Mayoral Clout: How Much Power Did Winnipeg’s Mayor Gillingham Wield in the Appeal?

Part 7- CAO, Michael Jack’s Claims of Fundamental Errors by Justice McCarthy, prompting an appeal

The City of Winnipeg (COW) is entangled in a contentious saga that has captured the attention of all of Canada and raised significant concerns about its administration’s actions and the justice system’s impartiality. Central to this ongoing controversy is the Parker Lands debacle, where Gem Equities has been granted a substantial $5,000,000 judgment against the COW. 

This judgment is rooted in the ruling that city planners intentionally delayed a major residential development project under the direction of City Councillor John Orlikow. This perplexing situation has prompted the COW to initiate triple appeals, claiming fundamental errors within the case, further intensifying legal disputes and casting doubt on the credibility of Justice McCarthy, the presiding Judge.

Before the COW officially initiated their appeals, there was an eerie silence from the city administration, including Mayor Scott Gillingham. When approached for a response, the City of Winnipeg briefly acknowledged receiving inquiries but refrained from commenting further. 

“Thank you for contacting the City of Winnipeg, we have received your message. If you did not send this message, please let us know by forwarding this email to BAuch@winnipeg.ca.”

One would naturally assume that when presented with the chance to clarify matters in their own words, they would seize it. However, they hesitated when the opportunity arose. To be transparent, the City of Winnipeg’s (COW) Corporate Communications team abruptly ceased responding to media inquiries from The Daily Scrum News on matters of significant concern to Winnipeg’s residents. 

The failure of a corporate communication team to further engage an independent media is a concerning lapse in judgment. The COW needs to know that they will be required to eventually wean themselves off the teats of media establishments, as not all citizens trust or get their information from them. Their conduct leads citizens to ponder whether they have chosen a weak Mayor who is lacking in prudent leadership qualities and avoids the difficult questions posed by journalists. This repetitive avoidance of inquiries emphasizes the necessity of closely examining the comments of pivotal figures, among whom Michael Jack is prominent.

The situation took an unexpected twist when Michael Jack, the COW’s Chief Administration Officer (CAO), was asked to pen an op-ed clarifying the city’s stance on the Gem Equities ruling. This request came after City Councillor Russ Wyatt’s public call for Mr. Jack’s dismissal in light of the $5,000,000 judgment. However, the reaction from the COW’s Corporate Communications team defied expectations. They swiftly conveyed to The Daily Scrum News that Michael Jack would not provide the requested op-ed.

This decision left many wondering why the city’s administration would pass up an opportunity to address the public directly in their own words. Despite having a team of communication professionals, the city failed to engage an independent media outlet, warranting criticism.

The notion of elected officials ducking tough questions is a pattern that Marty Gold so eloquently pointed out on the popular Manitoba podcast, The Great Canadian Talk Show. This is also particularly concerning leading up to the 2023 October elections, where the theme of avoiding questions has become the norm.

Michael Jack had the chance to explain the city’s reasons for appealing on a prominent Manitoba radio talk show, which Richard Cloutier co-hosts on 680 CJOB’s News program.

Winnipeggers have difficulty believing that Mr. Jack criticized the adjudication without the Mayor knowing he would be speaking publically. And if he was left in the dark, whether by Mr. Jack or the communications team, that poses a bigger question: How much control does The Mayor have in his administration? Mayor Gillingham did acknowledge reading all 92 pages of Justice McCarthy’s ruling and awaited counsel from legal and his staff. 

Going under the notion he was entirely in the loop of Mr. Jack going on CJOB, anyone sanctioning the public admonishment of a Provincial Court Justice is beneath any administration. The Justice did her job; she ruled on the evidence presented and looked and relied on facts alone. Ultimately, another black eye for Winnipeg City Hall falls at the Mayor’s feet.

During the interview, Michael Jack raised concerns about the uncertainty created by the Judge’s decision, particularly regarding how city planners would interact with elected officials in future developments. He stated, “The King’s Bench decision left the city with just an overly large area of uncertainty in terms of how it needs to conduct its development business going forward.” Jack further added the ruling will also affect the COW’s ability to “approving development applications of how their planners, are going to interact with our elected official in the overall decision-making process.”

This statement raised crucial questions about the city’s practices and governance. If the judgment left uncertainty, it was an opportunity for the COW to reassess and reinforce sound governance principles, particularly in how city planners collaborate with elected officials.

What kind of uncertainty is being talked about, and how will the Judge’s decision affect the approval of development applications? This isn’t just a problem for the Judge; it’s a COW problem and everyone involved. We need a clearer explanation of what’s meant by how city planners work with elected officials. Isn’t this the main issue here? Shouldn’t this judgment be a chance to improve how city planners and elected officials collaborate? Are we missing an opportunity here?

Furthermore, Michael Jack cast considerable doubt on the Justice’s opinion by stating that the COW believed there were fundamental errors in the case. This raised concerns about the precedent set when the city’s top bureaucrat publicly questioned a Manitoba Justice’s legal opinions. Judges base their decisions on facts and evidence and that casting doubt on the justice system is counterproductive.

In response to Justice McCarthy’s ruling, Michael Jack clarified the city’s position by stating, “The City does not agree there was malfeasance with the court; they will always respect the decisions of the court but vehemently oppose the decision. They felt that the Judge made a number of fundamental legal errors and a bunch of fundamental factual findings that led to corresponding legal errors as well.”

This exchange during the interview highlighted the complexity of the situation. It also prompted questions about the city’s legal strategy and whether they could convincingly argue for overturning a judge’s decision on appeal, especially after losing in the initial case.

When asked about the role of the Justice in offering advice to the City of Winnipeg and other stakeholders, Michael Jack expressed his belief that it is not the court’s role to provide guidance on relationships between councillors, city officials, and developers. He suggested that, without the lawsuit, the city would have relied on best practices and due diligence in creating processes. This statement left room for interpretation, as it implied the city might have failed to follow best practices or due diligence in the past but was going to had it not been for the ruling.

The interview with Michael Jack raised important questions that demanded further clarification. Citizens wondered if the COW had indeed deviated from best practices and due diligence in its processes, and if so, how this applied to the Gem Equities development and other projects. Moreover, the conflicting statements about seeking or not seeking guidance from the court left observers wanting to understand the COW’s stance.

Mr. Jack also stated that the COW had more certainty about how their planners should act before the Judge’s decision. He emphasized that fundamental errors occurred during the trial, impacting the evidence presented and the ultimate decisions. However, Winnipegers argued that the COW’s continued pursuit of the case might not be in the best interest of its citizens. The host, Richard Cloutier, suggested that the City of Winnipeg was “digging deeper” and should consider ending its legal battle.

Former Mayoral Candidate Don Woodstock weighed in on the matter, questioning why the COW believed there were fundamental errors in the Judge’s judgment and the presentation of evidence. He pointed out that it was the COW’s lawyers’ responsibility to explain the evidence, and the fact that the city had lost the case raised doubts about their legal strategy and the continued use of the same lawyers.

“Any attempt now to suggest that Justice McCarthy errored in some areas, is not only incredible but is, in my mind, blasphemy,” says Don Woodstock

Mr. Woodstock recently penned another email to the Manitoba Provincial Government, the Mayor, and the council pleading for accountability and addressing this matter head-on, as silence is no longer acceptable.

Winnipeg AltMedia also raised concerns about the situation and the actions of City Councillors. They questioned the absence of Premier Heather Stefanson’s involvement, arguing that “this story should be on her radar. The outlet expressed dismay that city councillors appeared to be using the media and other means to challenge a judge’s ruling and undermining the judicial system’s integrity and that of Justice McCarthy.” Based on the public comments by Mr. Jack about Justice McCarthy, Mr. Woodstock welcomes the removal of him from his position as CAO.

Amid the ongoing controversy in Winnipeg surrounding Justice McCarthy’s judgment and the subsequent appeals, there has been a notable absence of a strong statement from Manitoba’s Justice Minister, Kelvin Goertzen, defending the integrity of the judiciary and supporting Justice McCarthy. This absence raises concerns about the perception of judges being left to face public scrutiny without adequate support.

The absence of any response from the Justice Minister is a stark reminder of the critical importance of maintaining unwavering support for the impartiality and independence of the judiciary. Their role in upholding the rule of law is paramount, and they should never be subjected to unwarranted criticism or doubt without a proper and fair legal process. It falls upon those responsible for safeguarding the justice system’s integrity to mount a robust defence whenever such challenges arise, ensuring that the public’s trust in the judiciary remains steadfast.

As the citizens of Winnipeg seek answers and clarity, they remain eager to understand the motivations and consequences of the city’s actions in this high-stakes legal battle. And if the City of Winnipeg loses its appeal, in the words of former Mayoral candidate Mr. Woodstock, “It’s Time For a Clean Sweep.”