Appeal court reserves decision on rail sale issue

Orangeville’s appeal of a Superior Court judge’s decision that provincial law bars the town’s representatives from voting on sale of a county-owned railbed regarding the sale of a county-owned rail bed ended Friday with three Ontario Court of Appeal judges reserving judgment.

At stake is whether Orangeville’s two representatives on county council would be in breach of Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act because of a contract to sell the town-owned Orangeville Brampton Railway.

Superior Court Justice Francine Van Melle’s July 21 decision was based, in part, on the agreement between the Highland Group and the Town. She ruled that since the town is contractually obligated to assist Highland in the latter’s efforts to buy the railbed north of Orangeville its representatives have a pecuniary interest in the sale.

A pecuniary interest is declared when a party — in this case a councillor or someone close to him or her — has a financial interest in an issue.

Mayor Rob Adams, who with Deputy Mayor Warren Maycock represents the town on County Council, says the issue “is a matter of the right of the taxpayers to be represented in the political process.”

As town solicitor, Bill Stutz gave Orangeville council a legal opinion that neither the mayor nor the deputy mayor had pecuniary interest with respect to the rail bed sale and should therefore participate in discussions and voting on this issue.

The opinion of Dufferin lawyer Stanley Makuch was that Orangeville’s representatives had a conflict of interest in any sale of the county-owned rail corridor north from Orangeville, and therefore were disqualified from participating in deliberations or voting on the issue.

Orangeville’s conditional agreement for the sale of its railway to the Highland Rail Group includes a condition that Highland would withhold a final $2-million payment until Orangeville lays about one mile of track on the county-owned rail bed. It also has a condition that Orangeville help promote the railway as a business operation.

While it is uncertain when the appeal court will render its judgement, there has been speculation the decision could come as early as next month.

If the appeal court’s decision were to be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, a more thorough review of the legal issues could be filed, further delaying a vote on the proposed sale.

Mayor Adams has maintained that a municipality’s ability to represent itself efficiently at the county or regional level could be compromised if the current decision is upheld.

“There is obviously a lot of interest in this case,” he said.

“There could be ramifications across the province. Everyone we know in municipal legal affairs is interested in the decision.

“If it is upheld, a municipality may not be able to vote on an issue at an upper tier, simply because the issue is taking place within the municipality.”