Brampton councillors worried departures of senior staff could affect lawsuit

Three managers who sat on bidding panel among 25 released in shakeup of Brampton bureaucracy “solely to achieve” objectives such as improved efficiency.

Thestar.com
Sept. 21, 2016
By San Grewal and Peter Criscione

Some Brampton councillors are concerned the recent departure of three top bureaucrats might harm the city's position in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit it’s facing over a controversial $500-million development deal.

The lawsuit, launched against the city by local developer Inzola Group, alleges misconduct by senior city staff involved in the 2011 deal.

The three departed senior managers all sat on a six-person committee responsible for evaluating the bids and selecting the winner. According to the bidding rules, the six staff were the only ones allowed to be involved in the selection, which then went to city council for approval.

Julian Patteson, head of public services, treasurer Peter Honeyborne and economic development head Dennis Cutajar were among 25 managers whose jobs were cut this month in a major reorganization of Brampton’s bureaucracy, which according to city spokesperson Natalie Stogdill was done “solely to achieve” objectives such as improving efficiency and eliminating duplication.

There is no indication the job cuts were in any way linked to the lawsuit.

Councillor Pat Fortini said that only one of six senior staff who sat on the selection committee now remains with the city. One left in 2013 for what the city said was retirement. One other had his contract “terminated” in 2015, the Star reported at the time.

“There’s only one person left from that selection committee now. I’m worried about how that makes us look for the lawsuit,” Fortini said.

Councillor John Sprovieri said the lawsuit “made me uncomfortable dealing with people who were involved in the selection process for the (downtown) development project.”

Sprovieri, who had no role in the decision to cut the management positions, said he’s hopeful council can now move forward with the city’s business, but he wonders how the departures of senior staff will affect the case.

“This lawsuit has been hanging over the city for five years with no resolution,” he said.

The statement of claim in the $28.5-million lawsuit doesn’t identify individual staff members. It alleges senior staff involved in the deal were biased against the plaintiff, Inzola, and biased in favour of the winning bidder, a consortium of companies that included Dominus Construction and Fernbrook.

The city denies all the allegations, which haven’t been proven in court. There are no allegations against the winning bidder, which has said it followed the rules of the bidding process.

The City of Brampton wouldn’t confirm that Patteson, Honeyborne and Cutajar were among the managers to lose their jobs. Shortly after the city announced the restructuring, it released a new organizational chart showing the three had been removed from their roles.

Three councillors, who would only speak anonymously because they’re not authorized to discuss personnel matters, also told the Star and Guardian that the three senior managers were dismissed in the shakeup.

Patteson confirmed in an interview that he is no longer employed with the city, but would not comment on the reasons for his departure. Honeyborne said he would not comment for this article. Attempts to reach Cutajar were unsuccessful.

Spokespersons for Mayor Linda Jeffrey and for the City of Brampton said they wouldn’t be commenting on individuals who had left the organization.

No trial date has yet been set in the complex lawsuit, which has involved numerous court orders forcing the city to turn over evidence.

Patteson has testified four separate times as part of the discovery process, where each side is allowed to seek information from the other to help its case. Some of his testimony has focused on a $480,000 payment made by the city without council’s knowledge to help the eventual winning bidder, Dominus and Fernbrook, secure land for its proposal. The bidding rules stated that it was up to bidders to acquire such land on their own.

Patteson’s testimony has delved into the issue of whether or not the land was secured when council was told that it had been, and who actually paid to secure the property.

In September 2012 pre-trial testimony, Patteson said the development group had told him and staff that it had a signed contract to secure land so it could build a 10-storey building featuring a 130,000-square-foot downtown library that was part of its bid, and this was conveyed to council right before council provisionally accepted the staff’s choice of the winning bidder in a March 2011 vote.

In May 2014, after the court ordered the city to release hundreds of emails and other documents, Patteson testified again. This time he was shown an email from the winning bidder - forwarded to him and others hours before the March 2011 council vote - that said the parcel of land had not been secured. Patteson agreed in his testimony that the land was not secured even though council was told it had been.

Patteson also testified in 2014 that when a $480,000 payment to secure the land was eventually made, it was city staff that decided to give public funds to the winning bidder for the transaction. He testified that councillors were never told by staff that they had authorized the payment using city funds and that the bidder had not secured the land on its own.