Former CAO Peter Simmons was a plaintiff in a statement of claim, naming the Corporation of the Town of Amherstburg as the Defendant on July 5, 2022.

According to the statement of claim, Mr. Simmons commenced his employment with the town on or about February 22, 2022 as CAO. On June 9, 2022, without reasonable notice or pay in lieu thereof, the town terminated Mr. Simmons’ employment, allegedly with cause due to alleged wilful misconduct, disobedience and wilful neglect of duty. Mr. Simmons pleads that the town had no cause to terminate his employment and, consequently, the town is in breach of the express and/or implied terms of his contract of employment.

A Notice of Discontinuance, and consent to same by both parties’ lawyers, was filed on July 3, 2024.

In his August 7 letter, Frank Cerasa highlighted this council’s passing of a more restrictive procedural by-law.

For months I requested council update its procedural by-law; ‘the by-law that most directly affects democracy should reflect current accessibility and human rights legislation and it is within your authority as representatives of the public you serve to address the issue and implement a best practice. There should be no administrative burdens or barriers to democracy.’ 

In July 2023, to assist council, I shared the Director of the Centre for Free Expression’s response: he never heard of a municipality requiring the delegation speaker’s notes, much less the text of the speech, to be submitted ahead of the event. And he never heard of a requirement for a copy of the notes or speech text to be submitted with the application to appear.

In August, without direction from council, Administration presented its report to council, titled, Procedural By-law Renewal for Greater Civic Participation and Engagement and Revised Procedural By-law. While the revised by-law ended the bad practice of requiring notes/speeches in advance, it became more restrictive than its previous version and more so than neighbouring municipalities.

Although it was meant, in part, to provide council the tools to have efficient and effective meetings and provide all members of the public the same equity in terms of participation and engagement, I don’t think either was achieved.

There are no limits on the number of questions members of council can raise, no limits on the number of times a member can speak and there are no time limits for either item. When administration is invited to participate, there are no time limits on their input either, all of which may result in inefficient meetings.

As for equity, treating all members of the public the same may result in inequities and disregard for individual accommodations which should have been learned during mandatory AODA and human rights training.

Since neither the public nor council members provided any input, the new procedural by-law reflects administrations’ vision. But, since council unanimously approved it, and Councillor Pouget’s November 2023 reconsideration motion failed, this council will be remembered for shamefully curtailing civic participation. 

Commentary by Linda Saxon

An August 12 Decision by the Ontario Land Tribunal hotel at 256 Dalhousie has ordered that the Salmoni residents’ appeal is dismissed.

[107] In order to address the possibility of noise and disturbance from a rooftop
restaurant/bar the Tribunal includes, that the approval of the draft Zoning By-law
Amendment shall accommodate the addition of text which will require that the rooftop of
the building be an enclosed space as depicted in the architectural drawings submitted in
evidence and that the use shall not be a restaurant/bar within that space. Further, that
any commercial/restaurant space use on the ground level shall be an enclosed space.

[108] On the weight of the evidence heard by the Tribunal, its assessment of same as
detailed in the reasons above and the submissions of counsel, and having weighed
submissions of residents, the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA which will allow the
relief sought by the Applicant is consistent with the PPS as well as the County OP and
the Town OP, and applicable guidelines, and thus represents good planning in the public interest.

The August 8 Heritage Committee meeting started twenty minutes late and the Chair forgot his glasses so he had difficulty reading the agenda.

When it came time to discuss the naming of 179 Victoria Street, Frank DiPasquale was the first to speak. He said it’s a tough decision and wished all committee members had been present, although there was a quorum. Robert Honor suggested that rather than use one of the suggested names twice, a new name be selected like Dr. Bell, whose farm was on that land that he donated. Shirley Prue was also in favour, as was Councillor Crain but he also said he thought one of the three options should be implemented.

DiPasquale still wished to defer it and Ms. Prue said something that she was asked to repeat since it was difficult to hear her; she wanted to know what the heritage planner thought. Mr. Coates said it was not time sensitive and Ms. Prue asked if a motion was needed. (With all the experienced committee members, why is it necessary for anyone to ask if a motion is needed?) Thankfully, the chair said a motion was needed and the motion to postpone with Mr. Coates to look at the Bell recommendation carried.

The next item up for discussion was a residential development on Gore Street. Of course the focus was the Heritage aspect, and whether or not it would comply with guidelines for the proposed heritage conservation district. Ms. Prue asked if there was anything that they needed to be concerned about. The chair noted that the only thing that’s kind of sticking out a little bit to him is the fact that there is a flat roof right over the front porch and he was just wondering if that truly fit in. A second look at the diagram confirmed that it is not a flat roof and they discussed the pitch before a motion was made that the plans be accepted as presented.