Sides agree to discovery plan timetable, amendment to add Norcross in suit
The lawyer representing New Tecumseth told an Ontario Justice in Barrie this afternoon that it is in the best interests of the public for Angela Drainville’s lawsuit to move swiftly to trial because a courtroom is the Town’s only remedy to defend against the “very serious allegations” she is claiming led to her termination last October.
Colleen Butler, of Feehely, Gastaldi and Switzer, was in court today seeking to convince Justice Eberhard to impose a discovery plan schedule that would push the entire litigation process to be over before the end of this year.
Ms. Butler said Ms. Drainville had been employed by the Town for six months “and was terminated during her probationary period.”
“She then commenced this lawsuit against the Town alleging some pretty serious allegations against the municipality. And within that claim, raised a number of allegations against the mayor (Mike MacEachern) and councillor (Richard Norcross) about being malicious, underhanded, and reprehensible conduct. So there are some pretty serious allegations.”
She argued the lawsuit was generating a lot of local media attention, and in fact noted the presence of this reporter in the courtroom to reinforce the point. She said the plaintiff had failed to move on proposed discovery and further motions hearing schedules, which is what led to the decision to seek the court imposed action.
“We’re looking to get this one moving as quickly as possible because the nature of the allegations are quite serious, quite significant. We want this matter to get to trial so the Town can properly defend it, and the only way that it can properly defend the allegations as raised, is to get it heard in a court of law,” said Ms. Butler. “And it’s not lost on the parties that next year is a municipal election year. We don’t want this dominating the municipal election. We want to get this to a trial. So we have worked to try and get this discovery plan in place to get this heard as quickly as possible.”
In his rebuttal, Mr. Kemp seized on Ms. Butler’s reference to the municipal election’s timing, telling Justice Eberhard that it was the first time he had heard it as a justification measure.
“I confess to a degree of surprise hearing my friend’s submissions. Essentially she has given evidence that the Town’s position in bringing this motion is politically motivated. Specifically, these politicians need to have this matter addressed before the next municipal election,” said Mr. Kemp. “The role of the Town is not to protect certain politicians. And essentially, it would appear, that it is precisely what my friend is doing.”
Ms. Butler objected to the notion that the decision was being driven by politics, arguing instead that the serious allegations needed to be dealt with quickly because it was “unfair to the municipality …. to have it hang out there for years on end.”
Mr. Kemp said they couldn’t agree to accelerated timelines because they were still waiting for the Town to produce the requested documents, and because Ms. Butler had rejected Mr. Norcross to take part in the examination process, he received client instruction to name the councillor as a seprate defendant. He noted Ms. Butler had not approved amending the Statement of Claim, so further motions were expected.
If Mr. Norcross is named as a separate defendant, he will need to retain counsel and have to file a Statement of Defence.
“I think it’s important to know that this action is barely three months past the close of pleads,” said Mr. Kemp. “I have yet to receive the Schedule A productions of the defendant. I have advised my friend that if she wasn’t prepared to have one of the councillors examined for discovery, I would have to seek instructions to name that councillor personally. I now have those instructions. My friend refuses to consent to an amendment to add that party, and we will need to bring a motion to that affect because we’re within the limitation period. I see no reason why that relief would not be granted within the rules. The individual councillor would then have to retain his own counsel and deliver a statement of defence and we would go through the process.”
Ms. Butler noted they refused to let Mr. Norcross be deposed for discovery was because he’s not employed by the Town.
“We can’t take a position until we see the amended Claim,” she said, adding that if the councillor was going to be named, that it should be done immediately.
In the end, Justice Eberhard was not keen to impose the discovery plan, even referencing the Rob Ford tribulations in Toronto whereby his legal timelines were accelerated.
“I don’t think Rob Ford stood in line,” said the Justice. “There are mechanisms, it’s a raw wound (for New Tecumseth), let’s get it addressed.”
Ms. Butler and Mr. Kemp reached the agreed timetable during the lunch break – their motion was the last one heard of the day, approximately 12:20 pm. Both sides were told to cover their own costs.
Leave a Reply