You are on page 1of 1

July 21, 2014

Mayor Robertsons 5 East 8th Avenue Conflict Case Ruling



A decision has been made by Chief Justice Hinkson not to allow the 5 East 8th Avenue - Gregor
Robertson case to continue. Obviously this is a disappointing judgement in the application of conflict of
interest law to the facts of this case, but we take note that the Chief Justice did not agree with many
assertions made by Robertsons defence such as the case being vexatious or frivolous. The chief justice
also disagreed with the absurd position of Mayor Robertson that the lawsuit was irrelevant or embarrassing.
The decision we take specific issue with is that we were not able to convince to the Chief Justice that
Robertson gained financially. This decision is not seen as an outright loss, as Robertson was not let off
entirely Scott free.
As to our contention that the transaction was not granted to the applicant at market value,
specifically the valuable option to delay payment of the ten million dollar building until 2016 for a $1
payment, was left in the air with Chief Justice Hinkson commenting as follows,
Whether that is so, or not, is irrelevant to the respondents application. Chief Justice Hinkson

Furthermore, one of the petitioners greatest troubles as residents of Vancouver is the veil of secrecy
surrounding City Hall and the judgment does make mention of this lack of transparency at City Hall as
quoted below from Chief Justice Hinkson.
the process followed by the City in leasing the Property was somewhat shrouded in secrecy. Chief
Justice Hinkson
Here are a few more selected quotes from Justice Hinksons July 21 2014 Decision:

[26] I am unable to find that the petition herein is difficult to understand, such that it could be described as
irrelevant or embarrassing. I am similarly unable to find that the petition is so irrelevant that it will
involve the parties in useless expense.

[27] Further, I do not consider that the petition does not go to establishing the plaintiff's cause of action
or does not advance any claim known in law.

[28] Finally, I am not persuaded that the petition is frivolous as being unsustainable due to the
doctrine of estoppel. As such, I am not persuaded that the respondent has established that the petition
should be struck pursuant to Rule 9- 5(1)(b).

[35] The petitioners do not share the respondents political views, and indeed some may even seek
municipal office. Despite their differing points of view, I am not prepared to find that the petitioners acted
maliciously or engaged in scandalous or outrageous conduct.

[36] While it is true that I have found that their petition lacks legal merit, the proceedings are at an early
stage, and the process followed by the City in leasing the Property was somewhat shrouded in
secrecy until a point after which the petition was filed.

[37] In these circumstances it is my opinion that the respondent should have his costs at Scale B only.

Marco Francesco Liliu, legal counsel representing myself, Glen Chernen and the other petitioners
will make a brief statement by Tuesday July 22, 2014 or earlier.

Thank You
Glen Chernen

Contact me on twitter or glenchernen@cedarparty.ca

You might also like