HAS WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP COMMITTED A TYPE OF FRAUD ON THE SUPERIOR COURT?

Yesterday I posted that Woolwich had screwed up their Notice of Default to Mark Bauman. Today at 10 am. they and Mark were in courtroom 506 Superior Court with Mark and his lawyers as Applicants and Woolwich Township as Respondents. I did recognize the one young Woolwich lawyer. What a joke in that there was no one in opposition present much less informed as to today's courtroom appearance. I got there about 10:06 am. and the Decision had been made. The Judge and courtroom were quiet as I entered probably for a minute or two. Several Woolwich Staff including the Clerk were all present at the back of the courtroom obviously enjoying a paid holiday.

The only reason I showed up was that obviously the Waterloo Region Record had been advised yesterday that Mark & colleagues (Township staff) were attending court today and Luisa D'Amato mentioned it (without the time) in her Opinion article today. I had been expecting an article today from Paige Desmond regarding Tuesday nite's erroneous Notice of Default. I presume she will cover today's Decision by the Superior Court judge.

Regarding the above headline I'm thinking that the judge may have been deceived by the erroneous Notice of Default in that the document failed to include Section 80 (2) (a) namely "The candidate forfeits any office to which he or she was elected and the office is deemed to be vacant and " ... then part (b) regarding ineligibility to be elected or appointed was the only penalty portion of Section 80 (2) that was included on the Notice.

Therefore the question in my mind is whether Mark is now eligible to run in a called by-election for St. Jacobs or will the Township still try to pretend that he was never removed?