Wednesday, September 30, 2015


At the moment after far too much delay and misinformation it appears that perhaps indeed that someone in authority, somewhere actually cares about the abuse of the Municipal Elections Act up here in Woolwich by three sucessful candidates. Of course only Mayor Shantz has a court date for tomorrow morning at 11 am. in what I refer to as Superior Court (Court of Justice?). I have been describing here over the last five and a half weeks the frankly ridiculous process required for a non lawyer, average Joe citizen to be able to sucessively file an "Information" and then to have "process issued'. At least the second part "process issued" was handled by the Justice of the Peace and the Court Staff. I think that part of the problem was the relatively unusual aspect of a citizen filing a private "Information" for an Election Act charge versus say for a Restraining Order or even say an assault charge.

Paige Desmond of the Waterloo Region Record has a small article in today's newspaper describing this most recent development in the case. The on-line title of the story is "Woolwich mayor summoned to court regarding election expenses". Her article also mentions the fact that I filed a second Compliance Audit Application last week. The first unsucessful request followed the mayor's very first Financial Statement filed on February 2/15 which even lacked an accompanying Auditor's Report. Three more Financial Statements have followed, each one adding to her list of donors as well as her list of expenses. All four Financial Statements have errors and omissions of varying seriousness.

Regarding tomorrow's court appearance by either the mayor or her representative, I have been advised of absolutely nothing. I was shocked yesterday morning at 10 am. to learn that the first court appearance was to be a mere two days later. This lack of information being given to the complainant/informant seems to be par for the course throughout these proceeedings. Is it for example to set a future trial date? Is it for another purpose? Is it merely to formally begin the proceedings or will something substantive occur for which I should have been advised? What's not to love with our judicial system and what appears to be its' intentionally obtuse and veiled processes?

Tuesday, September 29, 2015



The Municipal Elections Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC) received a stern lecture, spanking and overall smack upside the head last Friday. The title of the six page document was "Application For A Compliance Audit" but it was so much more. It was a condemnation of their two major, illegal decisions made regarding Councillor Hahn and mayor Shantz. Similar to sports it usually isn't worthwhile to criticize the refs after the fact. Occasionally a ref will make such an obvious boneheaded and wrong decision that it is obvious to the majority of fans that one team or player got robbed. That is what happened when MECAC refused to order a Compliance Audit for Mayor Shantz and when they also refused to send Councillor Scott Hahn on for prosecution to the courts. The difference of course is that there were fewer fans and they also are much less informed than sports fans who are students of the game.

I and several others have carefully studied the Municipal Elections Act over the last six months. This has included reading case law as well as on-line legal articles describing the duties and responsibilities of MECAC. This group of individuals have behaved very badly. Besides the six page document sent to MECAC through the Deputy Clerk, mentioned above, I also included both my Delegation to Woolwich Council from Septemebr 15/15 and a published article by the Ontario Bar Association. This is precisely why various politicians, bureaucrats and other assorted liars hate me. It isn't just my opinions it's my ability to research and include professional facts and positions along with my own analysis. This is how I have destroyed the credibility of the Ontario M.O.E., Chemtura and all their fellow travellors over the last twenty-five years.

My six page document is a compilation of the worst of the worst of mayor Shantz's errors and omissions. It highlights all the contradictions in her provided data and I believe it indicates a pattern of deception starting from her February 2/15
submitted Financial Statement. To date absolutely zero authorities have carefully examined any of her four different Financial Statements and that includes her personal auditor. I can only imagine his embarassment in now having had to do THREE audits of three different Financial Statements all from the same candidate, all for the same single election. If nothing else this alone should be a huge clarion call to all responsible for honest elections that anything less than a full scale forensic audit is essentially a joke and a rubberstamp.

Once and for all the citizens and electors of Woolwich Township deserve professional and honest experts looking at the mayor's FOUR Financial Statements. If after all is said and done the honest conclusion after a serious examination is that she simply isn't very bright, then so be it. But I and others will not accept that conclusion based solely upon the words and opinions of her biased and dishonest supporters.

Monday, September 28, 2015


I know, I know I've told that joke on their name at least a half a dozen times so far but in my line of work I truly believe that longevity is based upon finding humour wherever you can. Afterall when you are dealing with a few dedicated individuals along with packs of lying, scheming, self centred politicians, bureaucrats and polluters; it's far too easy to become depressed.

So while absolutely not an apology let me say this: RAC (politicians & bureaucrats) are Really Awful whereas at TAG last Thursday evening, one could hardly see the horns or hear the cackles of glee. In fact except for two TAG members blatantly lying about their conflicts of interest as they are allegedly representing citizens and the public interest; overall it went well. Most of them said nothing while the Chairman Dick Jackson ran the show. I have not decided yet as to whether or not to pass on to him the letters I sent Mayor Shantz and the rest of Council this past spring calling out Pat McLean and Susan Bryant for their monetary and other conflicts of interest. Receiving employment and or expense paid trips around the continent directly related to your Chemtura relationship is beyond obvious unless of course you are friends with the Mayor and or other councillors apparently.

Mr. Jackson referenced CPAC positively regarding the current M.O.E./Chemtura plans for investigating the south and east sides of their property. He also advised that Pat & Susan would be along with himself on RAC representing TAG for the first year only. Then he will be alternating TAG members for the rest of the four year term.

Two letters of interest were handed out, one from Milli New of the M.O.E. and one from Susan Bryant allegedly representing whatever may be left of a once truly representative group of Woolwich citizens. Milli did actually in writing refer to the Stroh Drain (my term) although she referred to it as the Stroh drainage ditch which is close enough. Susan referenced the two MTE reports (done on behalf of CPAC) and the disaster on the south-east side. She is in agreement that Chemtura/CRA's initial response and proposed investigation was inadequate.

Interestingly but other than Mr. Jackson no one seems particularily inclined to give any credit to CPAC. Gosh I wonder what further lies Sandy and Mark have been spreading amongst that new group? Be that as it is yours truly discovered the Stroh Drain alone (May 2014) despite its' presence being kept a secret for approximately thirty years by all the guilty parties. CPAC understood its' significance and commissioned two professional studies by MTE Consultants.

RAC meets for the first time this Wednesday at 4 pm. in Council Chambers. I expect I'll attend just to renew old acquaintances with alleged "stakeholders" who only came out of the woods when Sandy recruited them last April for the purpose of undermining the best public consultation (CPAC) this Township had ever seen. The hypocrisy of Sandy and Woolwich Council along with Chemtura and the M.O.E. is absolutely limitless.

Saturday, September 26, 2015


Well once accomplished it was almost anticlimactic. Five Fridays in a row including picking up the initial wrong forms and yesterday I heard the magic words from Justice Marquette. He read all ten charges (under the Municipal Elections Act) into the audio record, confirmed my identity and asked me a couple of questions both regarding my honest belief in Sandy Shantz's contraventions and in a general way why I so believed that. Once that was accomplished he stated formally that he had accepted my "Information" and that he would "issue process" including Summons etc..

While I am very pleased with the outcome I think I've made it quite clear here that Superior Court are incredibly user unfriendly. Imagine if you will if English is not your native tongue, you have a learning disabilty, hearing issues, age or other mental or physical disabilities.

Now for the second part of the double whammy. Yesterday afternoon at 2:10 pm. I submitted my second Application for a Compliance Audit to the Clerk (actually Deputy-Clerk) of Woolwich Township. This was done based upon the latest in a string of Financial Statements issued by Mayor Shantz. One was submitted by the March 27/15 deadline and the other three including mini audits were all months after the fact. Her last two submitted to the Clerk on August 20 were both dated August 6/15. My understanding was that I had to wait until her actual Supplementary Financial Statement deadline of September 25/15, 2 pm. before I could submit my new Application for a Compliance Audit.

The major purpose of this new Application is to finally receive a full forensic audit of Mayor Shantz's Financials. If MECAC (municipal election compliance audit committee) were either honest, competent or fulfilling their legislated duty this would have been done back on July 2, 2015. Instead Sandy "ambushed" me and allegedly MECAC with 30 pages of documents ten minutes prior to the meeting. Without adequately reading, studying or discussing them MECAC denied my initial request for a Compliance Audit claiming among other things that her late five minute wonder of an audit was satisfactory. It is my hope that a real forensic audit similar to what Councillor Scott Hahn received will both clear up many unanswered questions as well as provide even stronger evidence that can be used at Mayor Shantz's trial for her admitted contraventions of the Elections Act (MEA) as well as those she has not admitted to.

If Mayor Shantz had approached her multiple contraventions and failures of the Elections Act honestly and forthrightly I would be less motivated to have continued what has been an obviously biased, manipulative and politically interfered with process. Her initial denials of all errors were false as were her subsequent constantly dollar increasing amended/revised Financial Statements. Her behaviour including editorial comments on the Woolwich website on her cover page of her last two Financal Statements are self-serving slams of citizens doing their duty. Her "ambush" of myself and allegedly MECAC on July 2 combined with having members of MECAC with obvious conflicts of interest favourable to her was reprehensible. MECAC have twice proven their allegiance is not to the truth or the MEA but to local politicians . Then we have her behaviour and actually admitted to "untrue" sworn statement she filed at Superior Court. Funny how we've heard nothing about that since, isn't it? Then there was her lawyer actually threatening me by e-mail to release allegedly damaging information about me if I attended her Superior Court date.

To this day Sandy denies all wrongdoing. She claims honest errors and oversights. This from a person with 31 years of bookeeping experience as well as three elections under her belt before last fall's municipal election. She is either dumber than even I give her credit for or she is a liar or both. Based on her written and verbal comments this spring about CPAC in which she made outrageous and false allegations regarding their character and behaviour I know the answer.

Friday, September 25, 2015


Following is a copy of the first page of the "Information" being given to the Justice of the Peace at the new Superior Court in Kitchener. Today including picking up the forms will be the fifth Friday in a row. Despite the J.P.'s claim to me last week I was not clearly informed by anybody regarding either typing or the required format until last week. Keep in mind it took three weeks just to get the right forms from that bunch. Nevertheless I expect that today will be a go. If the J.P. refuses to issue process (Summons etc.) based upon outdated case law then I expect that will be both illegal and not good for her career. The actual copy being submitted is neater than what is below. Transferring it onto my Blog was challenging.

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE Under Section 23 of the Provincial Offences Act Form/Formule 105
COUR DE JUSTICE DE L’ONTARIO En vertu de l’article 23 de la Loi sur les infractions provinciales Courts of Justice Act

Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaries
O.Reg. / Regl. de l’Ont. O. 200

This is the information of ALAN G. MARSHALL
Denonciation deposee par

of 99 Church St. W. Elmira, Ontario N3B 3K7 retired
de (occupation/ profession)

I have reasonable and probable grounds to believe and do believe that SANDRA (SANDY) SHANTZ
J’ai des motifs raisonnables de croire et je crois effectivement que (name/ nom)

14 Nuthatch Place Elmira, Ontario N3B 3G5 on or about the 27th day of March , yr. 2015
le ou vers le jour de an

at 24 Church St. W. Elmira, Ontario Woolwich Township Building
a (location/lieu)

did commit the offence of
a commis l’infraction de

1. Failed to record as Contributions all goods and services given to her for her municipal election campaign contrary to Section 66. (1) of the Municipal Elections Act (1996) ie. MEA on or about March 27, 2015.
2. Failed to record as Expenses all goods and services used in her municipal election campaign contrary to Section 67. (1) of The Municipal Elections Act (1996) ie. MEA.
3. Accepted a contribution exceeding $750 from a single contributor contrary to Section 71. (1) of the MEA .
4. Failed to file an auditor’s report with the municipal clerk by March 27, 2015 contrary to Section 78. (1) of the MEA.
5. Failed to request an extension to the filing deadline from the Ontario Court of Justice in order to file her auditor’s report contrary to Section 80. (4) of the MEA.
6. Furnishing false or misleading information to a person authorized to receive information namely myself the applicant, the municipal clerk, the Compliance Audit Committee and others contrary to Section 89. (h) and (m) of the MEA.
7. Contravened Section 90. (1) of the MEA by committing some of these previous offences knowingly.
8. Contravened Section 92. (5) (a) of the MEA by filing an incorrect document under section 78 or 79.1 .
9. Sandra Shantz obstructed the Applicant, myself , making an investigation or examination in regards to the Compliance Audit Committee contrary to section 93. of the MEA.
10. Contravening any provision of the Act (MEA) is guilty of an offence under Section 94. of the MEA. This includes any and all of the previous nine mentioned offences.

contrary to The MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT (1996) section (s) 66. (1), 67. (1), 71. (1), 78. (1),
80. (4), 89. (h) (m), 90. (1), 92. (5) (a), 93., 94
contrairement a (au)


POA 0002 CSD (rev. 11/03)

Thursday, September 24, 2015


The monthly Progress Reports have been assembled by Conestoga Rovers on behalf of Chemtura/Uniroyal for decades. They are highly optimistic snapshots of the "progress" going on to allegedly remediate primarily Elmira's groundwater. Every now and then they stumble and suggest that things on site are getting better as well.

Groundwater samples were taken of new off-site extraction well W6B. A total of eight different chemical pollutants have been reported to the public namely NDMA, Chlorobenzene, Toluene, Dichloroethene, NDEA, NMOR, Trichloroethene and Vinyl Chloride. All of these are nasty with the first one and last two in particular. NDMA was detected at between 35 and 45 times greater than the Ontario drinking Water Standards. All hail Chemtura's long discredited pump and treat system ie. hydraulic containment.

Table A.3 lists concentrations of some chemicals found in upper aquifer groundwater pumping wells. Here we are treated to concentrations of DNAPL chemicals in the thousands of parts per billion. These include Chlorobenzene, Benzothiazole, Mercaptobenzothiazole, Aniline and Carboxin plus lower concentrations of various chlorophenols. All of these are what are known as DNAPL chemicals (dense non aqueous phase liquids). While some concentrations do not exceed the magic 1% threshold of labratory solubility many exceed 1% of their effective solubility thus indicating the presence of nearby DNAPL most likely of the free phase variety.

Table D.1 is part of the 2015 Routine Groundwater Monitoring program. On-site NDMA is recorded at 138.5 parts per billion (ppb) with the drinking water standard at .009 ppb. Chlorobenzene on the east side of the creek is at 45,000 ppb. or ten times higher than 1% of its' lab solubility indicating DNAPL presence. Similarily there are Chlorobenzene concentrations well exceeding the 1% lab solubility on the west side of the creek in both RPW7 and in the M2 area.

Finally Table A.1 purports to show groundwater concentrations of chemicals entering the groundwater collection and treatment system. In fact it does nothing of the kind as the vast majority of industrial, chemical pollutants both on and off site are not tested for on the influent side. Further along the treatment train we get some results for them but this would be the appropriate place to indicate their starting concentrations prior to treatment.

Mostly these monthly Progress Reports indicate what we already know. Source removal needed to be done decades ago on site and the off-site aquifers are nowhere near close to achieving drinking water standards by 2028.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015


It appears there have been two different articles in the Waterloo Region Record in the last day or two regarding Northstar Aerospace. While welcomed they are literally years late and way too little. Shame on the Record and every other media outlet for swallowing the Region's, the City of Cambridge and the Ministry of Environment's horse manure a decade ago that they had caught that environmental disaster in time. They did no such thing.

While I've come to expect governmental obfuscation and puffery the media's non-response at the time was pathetic. Yes 500 homes were affected by vapour intrusion into their homes due to the gross groundwater contamination from two sources on Bishop St. namely Northstar Aerospace and G.E. Canada. The human cost including premature deaths and lifelong health problems were grossly understated and downright denied and ignored.

Putting out a puff piece today praising some of these same guilty parties is disgusting. While I'm not against redevelopment if it doesn't stand in the way of remediation, I do not see the need to pretend that everything has worked out for the best. It has not. Ask the surviving family members of those taken far too soon. One of the articles in the Record is titled "Northstar site to be sold, redeveloped". Here is the link to the other one.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015


Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation (GWMR) magazine are a well known technical magazine for groundwater and hydrogeological professionals. A friend sent me a copy of an article several weeks back titled "DNAPL Remediation: Which "New Paradigm" will prevail?". Aside from the basic topic close to my heart being DNAPL, the very interesting thing is who the author is of this article first published in GWMR's summer 2001 edition. This article also appears to have been republished in GWMR in February 2007. The author is Richard Jackson of Geofirma Engineering Inc. who is now the new Chairman of TAG (Technical Advisory Group).

Chemtura are sitting upon a grossly contaminated site including multiple different DNAPLS some readily mobile such as chlorobenzenes and other more viscous DNAPLS almost to the point of being like tar. All of these DNAPLS however will dissolve and become more mobile in the presence of solvents of which there has never been any shortage on the Uniroyal/Chemtura site. In fact much to the consternation of Chemtura, yours truly has occasionally mentioned the inconvenient fact that both Dioxins and DDT are defined as DNAPL chemicals. Chlorinated solvents are the most well known DNAPLS although Chemtura has many others including Benzothiazole (BT), Mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT), Carboxin and much more.

This article quite frankly is excellent in its' analysis of the place of hydraulic containment in regards to restoring aquifers to drinking water standards. Various theories and alternatives are discussed with specific examples of site cleanups successes and failures. References are made to various well known hydrogeologists and their positions on DNAPL cleanup at particular points in time of their studies and research including the University of Waterloo's John Cherry. I had the privelege of meeting with Dr. Cherry and Dr. Beth Parker simultaneously for a technical discussion of Chemtura's DNAPL back in January 2007. The result opened my eyes to the dirty politics and worse here in Woolwich Township as well as the interconnection between Chemtura and local co-opted citizens and municipal councillors.

Monday, September 21, 2015


In hindsight, UPAC and CPAC were designed for failure. They were so designed by the province (Ministry of Environment), the Region of Waterloo and Woolwich Township. All three political groups have lied like dogs to the public for twenty-five years. They have propped up and promoted co-opted citizens to assist them in their underhanded work. All three groups have also undermined honest and involved citizens. That said the current CPAC (Citizens Public Advisory Committee) will not behave as nastily and viciously as the old disbanded CPAC did back in 2011. The disbanded CPAC (Pat M., Susan B, and Sandra B.) invited three CPAC members to a joint meeting at the library in the summer of 2011 and then verbally attacked Dr. Dan Holt and Vivienne Delaney when they attended the meeting in good faith. Other old CPAC members attending were appropriately embarassed by that behaviour.

That said this new group known as TAG or Technical Advisory Group are a construct of Mayor Shantz once again designed to be nothing more than a facade of public consultation. Their first meeting is this Thursday in Council Chambers at 8 pm. with an in camera meeting in the Councillors' Boardroom at 7 pm.. While there are a couple of co-opted members there will undoubtedly be some who truly believe that this is the real deal and that they can participate fully and contribute to the cleanup. Please ask yourselves why twenty-six years after the shutdown of Elmira's two wellfields are we just now bringing in for the first time a Chairman (Richard Jackson) of known technical expertise and competence. We have had an honest and intelligent Chairman (Dr. Dan Holt) for the past four and a half years plus the likes of Greg Pimento head of Sulco Chemical and Pat McLean, longtime Council member before him.

TAG report to RAC or the Remediation Advisory Committee and essentially are a pack of bureaucrats and politicians. These are the longtime guilty parties and are in control. I mean seriously this group are a Woolwich Township construct and Woolwich Township with my wee assistance have proven their corruption and incompetence in spades this past six months. Whether dealing with the Municipal Act and in camera meetings or the Elections Act they are the gang who couldn't shoot or lie straight.

The Agenda for this Thursday starts with a "Chemtura Briefing on Recent Reports" by Jeff Merriman and undoubtedly Jeff will do what he does best which is obfuscate and misrepresent the truth. The next item deals with written Delegations and I expect there will be an attempt to limit public input and influence as much as possible whether blatantly or more subtly. While I wish most of TAG well they will accomplish nothing more than is already arranged privately between Chemtura, the M.O.E. and the liars on Woolich Council.

Saturday, September 19, 2015


I find it calming to release my disgust in the title first before beginning to write my posting for the day. So yes I was told yesterday morning at 11:05 am. that I have the right form but that's about as far as it goes. The previous week I had been told by the J.P. in writing that I had been paged at 1:10 pm. ten minutes after I had left (possibly true who knows?) and that court staff had phoned me at home in the afternoon. The latter is extremely unlikely. One I was home and two I have an answering machine which I watch carefully. Sooo.... yesterday I'm told by the J.P. not only is my form to be typed, not carefully handwritten as it was, but that she allegedly told me this last week. Furthermore she claims that she had explained the proper format to me the week previously. Hmm... . Best case scenario is refer back to her previously mentioned English speaking skills including accent. Worse case scenario is not good.

O.K. here's the good news. The J.P. got me new forms and pointed out (sort of) an empty room with a table and chair for me to hand write out a new Information this time in the proper format. She also offerred to have the staff type it up when I was finished. I accepted all offers given. This new "format" didn't seem all that different from some of the sentences I had done originally although others were less of what she wanted. Form 105 is not clear at all as to the specifics as to what they want. It is also somewhat repetitive as one is to list all the Sections of the Municipal Election Act (MEA) contravened at the bottom together after listing each one individually with a written sentence describing the offence in the body. So I did all that and resubmitted at about 12:15 pm. for typing. Now keep in mind Form 105 is a single page and a professional typist could probably type the 8-10 sentences in five to ten minutes. I figured best case scenario was an hour for staff taking us well into the J.P.'s 1 1/2 hour lunch so I gave them the new handwritten form 105 and told them I'd be back next week. In that case they said here's your Form 105 back if you're not going to wait around. I said I was willing to go out for lunch and come back at a reasonable hour (I'd been there since 8:40 am. again) but again they would not give me any specific time for either the typing being done or the J.P. again available. Hence I said goodbye I'll be back next Friday.

Some more significantly good news. A police officer at the counter with me while we were both waiting advised me that once the J.P. receives the Information (Form 105) in the format she wants then she has absolutely no choice but to accept it. The next step is referred to as her issuing process. The J.P. has advised me that she will take care of the "Summons" which I think might be the "issuing process". Therefore I've said it before but it sounds as if there is light at the end of the tunnel.

As of right now, here at home, I have typed and completed the "Information" known as Form 105. It actually looks very professional. There are ten different offences listed and described along with the specific sections of the MEA that I believe our mayor has contravened. Most of these listed should be a slam dunk as she has admitted them via her three followup Financial Statements all submitted after the March 27, 2015 deadline. These ten offences cover my August 3, 2015 posting titled "More New Expense Contraventions By Sandy Revealed". There are a couple of extras having to do with Sections 89, 90, 92-94 dealing with corrupt practices. These are the more serious charges and undoubtedly will require more serious attention and thought from a prosecuter.

Friday, September 18, 2015


Well it's back down to Superior Court this morning . I will be submitting a new "Information", namely Form 105 to the Justice of the Peace. It is under Section 23 of the Provincial Offences Act and remarkably I'm feeling reasonably confident. Maybe the confidence is due more to having been down so many blind alleys that theoretically at least I must be getting closer to the right path.

In my opinion (& others) Councillor Hahn's Financial Statements were beyond ridiculous as were Sandy's. Hers at least on the face of them were better done to give at least the appearance of reality. Scott's just screamed "Audit me! Audit me"". Then it is the behaviour of both politicians to avoid the consequences. This is what has shocked me. From late in the day manufactured receipts and invoices for Scott to untrue statements under oath to Superior Court, last minute submissions to MECAC and even Sandy's lawyer attempting to blackmail me to keep me away from court; the pair of them went nuts.

Was this done out of habit as in automatically covering up everyday wrongdoing or do either or both of them have campaign expense secrets serious enough to risk legal consequences? It is my and every elector's right to find out the truth.

Thursday, September 17, 2015


Yesterday I mentioned an article written by the Ontario Bar Association and how it clearly explained that an ordered compliance audit was mandatory even if there was but a single contravention of the MEA. The title of that Bar Association article is "Fairness and Finances: Campaign Finances Oversight Under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996". Today I'm going to point out another article this one written by Iler Campbell LLP titled "Let the Municipal Elections Act Games Begin". Interestingly despite the provocative title it turns out that while there have been examples of meritless Applications under the MEA they appear to have been centred in partisan and ugly municpal politics in the city of Toronto.

These updates became effective on January 1, 2010 hence they have been in force for the last two municipal elections namely October 2010 and October 2014. Two major changes were the mandatory establishment of a Compliance Audit Committee versus it being voluntary by municipalities. The reason for that was "The potential political implications of a compliance audit request aside, the purpose of such provisions is for citizen-electors to be able to ensure transparency and accountability in campaign finances. This goal is difficult to achieve if the elected council is the arbitrator of the alleged offence, however. Councillors will be reluctant to order a compliance audit against one of their own, if the impugned candidate was elected to council.".

The second major change to the MEA 1996 is as follows: "Another significant amendment to the MEA is the addition of s. 81.(17), which provides that the compliance audit request process "does not prevent a person from laying a charge or taking any legal action, at any time, with respect to an alleged contravention of a provision of this Act relating to election campaign finances.". This addition appears to be in response to the ruling in Hall v. Jakobek, 2003 (Ont. Sup. Ct.). In that case Mr. Jakobek laid an information in provincial court alleging campaign finance improprieties against Ms. Hall, when both were vying for the Mayor's job in Toronto.".

"In Jakobek, the court held that only a municipal council, following a compliance audit of a candidate's campaign finances, may commence a legal proceeding against a candidate. Now, it appears a private citizen may lay an information agaisnt a candidate at any time for an alleged violation of the campaign finance provisions, notwithstanding the compliance audit process.".

As I've mentioned previously there are checks and balances against meritless allegations of campaign finance irregularities. If the compliance audit committee finds zero reasonable contraventions they are not supposed to order an audit. If they do however order an audit and the auditor finds no contraventions then the applicant, not the municipality, are on the hook for the costs of the audit. Dr. Dan Holt took this risk with Councillor Scott Hahn and indeed the auditor (Froese & Partners) found serious contraventions. Similarily the compliance audit committee were made aware of mayor Shantz's numerous contraventions of the Act, including her admissions of them, yet they improperly and illegally refused to order an audit of her finances.

So the bottom line is because MECAC (Compliance Audit Committee) refused to do their legally mandated duty I am attempting to have charges laid under the Municpal Elections Act 1996 regarding mayor Shantz's Financial Statements. A compliance/forensic audit could have avoided this process.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015


Below is the transcript of my Delegation to Council last evening. I sent both it as well as the referenced Ontario Bar Association article to the Woolwich Observer, K-W Record and CKCO-TV hours prior to the meeting. As Council behaved like grownups last evening I may well send them the same this morning. The key to housebreaking dogs and councils is persistence and patience.


Good evening . I’m here this evening to discuss issues and concerns with both the Municipal Elections Act 1996 (MEA) and with a politically appointed group designated to enforce that legislation. That group are known as MECAC which stands for Municipal Elections Compliance Audit Committee.

The Ontario Bar Association produced a document in July 2013 describing various elements of the Municipal Elections Act. On page 3 it states “A member of the public with an honest belief in a contravention can be reasonably confident that those with more expertise, the committee and the auditor, will pursue the matter. The threshold for granting an audit is low, and the committee has minimal discretion where the application demonstrates reasonable grounds. The applicant is not required to make a prima facie case but to demonstrate that she/he has “an objective belief based on compelling and credible information which raises the “reasonable probability of a breach of a statute.”.

Again on page 6 we are once more advised that “the threshold for requiring an audit must remain low.”.

Case law also supports this concept. In Wendy Gunn v. Katherine Bateman-Olmstead we are advised that Section 81.(1) of the MEA “ is a threshold requirement only. Once it is plain to a municipal council that there are reasonable grounds for the belief “that a candidate has contravened a provision of this Act relating to election campaign finances” under section 81.(1) then the result is “ a compliance audit of the candidate’s election campaign finances””. Furthermore “the audit is intended to be comprehensive , even if the trigger is but a single apparent contravention.”.

Many of the contraventions brought to MECAC’s attention by myself including a fourty page package of evidence were admitted to by the candidate on July 2, 2015 here in these chambers. Despite this MECAC improperly and I believe illegally refused to order a Compliance Audit.

It is my belief that MECAC are supposed to be operating under the rules of the host municipality, in this case Woolwich Township. I am aware that under Woolwich’s Procedural By-Laws there are rules regarding conflicts of interest both for councillor’s as well as for members of committees of council. I would suggest that just because those rules are selective and clearly unenforced in some circumstances, is no reason not to enforce them in regards to MECAC. Having a MECAC member with a long and loyal history of service to Mercedes Corporation, making decisions in regards to a Council member with ties also to Mercedes is a blatant conflict of interest. Less obvious perhaps would be two former Regional Councillors on MECAC also making decisions regarding a current municipal and Regional councilor.

Whether these conflicts of interest explain MECAC’s two poor decisions I do not know. What I do know is that two of their three decisions were beyond the pale and most likely illegal. There is a sports saying referring to “winning ugly”. I suggest that here in Woolwich a more accurate saying would be “winning illegally”.

Alan Marshall Woolwich Township resident and elector

Tuesday, September 15, 2015


First off thank you for a couple of technical comments on yesterday's posting in regards to criminal offences, the Provincial Offences Act and more. To say that this has been a learning experience is an understatement. I have now read the four specific case law histories that the Justice of the Peace gave me last Friday plus one more. The J.P. had only given me exerpts hence Mr. Google was very helpful in obtaining the whole story.

It does appear that the J.P. was correct (I believe) in her assessment that I spent eight hours sitting with the wrong forms submitted to the J.P.. Thank you very much court staff and whoever is responsible for the asinine process demanding citizens sit and wait while the J.P. does her well paid due diligence and study. There is no reason why the forms (ie. Information) can not be submitted and then the citizen go home to be called back when the J.P. is ready to go.

In my research I have also come across articles explaining the history of development of the Municipal Elections Act 1996. This includes the mandatory insistence by the province that all municipalities must have Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committees (MECAC). Apparently when they were optional many or most municipalities ignored them in favour of the municipal council making all the decisions directly as to whether or not to order a Compliance Audit and whether or not to send a candidate on to the courts for possible prosecution. As can be expected this pitted elected council members against their own colleagues. Therefore unpopular councillors (with the rest of council) would and could be treated differently than "good old boys".

The case law that the J.P. gave me was very clear in that citizens on their own could not send a candidate to the courts for prosecution either with or without the consent of MECAC. This politically appointed group of local illuminaries had total control similar to the way council had previously. As I stated yesterday this flies in the face of Section 81. (17) of the MEA.

Well it turns out that every single case law that the Superior Court J.P. gave me was correct when it was written. That was the law THEN. The MEA has been changed and each of those case laws are out of date with the current MEA 1996, amended in 2009. Section 81.(17) and other changes were added in 2009 hence the old case law does not apply to these new Sections. Section 81. (17) states " Saving Provision: This section does not prevent a person from laying a charge or taking any other legal action, at any time with respect to an alleged contravention of a provision of this Act relating to election campaign finances, 2009, c.33, Sched. 21, s. 8(44)".

So back to Court this Friday with the new forms filled out plus a note on them politely advising the J.P. that her case law is inapproprite and irrelevant. That is rather disappointing as if there haven't been enough obstacles thrown in the path of this citizen merely trying to exercise his legal rights. Keep clearly in mind there are enough honest checks and balances in the system already that will stop the process if the facts and evidence are not as straighforward as I and others believe. It is these dishonest, riddled with errors (ie. corrupt) roadblocks in citizens' paths that should not be there and should not be tolerated. The system seem to be sending a message that political elites are exempt from the Rule of Law in Canada. Friday will be my fourth out of town trip to Superior Court. That is disgraceful and should shame every single person involved in our injustice systems.

Monday, September 14, 2015


So I've been reading parts of the Provincial Offences Act 1990, the Municipal Election Act 1996 (MEA), case law and the Election Finances Act 1990. The MEA appears to be in conflict with both the Provincial Offences Act and with case law. The bad news is that the particular case law I've read states that the MEA is wrong and that citizens can not take candidates (politicians) directly to court for MEA offences. That said there are two major issues. Firstly the case law keeps referring to the municipality having the sole authority to order a Compliance Audit and secondly to then order a candidate to appear at court on election financing charges. In other words there is no reference to MECAC the Municipal Elections Act Compliance Audit Committee. Therefore perhaps this case law was taken from prior to the latest amendments to the MEA. Secondly when case law is referred to it is supposed to be as close as possible to similar or identical circumstances as the current case in question. The case law I've read so far does not remotely share similar circumstances. It's referring to a citizen totally bypassing the elements and processes in the MEA which is not the case in regards to Mayor Shantz. I've been following those processes very carefully.

So while I have more case law to read I have to ask the obvious questions. Is the J.P. sending me on a wild goose chase simply to discourage me from proceeding? Keep in mind when you have become accustomed to constantly being lied to by authority figures, one comes to expect exactly that. Not everyone is corrupt but after a while the automatic trust response with new people is gone. In the alternative has the J.P. simply picked poor examples of earlier cases (ie. case law) to show me? Afterall keep in mind that after eight hours of waiting I really have not had a conversation with her. She advised me based upon my written submission to her yes but she has not asked me any clarifying questions. She does not know the specific facts regarding Mayor Shantz's errors, falsehoods, submissions to Superior Court and or verbal submissions to MECAC. Or finally is it simply premature for me to come to conclusions yet? I will keep reading.

I am a Delegate to Council tomorrow evening at 6 pm.. I will be discussing issues with both the MEA as well as with MECAC. These are issues which seriously weaken any attempt to enforce the Municipal Elections Act.

Saturday, September 12, 2015


I actually took written notes yesterday regarding all the advice and direction I was given by Superior Court Staff as well as by the J.P. (Justice of the Peace). I was there by 8:40 am. and first off they refused to accept my three page document titled "Commencing a Proceeding for a Private Information Under the Criminal Code". This was the same Information as last week minus the background documents such as Sandy's four Financial Statements and more. They actually returned those plus gave me a scribbled handwritten "endorsement" by the J.P.. I couldn't read it because it was substantially poorer than my own lousy handwriting. Court Staff attempted to read it and their interpretation was that I was in the wrong courthouse. 77 Queen St. was mutterred once to me but not repeated.

The "solution" offerred was that I could come back next Friday to receive the J.P.'s eight lines in typed format. I departed but instead of heading home took a walk over to the Provincial Courthouse on Frederick St. It was closed! I then went to an old house beside the former century old plus jail namely 77 Queen St.. The initial staff were unhelpful but someone finally made some calls and straightened things out. Turns out that Superior Court was indeed the place to be afterall despite whatever the handwritten "endorsement" did or didn't say.

I was back at Superior Court by 9:45 am. and armed with a note given me at 77 Queen St. again filed my three page Application. And waited. And waited. At 11 am. after I enquired I was told that the J.P.s name was Ms. Radulovic and that she was again studying and working on my Application. I had already decided that I was not waiting for four hours as I did a week ago hence at noon I was planning on departing. At 12:03 pm. I was advised by one of the clerk's that I would receive my information from the J.P. within ten to fifteen minutes. I asked exactly what did that mean that I would receive my information? The clerk did not know. Again by 12:20 pm. and nothing happening I decided to leave at 12:30 pm. Lo and behold at 12:28 I was called into the J.P.s office. Eight hours of waiting over two Fridays and I actually get to speak to a J.P! Don't forget that this also includes picking up the forms three weeks earlier and having them all filled out ahead of time.

How many members of the workforce could afford to spend eight hours during business hours waiting? How many parents with children in their care would or could sit there with their kids for eight hours? How many seniors with health problems physically could stay for that long? This is a goddamn disgrace and shame on the judicial system and the hundreds of millions of dollars of our tax money they waste every year and then give the public that kind of service. It gets worse!

Before I continue angry let me say this. Call me a softie, call me a wimp, call me naive but I think that the very elusive J.P. actually was sincere and helpful, finally. Maybe I'd just been softened up to the point of submission??? Regardless in her spoken english which was on a par with her written english she calmly, quietly and politely did her best to explain things to me. She had also typed out her "endorsement" of the previous week. It turns out that it didn't say that I was in the wrong courthouse, it said that I had submitted the wrong forms. Honest to God!!! These were the forms I'd received from Superior court Staff three weeks earlier and submitted to them at 8:50 am. on Friday September 4, 2015 and then sat waiting for four hours without seeing the J.P.. Then I resubmitted those very same forms twice yesterday (Sept. 11) at 8:40 am. and at 9:45 am. and then sat waiting until 12:28 pm.. Gosh I must really be dumb to have submitted the wrong forms staff gave me, and then sat waiting for a total of eight hours. This folks is why those assholes have such stringent security in place at the courthouse. Intentionally corrupt or simply grotesquely incompetent they would be crucified by appropriately outraged citizens but for the security glass and armed police and special constables.

So what is the final outcome? Damned if I know and I was there! It's clear as mud! The J.P. gave me a new form called Form 105. Gosh I feel so special! She also gave me copies of case law as well as of the Election Finances Act 1990. Verbally I believe she told me that some of the Municipal Elections Act could be enforced by the courts if I filled out Form 105. I mean it would seem entirely stupid and in line with all the other bad information I've received if filling out Form 105 was a waste of time but who's to know? The trouble is I'm reading some of the extensive information she gave me and there is case law suggesting that the Municipal Elections Act 1996 has overeached itself in allowing citizens the right to take politicians to court for contravening the Act. WTF!

Here I am back to my final comment on last Thursday's posting. We have the best judicial system in the world that money can buy. Make no mistake there is intentional bias if not malice towards unrepresented citizens, defendants, litigants. It seems as if the whole system are offended by citizens exercising their legal rights and those include not having to spend money, they may or may not have, twice, in order to exercise those legal rights. We are paying taxes through the nose for our legal system once but then again require lawyers to so much as pick up forms? Really! Is this why our politicians are so willing to lie and cheat because they know only the wealthy can afford to hold them accountable? This is not democracy people.

At the moment I am again working for free for the public interest. Woolwich Council have expressed their high class appreciation for that recently by walking out of Council during a polite Delegation by myself. I am a Delegate again this Tuesday at 6 pm.. Let's see how they defend the indefensible again. Meanwhile I am intending to be at Superior Court again next Friday to see this thing through. If the Municipal Election Act (MEA)1996 is nothing but a straw tiger versus a method to enforce election campaign expense laws then we all need to know it. By the way Form 105 actually is in regards to the Provincial Offenses Act not the MEA 1996. Weird.

Friday, September 11, 2015


For the second Friday in a row I'll be down at the new Superior Court building at Weber, Frederick and Duke St. in Kitchener. I will be presenting the same Application for Commencing a Proceeding for a Private Information Under the Criminal Code. Once again the J.P. is supposed to be available to the public at 10:30 am., for the first time since last Friday.

The only difference today will be that I am only submitting the Application itself, not all the supporting papers along with it. Last week I was told that the J.P. was "studying" my Application as well as the Municipal Elections Act. If she wishes to do so again that's entirely up to her but there is no reason for me to sit there for hours on end while she studies the law.

I have absolutely zero grounds to believe that the numerous contraventions of the MEA by Mayor Shantz can not be proven in a court of law. Afterall she has after weeks and months of denials finally admitted to most of them in writing with her multiple, changing Financial Statements. The more serious and difficult issue is the "knowingly" submitting false or misleading information to various persons authorized to obtain that information. As I have indicated in the last couple of days I also believe that that can be proven as well.

MECAC (Compliance Audit Committee) have proven their inherent dishonesty with two of their three decisions. Now let's see if Superior Court/ J.P. are the real deal or not. I am very patient and I expect a response from the J.P. as is my legal right. Afterall as I indicated in my Reply to a commenter on yesterday's posting; that is the J.P.s job.

The show is supposed to begin at 10:30 am.. It's on the Main Floor on the right hand side further back in the building inside the glass walls. If any of you want to spend some boring time, come on down.

Thursday, September 10, 2015


Boy if you think your Doctor, Surgeon or local Hospital sometimes display impatience or arrogance towards you then you've seen nothing yet. Try on your local courts, judges and even support staff. Hell they even put school board staff and teachers union staff to shame. Ever notice how it is our so called public service industries that are the most unaccountable, unresponsive, unreasonable and just plain disrespectful?

The Municipal Elections Act 1996 is an intentional disgrace written by our provincial legislature. It has commonsense rules and regulations followed by written and specific penalties for non compliance. Yes it even carefully differentiates between stupidity and laziness by political candidates versus wilful and intentional cheating and lying with the most severe penalties being reserved for the most dishonest and disrespectful (of the Act) violaters.

Where it fails is in enforcement. It relys far too much on either individual citizens stepping up and saying "Hey you"ve broken the law" or even worse it relys on co-opted staff, employees, and even elected councillors all in a horrible conflict of interest position, to do the same.

I have been literally spoonfeeding facts and evidence to the Waterloo Regional Police and to Superior Court (Justice of the Peace). The response to date has been as described in the first paragraph and worse. It has included my filling out an Application to Commence a Proceeding for a Private Information Under the Criminal Code, taking it down to Superior Court and giving it to a Clerk as recommended 1 1/2 hours prior to the availabilty of the Justice of the Peace at 10:30 am.. Along with my Application I included exerpts of the MEA 1996 as well as copies of mayor Shantz's Financial Statements. I then sat and waited upon the J.P. even though I was assurred that I was first in line having attended at 9 am.. I sat and waited from 9 am. until 1 pm. when I had been advised that she would be taking an hour and a half lunch break until 2:30 pm.. I had asked and advised staff much earlier that I could come back at her next available date when they told me that she was studying and reviewing my Application. No that was not allowed I was told. If I left before she was ready then my Application would be tossed.

I am advised that the J.P. is only available to citizens on one day of the week namely Fridays. Can you believe that just for starters? Fridays only thank you and be prepared to sit for the whole day on hard chairs without cushions. If you need to use the bathroom be sure to tell Staff so that you don't miss your window of opportunity to kiss their and the J.P.'s golden asses. You know even heart surgeons are willing to make appointments to deal with the riff raff politely referred to as clients or people. Not our judicial system J.P.s apparently.

It has become apparent to me that the local judicial system have intentionally erected roadblocks to citizens wishing appropriate enforcement of the Municpal Elections Act 1996. It is equally obvious that lawyers are fully aware of this and advise their clients (guilty politicians) to relax. Honest citizens with families and jobs absolutely can not access the judicial system even if they've finally figured out the proper route to do so. Those remaining citizens whether retired or otherwise are treated with haughty judicial contempt in their attempts to do so. I expect that for several thousand dollars plus I could have passed this off to a lawyer and he could have designated a paid intern or lackey to sit in my place. Or in other words we have the best judicial system in the world, that money can buy.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015


Yes today's posting will focus on Sandy Shantz and Corrupt Practices under Section 90 & more of the MEA (Municpal Elections Act). That said last evening Woolwich Council put on display their anger and resentment towards the Woolwich Observer. Wow Mark Bauman especially really dosen't like his bad behaviour and bad decisions discussed in our now only local newspaper. That and the cartoons really are hard on him and Sandy.

Section 89 once more states: " A person is guilty of an offence if he or she, (h) furnishes false or misleading information to a person whom this Act authorizes to obtain information". Well frankly and bluntly put that seems to me to be a no brainer. Sandy submitted a new Financial Statement-Auditor's Report to MECAC (Compliance Audit Committee) on July 2/15. It was a single, stapled together and hand numbered thirty page package. Problem is it was misleading in that the contained Auditor's Report from Mr. Tim Adams MAC LLP did not apply to the thirty pages which included receipts, invoices and a Financial Spreadsheet produced by Sandy. It only applied to her new eight page Financial Statement dated March 23/15.

Then of course there is the not small matter that her second set of Financials (March 23/15) was still filled with errors and omissions many of which she had been publicly advised of. My June 16/15 Application for a Compliance Audit sent to her and to MECAC included specifics regarding multiple expenses that she had omitted in her original Financials and in her second set.

Thus the furnishing of false or misleading information to a person whom this Act authorizes to obtain information means both me, MECAC and the Woolwich Clerk. Whether this includes Superior Court I do not know. What I do know is that she furnished them with tons of false and misleading information. See my post of August 31/15 for the details.

From the preceding I have to believe that Sandy did knowingly furnish false and misleading information. This would also include her convenient errors on both the Contribution (income) side as well as on the Expense side of her original February 2/15 financial Statement submitted to the Clerk, Val Hummel. They effectively lowered both Income and Expenses below the $10,000 threshold either of which would have triggered a mandatory Auditor's report. Her continued errors and omissions throughout four Financial Statements may not all be due to intent. Despite 31 years of alleged bookeeping experience the mayor has shown a real knack for numerical errors.

Therefore it is my informed opinion that the Mayor has violated both Section 89 and 90 of the MEA. That is knowingly (Section 90) furnishing false or misleading information (Section 89) to a person authorized to obtain information (me, MECAC & the Clerk). These conditions are defined by Section 90 as Corrupt Practices.

Sections 91 and 94 go into the various penalties for persons convicted of Corrupt Practices including imprisonment. They are obviously intended to encourage compliance with the MEA and to discourage intentional lying or coverups both in the original filings and most importantly afterwards when authorized persons are examining the candidate's compliance. Sandy seriously it's time to think very hard about your options right now. There may still be time for you to avoid what I grant to date has been a reluctant to act, judicial system, taking action.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015


Yesterday I detailed Sections 89, 90 & 91 of the Municipal Elections Act (MEA) and promised that today we would look at our cases here in Woolwich Township. Firstly a surprise; there are four cases requiring our immediate attention, not three. Secondly our three elected councillors have also dragged in others covered by the Enforcement sections of the MEA. Section 90.(6) of the MEA states: " A clerk or other election official who wilfully fails to perform a duty imposed by this Act is guilty of an offence that constitutes a corrupt practice." Yes I believe that the reference to a "clerk" is a direct reference to the Municipal Clerk all municipalities are required to have. The "others" who have been dragged in may be clearer after reading Section 94.1 (2) which states: " A corporation or trade union that is convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 in addition to any other penalty provided for in this Act.". I am a little confused with this section. These "other" penalties include jail time and hence I wonder how one puts a corporation into jail. Does this suggest that the owner or major shareholder could be held personally liable for a corporate misdeed?

Section 90. (6) dealing with the Municipal Clerk has the this title preceding it: "Neglect of Duty". That pretty well sums it up. The Municipal Clerk does NOT owe her first duty to the municipality, the council or her superviser presumably the CAO of the municipality. Her first and foremost duty is to the citizens of both the community and the province. Her duties as well are to abide by all the relevant legislation including the MEA. That this is a difficult position if not an outright conflict of interest when one is hired by the municipal staff (CAO) and paid by the municipality I can appreciate.
That said our Clerk failed to issue the mandatory thirty day notice for submission of Financial Statements to all candidates ie. Mark Bauman and she failed to issue the Notices of Breech to both Mark Bauman and Sandy Shantz. Finally again she failed to issue the required Forfeiture of position to Mayor Shantz in a timely fashion. The issue here may hinge on the wilful aspect of her failings.

Councillor Mark Bauman had been through four previous elections and claims that the only time he properly submitted a Financial Statement was the one occasion where he had an opponent. That's really not much of a defence. The issue is whether he is as stupid and lazy as he would have us believe. It turns out that despite Mark's and the Clerk's protestations to the contrary, in fact there are multiple documents clearly stating that Acclaimed candidates must file Financial Statements. These include the MEA, the 2010 and 2014 Candidates Guide and the Financial Statement itself. If Mark fudged the truth is he guilty of a corrupt practice? Did he furnish " false or misleading information to a person whom this Act authorizes to obtain information" ? It is my strong opinion that he provided false and misleading information to Superior Court. One question I have is whether or not Superior Court are a "...person to whom this Act authorizes to obtain information". Another question I have is whether I as the complainant am a "...person to whom this Act authorizes to obtain information". These may be very tricky definitions.

Councillor Scott Hahn has not had the charmed relationship with MECAC (Compliance Audit Committee) that Mayor Shantz had.
MECAC properly ordered a Compliance Audit which quite frankly was devastating. His last minute receipts and invoices had a huge odour to them and the fact that the forensic Auditor (Froese & Partners) could not remorely validate any of them from the corporate end of either his father's company or his in-laws was very damaging. The fact the receipts for alleged illegal cash payments also could not be validated via a forensic audit was also very damaging. The validation I am referring to is of course documentary validation. Scott's chances before the courts I view as being very, very scary. MECAC baled him out by refusing to send him on to those courts. My opinion is that he and family members pulled a very stupid stunt to get him off and in an even half honest world he and they would currently be in legal jeopardy.

Lastly we have Mayor Shantz. Is she gulity of "Corrupt practices" as defined by the MEA. Let's figure that one out tomorrow.

Monday, September 7, 2015


The title above is also the title for Section 90 of the Municipal Elections Act 1996 (MEA). Section 90.(1) states: " If, when a person is convicted of an offence under section 89, the presiding judge finds that the offence was committed knowingly, the offence also constitutes a corrupt practice".

Section 89. states that : " A person is guilty of an offence if he or she, (h) furnishes false or misleading information to a person whom this Act authorizes to obtain information".

Finally Section 91 is titled "Corrupt practice and ineligibility for office". Section 91.(1) states " If a person is convicted of a corrupt practice under this Act, or an offence under the criminal Code (Canada) in connection with an act or omission that relates to an election to which this Act applies, then, in addition to any other penalty provided for in this Act, (a) any office to which the person was elected is forfeited and becomes vacant; and (b) the person is ineligible to be nominated for, or elected or appointed to, any office until the next two regular elections have taken place after the election to which the offence relates".

Those sections would tend to give the average citizen confidence that the law abhors intentional lying and coverups in order to hide contraventions and avoid accountability for Election Act violations. The problem is of course that lying and coverups of mistakes and errors are standard operating procedure for most politicians. It is their bread and butter. The only way a politician will ever admit to an offence is if they are caught red handed in front of multiple, unimpeachable witnesses.

Speaking of " addition to any other penalty provided for in this Act" from Section 91.(1) we will now examine Section 94.1 and 94.2 . Section 94.1 (1) states : " An individual who is convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to the following penalties in addition to any other penalty provided for in this Act:
1. For any offence, a fine of not more than $25,000.
2. For any offence other than a corrupt practice, the penalties described in subsection 80 (2).
3. For an offence under section 90, imprisonment for a term of not more than six months.
4. For any offence that the presiding judge finds that the individual committed knowingly, imprisonment for a term not more than six months.".

Wow now that even more makes it clear that intentional lying and coverups of Municipal Election Act contraventions are viewed as criminal acts requiring serious penalties including imprisonment. I would suggest that a few months back no one in Elmira remotely considered either imprisonment or heavy duty fines as being appropriate. Since then however all three local Woolwich cases have shocked citizens into realizing that the processes available to hold election candidates accountable are very susceptible to manipulation and improper behaviour.

Lastly Section 94.2 (1) advises us that: " No prosecution for an offence under this Act in relation to a regular election shall be commenced after December 1 of the fourth year following the year in which the regular election was held.". Well that certainly makes it interesting for the forseeable future doesn't it? I think tomorrow's posting may more carefully examine Sections 89, 90 and 91 as to how they may apply to our cases here in Woolwich Township.

Saturday, September 5, 2015


Yesterday's Woolwich Observer have followed up last week's incredible condemnation of Mayor, Council and Chemtura
with what could have been a puff piece about the qualifications and experience of the recently hired Chairman of the new TAG. Tag of course stands for Technical Advisory Group although I still prefer my pet name for them and the real controlling body RAC. Regardless the article titled "Bringing an experienced eye to Elmira's water woes" is actually quite well balanced. While speaking well of Chairman Richard Jackson the article doesn't mince words about the real intent and motive of the players controlling the strings. I certainly hope that Mr. Jackson figures that out quickly and understands that he has two members with him on TAG with absolutely incredible conflicts of interest. Above and beyond the ongoing paid trips around the continent for one is the employment of the other by both Conestoga Rovers and by the region of waterloo. Then start adding in personal honours and awards bestowed by the GRCA and the Region onto her and you begin to realize that she owes them way too much.

The motive and intent of Chemtura, M.O.E., Region, Woolwich Council and the GRCA goes way, way beyond highly suspect. Those groups are filled with professional bullshit artists whose primary duties are to misinform, obfuscate and pour oil on troubled waters. Those troubled waters are caused by the truth having been spoken to power and authority by the last CPAC and will continue as CPAC have changed their name from the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee to the Citizens Public Advisory Committee. Quoting the Observer article "But relations between CPAC and the MOE as well as Chemtura soured considerably in recent years as the public oversight group doggedly called out their counterparts for being behind on its 2028 cleanup target...". Also I loved the accurate and direct following statement describing RAC & TAG namely "The goal is to make more amicable the relationship beween the chemical producer and the government body that's supposed to monitor Chemtura's pollutants." So now I better understand that the cause of the second World war was Britain, France and Canada's inabilty to secure a more amicable relationship with Adolph Hitler. This is a valid comparison as dealing with self centred, arrogant, lying and unaccountable dictators can no more be done via amicable relationships than dealing with self centred, arrogant, lying and unaccountable corporations.

Mr. Jackson whoever is paying you will call the tune. If it's Woolwich Township you are in for a disappointment. If it's Chemtura they will turn on you the moment they think you are for real. If you simply are getting paid approximately $1,000 per meeting and laughing all the way to the bank then I have no sympathy for you. RAC's membership are all part of the Status Quo, hold your nose and do nothing club. TAG has a couple of good ones on it and a couple of proven stinkers that an honest Woolwich Council and Mayor should barely have put on their dog crap, parks cleanup committee.

Friday, September 4, 2015


MECAC did one hell of a poor job with their public appearances. Apparently they did not know when they were recruited that acting was a major part of their job. The July 2/15 meeting was in a word a disgrace. There wasn't even a half reasonable attempt to concoct official sounding reasons much less excuses for not sending mayor Shantz on for a Compliance Audit. MECAC accepted at face value a 30 page package of documents, unread, which allegedly included an audit and then they said O.K. everything's good here. No need for a real forensic audit as she's included her own private audit. While I and other honest citizens had not seen either a private audit much less a forensic audit before; surely MECAC has seen both. They would have known how mickeymouse and for show only the private, inexpensive audit really was.

That MECAC then had the audacity to meet in camera for an hour prior to the public meeting a week ago yesterday regarding Scott Hahn is both arrogant and contemptible. Yes as always the excuse was given that it was for a legitimate purpose, this time for "education". Horseshit! It was to get all their ducks (read excuses) in a row. First off MECAC should not be receiving biased legal "opinion" from the Township's lawyer. Secondly they are supposed to be accountants, lawyers and politicians themselves. In other words they should have informed themselves a very long time ago as to the ins and outs of the Municipal Elections Act 1996.

Woolwich citizens once again we've been scammed by a home grown, biased and corrupt system. Our Woolwich Staff and Council are masters at manipulating rules, regulations, laws and courts. The worst thing is it's our tax money they use to manipulate and disadvantage us. Seems a lot like the school board's behaviour and they even survived the Ron Archer scandal without an inquiry or reform.

Thursday, September 3, 2015


At the last Council meeting on August 25 Mayor Shantz started the meeting with the self serving pronouncement that as Council has a written Agenda and sticks to it (somewhat), therefore Delegates should stick to the three or four word title of their Delegations. Really Sandy. Democracy by it's nature and composition can not be expected to always be neat, clean and simple. Citizens, as in those who are paying the freight, have issues which they have a right to expect their local representatives to listen to, have respect for and if within their authority to address. What we do not need are a self serving clique, a Family Compact if you will, changing the rules whenever they don't like how the citizens they are supposed to be serving, disagree with them.

Mayor Shantz also read off some nonsense about the behaviour of Delegations. As stated in the previous paragraph it sounds as if Council have gone and changed the rules retroactively again. Part of what she read I recognized from the Township's Procedural By-Law regarding Delegations, which is on their website. The word "vexatious" plus a couple of other comments allegedly describing Delegates behaviour I did not recognize. The world really must be a frustrating place for control freaks. The more they attempt to expand their authority the more pushback they receive.

Chemtura have been lying low for the past ten months enjoying the respite. They also know that they should be able to bullshit and bafflegab the incoming TAG (Technical Advisory Group) for a considerable amount of time. If indeed Mark and Sandy in their desperation for new members have appointed two honest and informed professionals then it's only a matter of time before Chemtura and the M.O.E. feel the heat. That unfortunately has long been their Agenda. Stall, delay, procrastinate and then cry for their Mommys (& other corrupt politicians) to bail them out when citizens lose patience with their lying. I therefore see little or no hope during this Council's tenure. If there are a couple of honest citizens on TAG along with the two professionals then it will still be hopeless. RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) have the authority to speak to Council not TAG. RAC are dominated by the mayor, a Councillor, the Region and the GRCA. In other words a pack of folks heavily invested in the status quo.

Discussion continues regarding the election expenses of Mayor Shantz and Scott Hahn. While Mark deceived Superior Court nevertheless the fact is that he has filed his Financial Statement as bare bones as it is. Bet you don't pull that stunt again Mark even with the collusion of the Township Clerk. It is of course discouraging when citizens play by the rules and their crooked politicians do not. Both Scott and Sandy have a lot to be ashamed of and that isn't referring to their ignorance and incompetence as much as it is referring to their manipulation and blatant corruption of MECAC, the legal system and themselves. MECAC twice made decisions that fly in the face of the facts, reality, common sense and the intent of the Municipal Elections Act 1996. They are corrupted and they have lost all credibility. The Compliance Audit (forensic audit) was devastating to Councillor Hahn yet MECAC through advanced horse manure and excuses ignored the most serious facts regarding what appeared to be manufactured, after the fact, receipts and invoices. MECAC also gave Mayor Shantz a pass on requiring a Compliance Audit only for her to be removed from office eight days later for her Election Act contraventions.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015


I am the recipient of a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Waterloo in 1974. While my courses were primarily Economics with a smidgen of Statistics there was also one whole Accounting course. Basically just about enough to understand Debits and Credits, double entry bookeeping etc.. That said allegedly Mayor Shantz by her own claims has 31 years of bookeeping experience in her husband's firm. Sorry but I don't think I believe that based upon her outstanding (in left field) efforts with four different Financial Statements. Is it possible that Sandy simply has drawn a salary from her husband's firm as a form of income splitting all those years while raising a family, working part time as a Trustee and later Councillor?

Back on August 22/15 I again free of charge gave Sandy more advice; this time on her latest two Financial Statements, both dated August 6 (submitted to the Clerk on August 20/15). Sandy had been given thirty days after her July 23/15 Superior Court date to provide her amended Financial Statement-Auditor's Report. Most of us and probably Justice David Broad expected her to simply, refile her March 23/June 16, 2015 Financial Statement-Auditor's Report. Then Sandy was given until the end of September to file her Supplementary Financial Statement-Auditor's Report which was to include additional expenses incurred after January 1/15 such as Audits and legal expenses. Instead she filed it simultaneously with her once again significantly different third amended Financial Statement. It also had the August 6/15 date on both Sandy's Statement and on the Auditor's Report. Why not wait until the end of September? Ahhh!

Sandy may be incompetent but she's cunning. I listed here in the Advocate on August 3, 8:34 am. ten different errors and omissions in her second set of Statements presented to MECAC (July 2) and Superior Court (July 23). Many of them have now been added to her August 6 Financial Statements. That is neither an accident nor a sudden outburst of integrity. Sandy knew that I was ready and willing to take her for a second go to MECAC if she again attempted to omit the complete expenses as she did in her February 2 and March 23/June 16 (second) Financials.

So Sandy incorporated my work again into her third and fourth set of Financials. Now could she be waiting for my entire list of her latest bookeeping errors and omissions? Is she planning on carefully assessing them first and then before the last deadline given her by Justice Broad to incorporate them and refile her Supplementary Statement?

I gave her some hints on August 22nd. This next hint is one she doesn't dare incorporate. Her entire errors and omissions right from the start (February 2/15) were all about avoiding an Audit based upon both her Expenses and Contributions exceeding the $10,000 threshold. That bird has long since flown (three times). She now knows there is literally nothing to fear from an ordinary Audit by her personal accountant. A real honest to goodness forensic audit however is another kettle of fish entirely. While a forensic/Compliance Audit would pick up on her latest numerous minor errors and omissions it would also examine her Contributions: read DONORS. What else is left that could explain her reluctance to include all her receipts, invoices and lists of donors?

If Chemtura Canada gave her two $750 donations from two different employees and she so listed them in Table 1 that would be legal. If Chemtura Inc. gave her $1500 that would not be. That said Sandy knows what kind of an outcry there would have been from CPAC if they had seen such donations this past winter and spring when Sandy and Mark were attacking and smearing CPAC for the purpose of dissolving them and bringing Chemtura back to the table. Sandy originally had $1,658 in donations each allegedly below $100 each. That figure oddly increased in her two most recent Statements to $1,713. Regardless maybe she had 16 donors giving $100 each plus one or two more smaller contributers OR maybe she buried two $750 donations into this account, improperly. Is this what has been her motivation to play fast and loose with the rules concerning both MECAC and Superior Court? Does she know that her integrity/credibility would have been grossly comprimised if she had admitted to major donations from Chemtura Canada whether legal or otherwise while promising them that she would disband public participation via CPAC?

Tuesday, September 1, 2015


Officially today September 1, 2015 RAC/TAG (Really Awful Chemtura Truth Avoidance Groups) begin their mandate while CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee) allegedly is finished. Two points: firstly my acronym above for RAC/TAG while fundamentally accurate is due to Mayor Shantz's and Councillor Bauman's intentional structure and organization of it. Yes there are some co-opted company monkees on TAG with gross conflicts of interest. There are also some friends of the Mayor from the local curling club. That said being a curler while not a particular qualification does not preclude honesty of character. There are also a couple of well qualified individuals on TAG. Unfortunately the real influence due to the political structure is on RAC and it is dominated by two hopeless Woolwich Councillors, the Region of Waterloo and the equally useless Grand River Conservation Authority. Yes the TAG Chair and one other TAG member are also on RAC.

Chemtura and their long captured "regulator" the Ontario Ministry of the Environment have achieved a breakthrough. With the assistance of two corrupt Councillors and the apathy/stupidity of most of the rest of Council they have reduced public participation to a whisper. Keep in mind that Councillor Merlihan in a public Council meeting did refer to the structure of RAC/TAG as "cringeworthy". Despite that he voted along with the rest of the sheep on Council.

CPAC can not be finished due to the efforts of liars, polluters, politicians, bureaucrats and other assorted lowlifes thriving here in Woolwich Township. Mark, Sandy, Jeff, Dwight, Helder, Pat, Susan and M.O.E. professional liars as well have actually solidified the resistance to their do nothing but talk, stall, obfuscate and hide information plans.

CPAC are now officially the Citizens Public Advisory Committee. You will be hearing more from them in upcoming months.

By the way the Woolwich election expense scandal combined with the Ombudsman's Report detailing improper and illegal in camera meetings has exposed Woolwich Staff and Council incompetence and dishonesty. That is very important as more citizens learn that our local "authorities" are not inherently smarter or more competent than local citizens. Let's see how long they can remember that.