His clients were not even sworn in yet when a lawyer for Chelsea, Quebec’s new mayor and deputy mayor issued a notice to a former council candidate demanding that he retract statements made during the election campaign or face a $29,000 lawsuit.
Doug Griffin, the candidate defeated in Ward 1 by incumbent and now Deputy Mayor Luc Poulin, has been instructed to apologize in this newspaper and through his email contacts for statements he issued about the Meredith Centre’s funding agreement in the campaign’s final week.
Despite the threat, Griffin is refusing to apologize for anything.
In widely circulated emails and in an Oct. 28 article in the this paper, Griffin stated that the existing funding agreement with the federal and provincial governments was no longer valid as it was tied to a March 2010 completion date. He suggested a “cover up”, saying Green and Poulin didn’t tell residents the funding agreement had run out of time and said a new agreement was highly unlikely.
The letters of demand, both issued by Hull lawyer Marc Lapointe, state if Griffin does not retract the statements, Green will sue for $20,000 and Poulin for $9,000.
Griffin said his lawyer advised him not to even respond to the demand letter, calling it “totally groundless” and “absolutely stupid”, and said Poulin and Green are “going on nothing here.”
Instead, Griffin issued his own statement he said he sent to their lawyer and this paper that defends his argument that the terms of the funding agreement for the centre cannot be met.
“Someone in favour of the proposed project sought and obtained a communication from the office of the federal Minister Lawrence Cannon on the question of funding. The reply from the Minister’s office was addressed to me. The reply refers only to the exiting agreement and says nothing about any new agreement.
“I would like Chelsea voters to be aware that only days after being elected on a platform that included promises of a new open and collaborative spirit, Ms. Green and Mr. Poulin are already engaged in old-style politics.”
Griffin said he had originally considered taking legal action against Green and Poulin but changed his mind after talking to his lawyer.
He does, however, issue his own challenge to Green and Poulin.
“On Nov. 5, 2009, Ms. Green admitted publicly for the first time in an interview on CBC Radio (audio track available on request) that funding for this proposed project cannot be provided under the existing agreement and that a new agreement must be negotiated. If Ms. Green and Mr. Poulin provide me credible evidence by Nov. 15, 2009 that they learned the facts in question only after Nov. 1, 2009 I will retract my allegation that they knew these facts during the election and deliberately kept them from voters.”
In that interview with CBC, Green states that the “the Infrastructure (Canada) project is being renegotiated and ours is one of those projects within the envelope”. She said she has been assured by both MP Lawrence Cannon’s office and MNA Stephanie Vallee that the March 2010 deadline for construction could be pushed back and the money would still be in place.
She goes on to say that she’s confident the project will go through but “if there was an indication that the timeline wasn’t accepted that decision (to cancel the project) would be made in the new year.”
But for Green and Poulin’s lawyer, the issue is not about deadlines or contracts, but about the malicious language Griffin used.
“It’s a question of defamation of character,” Lapointe told the Low Down Nov. 10. Words like “liar”, “cover up” and “acting out of ignorance or deception” are above and beyond campaign debate and constitute a personal attack.
“We say play fair, retract these unkind words, there has been no cover up.”
Lapointe’s letter asked for an apology no later than 4:00 Nov. 9. Instead of choosing to settle things amicably, Lapointe said Griffin’s defiant stand “just pours more on it”.
Chelsea’s Communications Officer Charles Cardinal confirmed that municipal funds were not used towards the legal fees, but were to be paid by Green and Poulin.
Other lawyer letters
Griffin wasn’t the only one served notice Nov. 6. Chelsea resident Dr. Safwat Ayoub received a letter of demand from Green; and the Low Down also received a letter of demand signed by Green and Poulin. It was delivered to the newspaper office by a bailiff.
Ayoub said his letter accused him of having threatened Green both in person and indirectly to Chelsea’s Director of Recreation and Culture Bruce Devine. Ayoub said the letter didn’t demand anything or threaten a lawsuit but said Green wrote that while she was prepared to accept constructive criticism, she would not accept verbal abuse or any form of threat.
Ayoub called the letter “slander” and “defamation”.
The letter to the Low Down was in response to the article “Meredith cover-up: Griffin accuses” from the Oct. 28 edition. Poulin and Green felt they hadn’t received fair coverage in the story.
Loading ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Will someone buy these people a beer or two, already…?
Ah, well, folks, there’s a quick and easy fix to this whole problem.
Obviously you just need to appoint a “Chelsea-Approved Political Officer” to your Editorial Department to prevent these unfortunate misunderstandings in the future.
There is a long, rich history of such folks in the Russian and Chinese military, with titles such as “Political Commissar ” and… well, “censor”. Shouldn’t be hard to figure out how to set one up. And they can get paid by the same phantom funding agreement that is the source of this silly misunderstanding. Easy-cheesy.
But let’s not be all dour and casting aspersions of propaganda and spin-doctoring of Fox-Media proportions on this little happenstance and instead put a happy spin on it: you can say that Chelsea City Council has an “Embedded Journalistic Content Agent” at the Lowdown… mind you, one does have to be careful who one gets embedded with…
If anything this is a very strong message to the readership and all Chelsea residents to keep their opinions to themselves from here on in. I am appalled. What happened to bringing this community together?
Up until I read this I held councillor Poulin in high regard and ready to support mayor-elect Green based on her campaign promises. This sickens me.
Looks like the new council’s first attempt at bringing the community together is to silence the dissidents? Nice!!
And, it usually works if you’ve got enough money and power (interchangeable) behind you. Chelsea-ites welcome to real politics! Otherwise known as corporate greed. Better zip them lips and bite those tongues for the next 4 years if you know what’s good for you.
Wow, their seats are not even warm and they are already shooting themselves in the; well you know…
So much for being open. So much for listening to the opinions of others and receiving suggestions. And I guess the “clear direction” is clear enough; “If I don’t like what you say, I’ll sue you.” This reminds me of the tactics used by the owners of the Cantley dump to intimidate their opponents. So much for bringing the community together.
And then there is the bailiff sent to the Low Down; with complaints about not being treated fairly in the press. Really; not how to win friends and influence people.
If this is her way of being “more inclusive of all residents”, I am afraid that Chelsea may have made a huge mistake in electing Caryl Green.
Threats of lawsuits are nothing new. Some 3 years ago, a local businessman told me that in response to a complaint he had made about a municipal employee, he had received a lawyer’s letter threatening a suit for defamation if he didn’t button his lip.
It s the same old….same old.
It is a deplorable state of affairs. I agree with J Wright that Chelsea has indeed made a horrible mistake, and I’ve no doubt that many of those that either voted for Caryl Green or didn’t bother to vote are increasingly cognisant of this. To think that this is just the beginning of her “reign of terror” curls my toes. I have only one question - Do we have an instrument, such as a referendum perhaps, that could be used to recall an elected (barely) official?
I did not vote for the big budget expenditure that Green was pushing, so did not vote for her either. If I was allowed to have a personal opinion in Chelsea, it would not be very kind to a person who squeaks into office and acts like a dictator. I would expect this type of intimidation of a leader from a country where everything seems to be made these days, or the one that started the last world war.
Or maybe this is a just new way for Chelsea to raise funds for a project almost half of the municipallity does not want.
To Sasha Smirnoff:
There is a recall mechanism supervised by the provincial ministry of municipal affairs. The catch is: to start the process there must be enough dissenting members of council to deprive the mayor of a quorum.
In the reign of Perras that was impossible since none of the council members would go against him. Things may be different now but only a massive show of the citizenry at the next council meeting would have any influence.
See the new address at the top of this comment page.
I have some familiarity with the bailiff. On his many visits to our home he once said “I’m glad that I don’t live in Chelsea; I hand these things (letters of demand, summons etc.) out like candy”.
This was pre the present administration. The new are learning from the old. The public exists for the rulers, not the reverse.
Sadly, voter apathy is a factor here: a few hundred votes more, Liam Fitzgerald might be mayor and this horrible situation would not exist.
Possibly, Ms. Green is simply a front for the agenda of others. I would urge all citizens to attend the December council meeting (7 Dec. 2009) to make their displeasure known. As well, see the blog “is Chelsea the new Zimbabwe”?