries is unsupportable. The assumption is a second fatal flaw in the theory.   The notation “NE < Ind. Res.” does not describe the angle formed by the two boundaries.

The theory was already dead, but that second fatal flaw makes sure.

Theory 3

The third theory is what I will call the Dobson / AM theory which is slightly different from the AM theory.  If anyone prefers to think of it as AM’s theory explained differently that’s fine – my critique applies just the same.

Here is how Mr. Dobson describes theory three:

The post at midpoint lot 31 represents where the True North line first meets land after extending through the water of Lake Huron from the termination of the Saugeen Reserve at Main Street. At this point he [Rankin] indicated, by way of notation, that True North ran in a north to east direction in relation to the page. To understand this you need to place a directional crosshair at the post to show how NSE and W are represented on the page.

The vertical arm of AM’s “crosshairs” is parallel to the edge of the page.

Mr.  Dobson drew these “crosshairs” like this (solid blue lines):


But the edge of the page does not run north-south true.  Mr. Dobson’s (and AM’s) crosshairs are wrong.  AM’s statement that “True North [runs] in a north to east direction in relation to the page” is not only false, but also nonsensical.  True North may run in a direction slightly off vertical of the edge of the page, but the north line does not and cannot run northeast in relation to anything.  A True north line runs North, period.  So the explanation cannot account for the “NE” in “NE < Ind. Res” notation, because there is nothing northeast about the true north line, crosshairs notwithstanding, edge of page notwithstanding.

Then according to AM the theory goes:

The NE < Ind. Res. notation marks the True North extension line to the mid lot 31 post in relation to the Saugeen Eastern boundary and also the direction True North runs from the mid lot 31 post to the Sauble River in relation to the page.

This is Ok except for “in relation to the page”, because as argued above, the edge of the page is not North true, and the edge of the page is completely irrelevant.

Then the theory goes:

Rankin was using this map to help in calculating the directional bearing of Chief’s Point eastern boundary. To prove this, the map shows that he first calculated the bearing by using north as it is presented on a page; straight up and down, which gave him a rough idea of the direction bearing

Contrary to AM, North is not presented on the page as straight up and down.

Then the theory goes:

If you look closely enough you can actually see it written down on the map and the straight construction line from the top of the page which helped him calculate this angle. The bearing is shown as N 11° W.

I agree that N 11° W is a “bearing” (or direction), not an angle.  But it is not a “rough idea of the direction bearing”.

Magnetic is related to true by “variation”

Magnetic direction is different than true direction (astronomical direction).  Magnetic direction is related to true direction by “variation”.

Rankin used mostly true direction, but on the draft map he uses magnetic direction at least twice.

One is the top boundary of Amabel township, where he writes “east by needle”, which means east magnetic or 90 degrees magnetic.


But on the final map he defines the direction as S 88 deg W TRUE.  Which is the same as 88 deg True, just named in the opposite direction.


Rankin measured the variation and logged it in his field notes as 2 degrees west. The same is on each page of the field notes.

For west variation, magnetic = true plus variation

Magnetic bearing = 88 ° plus 2°  =  90°  magnetic.  “East by the needle” and “S 88° W True” are exactly the same line, only specified as opposite directions.  The final map direction is not a correction of the draft map direction.

For the traverse of the eastern boundary of the chief’s point reserve, field notes page 146, October 8, 1855, Rankin clearly indicates the astronomical direction (not the angle) as N 13 degrees West”.

This means N 13 degrees west true, which is the same as 347 degrees true (360 minus 13 = 347).

When variation is westerly the formula is:

magnetic = astronomical plus variation

So the magnetic direction equivalent to 347 degrees true (N 13 deg w true) is 347 +2 = 349 degrees magnetic which is N 11 degrees west magnetic (360 minus 11 = 349)

N 13 degrees w true and N 11 deg w magnetic are exactly the same direction.   That Rankin labelled the direction (not the angle) N 11 degrees west on his draft map of October 12, 1855 and labelled the same line 13 degrees west true in his field notes and on the final map of 1856 means nothing.

Contrary to Mr. Dobbins, the 11 deg on the draft map was not an error.

The word “true” on the final 1856 map does not indicate a correction of an error.  “True” means “astronomical”, not “corrected”.

David said:

To show this is what he [Rankin] did, the bearing from the 1855 map of N 11° W is incorrect and the actual bearing correction of N 13° W True can be seen on the official map of 1856. The working copy does not use the word “True” in the bearing description.

Of course the working copy did not use the word “true”.  Because the bearing was magnetic, not true.

Theory number three fails too.

Theory 4

Theory number 4 is the second Dobson theory:

I put forth the possibility that the notation is identifying the two lines as a statement. NE < = True North extension line and Ind. Res. = Chief’s Point extension line. Therefore the notation would read North Extension Angle Indian Reserve. What makes me think this is that the angle that produces the N 13° W True calculation is so pronounced on the page it just seems like an obvious conclusion. Also, the notation spreads across the span of the 13° angle. This makes it difficult for me to believe that this is a coincidence.

I believe this is the same as the Dobson /AM theory, but that makes no difference.

It fails for reasons above.  It would be very unusual for Rankin to put an angle on a map, and if he did he would put a number in only (not a direction) and he would put the number right in the intersection as in the drawing above.

I agree that NE means Northern extension, but < does not mean “angle”.

The theory fails.

As one writer, a surveyor, put it:

The notation < means that this is the direction or angle of the line that has to be followed south to get to the boundary.





Posted in Uncategorized | 103 Comments