The Toronto Star reports that Peel Regional Council has agreed to cover over $500 in legal expenses incurred by Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion during a conflict of interest case:
Peel taxpayers are on the hook for more than $500,000 in legal fees racked up by Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion after Peel Region councillors voted to pay her bills Thursday. The councillors voted to cover the $513,000 McCallion owes for legal fees after city resident Elias Hazineh, 60, brought a complaint against her. The Mississauga mayor was covered by insurance for the first $50,000 of her $563,000 tab.
McCallion successfully defended herself against allegations she broke conflict-of-interest rules related to a vote by councillors on a development charges bylaw in 2007. Last year, Justice John Sproat dismissed the conflict allegations against McCallion. Following that, the judge ordered Hazineh to cover $170,000 of the mayor’s legal bill. Citing financial difficulties, Hazineh has yet to pay. Under the Peel bylaw, councillors are covered to a certain extent by insurance — limited to $50,000 in the mayor’s case — but council can extend the reimbursement “in circumstances deemed appropriate.” On Feb. 13, Mississauga resident Diane Kalenchuk appeared before council alongside the mayor’s lawyer, Freya Kristjanson, to argue for the appropriateness of paying McCallion’s full bill of $563,430.58. McCallion, she said, was forced to mount a vigorous defence in this case “because of the potential effect on her reputation, her career and her responsibilities as a democratically elected mayor of Mississauga as well as Peel Regional councillor.”
Meanwhile, taxpayers have already covered $600,000 of the mayor’s legal bill from the previous Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, which examined her role in her son’s failed bid to bring a hotel to the city centre. Taxpayers also contributed to her son Peter’s $400,000 legal bill.
As the story illustrates, legal challenges raised under municipal conflict of interest laws can result in significant legal expenses for public institutions, elected officials and complainants. This raises the question of whether provincial governments should be considering more efficient and cost-effective mechanisms for enforcing municipal conflict laws.
