Judge tosses out conflict charges against Richmond Hill mayor

'No over-expenditure' rules judge

yorkregion.com
Sept. 12, 2014
By Kim Zarzour

The mayor of Richmond Hill was completely vindicated today in a decision released by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, says the lawyer representing Dave Barrow.

Sridhar Methuku, one of the mayor’s political rivals, had accused the mayor of a conflict of interest.

“The court unequivocally stated that the mayor did not have a conflict of interest when he spoke and voted on a motion put forward by another political rival, Councillor Carmine Perrelli, that the ‘mayor personally repay the town $10,800 for the over-expenditure in the Engagement and Marketing Account’,” Barrow’s solicitor, Chuck Loopstra, said responding to the decision released just before noon today.

The mayor announced his victory at a chamber of commerce luncheon, held today at the Richmond Hill Country Club.

“Today’s court decision confirms what the facts have always shown, that there was clearly no conflict of interest and no basis to substantiate that claim,” he told The Liberal, later. "Unfortunately, this ill-considered and unwarranted action’s only purpose was to attempt to discredit my reputation among residents while diverting attention away from the issues of importance."

Earlier today, before the judicial decision was made public, Methuku withdrew his name from the mayoral race. (see side story) Perrelli’s name remains on the ballot, with signs appearing on Richmond Hill streets today.

Judge Mark Edwards found that there was no factual or legal basis for the motion before council and that the motion put forward by Perrelli “had as its sole purpose, the creation of an appearance of impropriety” on the part of the mayor, when none existed.

In his ruling, the judge made it clear that there was no over-expenditure in the account and that council did not have the authority pass such a motion.

“This is in direct contrast with the message distributed by the Richmond Hill Watchdog Committee which improperly referred to the account as a “slush fund” and that the mayor had “overspent” the account. The account had been approved by council for the benefit of all councillors to promote the interests of the municipality and the court found that there was no “over-expenditure”, Loopstra said.

Barrow, who has been mayor since 2006 and involved in municipal politics since 1978, agreed he is obliged, under the Municipal Act, to declare a pecuniary interest when applicable, and “in point of fact”, he had done so on a number of occasions to fulfil his obligations under the act, the judge said in his 11-page statement.

While Perrelli called on the mayor to personally repay funds spent by the town’s Engagement and Marketing Account, the judge ruled “there is no evidence to support any suggestion that the respondent misappropriated funds from the account, nor that any funds were used from this account for personal purposes... The respondent did not break the law, because he did not have any real financial interest in the matter.”