Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell threatens to sue councilors

The outgoing mayor served a notice of libel to two councillors and the Toronto Star, alleging defamation in expense scandal coverage.

Yorkregion.com
Nov. 6, 2014
By Alex Ballingall

Outgoing Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell is threatening to sue two city councillors, accusing them of defamatory statements regarding the expenses scandal that has embroiled the chief magistrate.

The libel notice comes days before a special Brampton council meeting to possibly punish the mayor after an audit concluded Fennell broke spending rules 266 times, and consider an integrity commissioner’s ruling that she violated the city’s code of conduct.

It is unclear whether Fennell’s threatened lawsuit will stall or prevent debate at that meeting, and if the councillors she is threatening to sue will be able to vote or even take part. Also uncertain is whether the issue can be addressed after the newly-elected council takes power Dec. 1.

In her libel notice, Fennell accuses Brampton councillors John Sprovieri and John Sanderson of defamation in statements made to the Star, which is also named in her threatened legal action. Through her lawyer, she says the councillors and the Star’s coverage “meant to convey” the mayor is “irresponsible,” has angered taxpayers, lives a “jetsetting lifestyle” and used the threat of legal action to prevent council discussion of her code of conduct violation, among other allegations.

Fennell’s lawyer David Shiller said Thursday night that the Star mischaracterized what happened and that council postponed the debate to allow for an appeal of the audit's findings.

“As a result of the publication of the defamatory words, Mayor Fennell has suffered, and will in future suffer damage,” Shiller, wrote in the libel notice. “Mayor Fennell demands that the intended defendants immediately publish an unequivocal apology and retraction,” he wrote.

“Mayor Fennell will seek damages, interest and costs in the proceeding that she will commence,” he wrote.

Pointing out that Fennell was swept from power in the Oct. 27 election, Sprovieri said Thursday that most people in Brampton rejected her in the wake of the expense scandal and he has “nothing to apologize for” in the comments that he has made. “To me, the threat of a libel suit is just a way to scare us not to express our views,” he said Thursday evening.that “I called it the way I’ve seen it. I believe that my statements were accurate to describe what’s going on.

Sanderson, who ran for mayor against Fennell, said he won’t back down or change his tune in the face of the libel notice: “I’m not standing down on this. I’m standing up for the taxpayers.”

Sanderson also called the libel notice a “stall tactic” to prevent council from addressing Fennell’s spending and code of conduct violation at the upcoming meeting.

The Toronto Star, which carried the statements in its coverage of an audit into Fennell’s spending of public funds, is also named in the notice of libel and accused of defaming the mayor in its coverage.

Star reporter San Grewal is singled out, along with the newspaper and its parent company, Torstar Corporation.
The Star stands by its reporting.

A Deloitte Canada audit of expenses by Brampton politicians, released in August, found Fennell and her staff had $131,581 in improper spending.

In September, Brampton council was slated to debate the audit findings and also possibly punish Fennell for the code of conduct violation. But on the day of the debate, before the meeting started, the mayor called a press conference and threatened to sue Deloitte, unnamed councillors, and the city’s integrity commissioner. That prompted the commissioner and Deloitte to leave city hall, stalling debate on council members’ possible repayment of funds and a possible penalty for any council code of conduct violations.

It is unclear if the commissioner or Deloitte were ever served following the threatened legal action. Fennell had sent a notice of libel to the Star on Sept. 19 - now the first of two threatened lawsuits against the newspaper.

Three days before the election, Fennell claimed she had been exonerated after an appeal arbitrator reduced the amount she would be required to pay back - from the $34,118 recommended by Deloitte to $3,523.