A Defining Decision: Will Winnipeg’s Mayor and Council Opt for a Swift Settlement or Prolonged Legal Appeal In the Parker Lands Ruling?

Part 5

Nearly two months have passed since the groundbreaking verdict issued by Manitoba Justice McCarthy. The verdict held that the City of Winnipeg (COW) and its planners, Braden Smith and Michael Robinson, deliberately obstructed the progress of the Fulton Grove development, which Gem Equities was undertaking at the instruction of Councillor Orlikow. 

Justice McCarthy’s verdict, which found the City responsible for a significant $5 million settlement to Gem Equities due to their involvement in the Parker Lands project, the site of the Fulton Grove Development, has garnered attention and sparked a legitimate discussion about the City’s obligations and its appropriate next steps to take.

Mayor Scott Gillingham’s measured approach of reserving judgment until legal advisors review the ruling is undoubtedly prudent. The situation is complex, and it is only fair to take the time to understand the intricacies of the decision. However, the conspicuous silence of Mayor Gillingham and the Council to address the issues head-on and take a leadership role in the face of a damning ruling and the City’s involvement has left citizens wondering where is the passionate candidate who wanted to change the culture of city hall a year ago.

In the two months that have elapsed since the ruling, it’s more than ample time for the City’s legal team and any additional outside legal counsel to evaluate its options thoroughly. As the Council prepares to reconvene after their break, all eyes are on the impending decision by Mayor Gillingham. The central dilemma revolves around whether the City should invest considerable resources in defending those implicated in the lawsuit. The underlying concern is that these individuals were ostensibly acting on behalf of a City Councillor, prompting further contemplation about allocating responsibilities within the municipal structure.

The citizens of Winnipeg, whose hard-earned tax dollars fund the City’s operations, have a vested interest in this unfolding scenario. The public sentiment is one of apprehension, as Winnipeggers are acutely aware of the potential ramifications of being drawn into yet another protracted legal battle. The City’s history with extended litigations, such as the Police building construction, has left taxpayers disillusioned, with the financial burden often outweighing the benefits.

At this juncture, the most appealing action for many citizens seems straightforward: settle the dispute and move forward. The owner of Gem Equities has demonstrated an unyielding commitment to seeking justice, and their persistence over nearly a decade indicates their resolve. Prolonging the case through an appeal risks further financial strain on taxpayers, creating a scenario that could potentially rival the City’s previous costly legal endeavours.

The decision facing Mayor Gillingham and the Council is undoubtedly significant, with far-reaching implications for the City’s financial health and public perception. The debate boils down to a simple yet profound question: Is the potential long-term cost of an appeal worth the short-term relief of avoiding a $5 million settlement? What does the City have to gain by appealing Justice McCarthy’s decision? The COW already has egg on its face; making an omelette is unnecessary. 

Then there is the matter of Councillor Orlikow, who is on medical leave from his duties. He is facing an ethics review initiated by former Mayor Candidate Don Woodstock. In a recent email to the Ethics Commissioner, Sherri Walsh, Mr. Woodstock conveyed his unhappiness with how Mynarksi City Councillor Ross Eadie addressed Justice McCarthy’s ruling when asked how City Hall would respond. 

“Mr. Marquess just wants what he wants and anything else is unfair to him. Thank goodness all developers are not like that – they compromise for a better Winnipeg.” Wrote Councillor Ross Eadie.”

Mr. Woodstock suggested Mr. Marquess could take this matter to court for defamation. If that were to happen, it would, yet again, draw the City of Winnipeg and its taxpayers into another lawsuit. This brings us back to our initial point: if the City plans to appeal to the ruling by Justice McCarthy on behalf of Braden Smith and Michael Robinson, should they not also do so on behalf of Councillor Orlikow, who maintains his innocence, and states he had no part in the delays that plagued the Fulton Grove Parker Land project.

Then there is the real possibility of only appealing part of the ruling, which would beg the question of why and the logic behind it. The idea of having another dragged-out case into the future could exceed even the most pessimistic estimates.

Furthermore, there is a prevailing speculation that Gem Equities might potentially pursue substantial monetary reparation from the City of Winnipeg. This compensation could reach an astronomical sum, surpassing $100 million. This potential liability stems from the failure to complete the project and the City’s expropriation of Gem Equities’ land to construct an unnecessarily large retention pond. Notably, an independent officer appointed by the province had issued a comprehensive report advising against the expropriation of the land, further complicating the situation.

The choice made by the City’s leadership could send ripples through the fabric of Winnipeg’s governance and fiscal responsibility. As Mayor Gillingham navigates this critical juncture in his early tenure, the City’s reputation hangs in the balance. The need to address the issues raised by Justice McCarthy’s ruling is urgent and cannot be sidestepped indefinitely.

Ultimately, the City’s approach to the Gem Equities ruling will be a defining moment in Mayor Gillingham’s leadership. Under the previous administration, the Mayor was the Finance Chair. He sat on the Executive Policy Committee (EPC) and would have known about the lawsuit with the developer and cost to the Winnipeg Taxpayers.

The City’s administration must recognize that transparency, accountability, and fiscal prudence are paramount in restoring the public’s trust. As the administration contemplates its next steps, the weight of the decision cannot be understated; it will not only determine the immediate financial outcome but also leave an indelible mark on Winnipeg’s future trajectory.