The following is an email that was sent to current members of council and delegates this afternoon. Voters in Amherstburg need to be informed and elected officials need to be held accountable.

Good afternoon Mayor, Members of Council, and candidates for Council,

Some of you may not be fully aware of the ongoing issues surrounding the Lotus Gardens lots. Some of you may also be unaware that we proposed a settlement that would resolve this matter with ZERO net financial loss to the Town.

That settlement has been rejected.

The proposal was straightforward: the Town purchases the lots at their appraised value as of summer 2025, before legal action began. The Town would trade capital for equity — acquiring an asset it can hold or resell — with zero net impact on its balance sheet. It costs the taxpayers nothing.

Attached is the cross-examination transcript of the Town’s own Manager of Engineering, Todd Hewitt — the witness the Town put forward on the technical issues — with key passages flagged. The evidence speaks for itself. I encourage every one of you to read it carefully and consider obtaining an independent opinion on what it reveals about the Town’s conduct.

What the Town’s own witness admitted, under oath:

1. He inspected the site without knowing what he was inspecting for.
Mr. Hewitt attended the property once, on June 30, 2025, to determine whether the stormwater swales had been built. He took no measurements and no survey (tr. p.52). He did not know how deep the swales were supposed to be (tr. p.63). When asked where on the approved engineering plans the swale grades could be found, he could not say — and was shown the grades for the first time in the middle of his own cross-examination. These are plans he claimed to have reviewed some 25 times (tr. pp.21-22).

2. The Town refused every service. Its engineer admits 13 of 15 are done.
Schedule B of the development agreement lists 15 services requiring the Town’s individual initial acceptance before building permits. The Town refused acceptance of every single one. Under oath, its own engineer admitted 13 of the 15 are as complete as they can possibly be before permits issue — finished, or only capable of completion after construction begins (tr. pp.79-87).

3. On stormwater — the Town’s stated reason for refusing permits — everything is conceded except the swales.
The engineer confirmed the private road (built 2005), the water services, the County Road 20 ditch, and the pipes beneath the road are all in place (tr. pp.36-43). The entire dispute comes down to the directional swales. His reason for doubting them? The pipe ends were buried. But the approved Typical Lot Grading Section — attached, from the Town’s own approved plans (C1.1) — shows the inlet control devices are designed to sit below both the existing and proposed grade lines. Buried by design. The witness used the plans’ own design as evidence the plans weren’t followed.

4. He contradicted himself on the documents that matter most.
He agreed the Certificate of Approval is not mentioned anywhere in the development agreement (tr. p.88) — then later claimed the agreement “had a C of A that was part of that” (tr. p.126). He said the environmental assessment was “not related at all” to the Certificate of Approval (tr. p.88) — then admitted it was part of the application package that produced it (tr. p.114).

5. He never read our stormwater plan.
The Town is refusing building permits over stormwater on the strength of an engineer who admitted he never reviewed our March 2025 stormwater submission: “it wasn’t provided to me” (tr. p.130).

6. The Town’s lawyer would not let him answer whether the Town must be honest.
When asked whether the Town has an obligation to be honest in the information it provides to residents, the Town’s own lawyer refused to let its engineer answer (tr. p.150).

And this is a fraction of the evidence. The full

transcript holds far more — contradictions, retractions, and admissions I have not listed here. It is all on the record, under oath.
The Town’s breach of its own agreement is indefensible on this evidence. And what its engineer revealed goes far beyond ordinary human error.

So I ask each member of Council, the Mayor, and every candidate seeking these offices, directly and personally: is this conduct you support? An engineer who does not know what he is inspecting? A Town that breaches its own contracts? Plans that go unreviewed? Inspections with no measurements, no survey, and no notes? Do you — you personally — support this behaviour?

I am asking each of you to go on the record. There are two options: support this conduct, or condemn it. Your response — or your failure to respond — will be shared publicly, so the residents you serve or seek to represent can weigh it before they vote.

The Town’s continued refusal to reach an arrangement has left us no choice but to convert our application into an action seeking damages. Our damages already exceed $5 million, and they continue to grow.

Behind that number are families whose lives have been profoundly affected. One of the lot owners involved has had to sell their primary residence. Amid the extraordinary stress of this matter, this Amherstburg resident suffered a stroke and nearly lost their life. These are real people enduring consequences that cannot simply be dismissed as the cost of a legal dispute.

The financial consequences for Amherstburg’s taxpayers also deserve your attention. Continuing this litigation means spending more public money defending the Town’s conduct, with the prospect of a multimillion-dollar judgment on top of those expenses. Even a successful defence does not erase the money spent or guarantee that those costs will be recovered.

Why expose residents to those costs and risks when a resolution has been proposed that would leave the Town with no net financial loss?

That is a question every member of Council should be prepared to answer.

The decisions to continue this dispute and reject our settlement have been made without public deliberation. Residents have not been told how much of their money has already been spent, how much more may be committed, or why continuing this litigation is considered preferable to the resolution we proposed.

The ability to discuss litigation privately does not remove your responsibility to account for the decisions being made and the public money being spent.

You are the stewards of the Town’s finances and the elected representatives of its residents. Your responsibility demands that you personally examine the evidence, understand the consequences, and seriously consider a resolution before further costs accumulate.

I ask each of you directly: Have you read the evidence? Have you reviewed the complete settlement proposal? Can you explain to the people who elected you why pursuing this matter is in their best interests?

With an election approaching, these are questions residents deserve to consider when deciding whom they trust to exercise judgment and protect their tax dollars. Your handling of this matter deserves public scrutiny.

Our families’ resolve is unshakeable. We will pursue accountability and compensation for the harm suffered. We remain prepared to resolve this matter, but we will not abandon it because the Town chooses to prolong the dispute.

Every member of Council and every candidate receiving this email now has the opportunity to examine the record and ask whether the current course should continue.

Please read the attached evidence. Reconsider the proposed resolution. And explain to Amherstburg’s residents why any further expenditure on this dispute is justified.