SUNDAY, JUNE 14, 2009
SWSDA TO DISAPPEAR!
SO SAYS… THE NEW DEPUTY MINISTER!
In a letter dated May 26, 2009 Mr. Ian Thompson the new Deputy Minister over at Economic and Rural Development (ERD)advises SWSDA and Municipal Members of SWSDA’s Board that they must be incorporated under the Regional Communities Development Act passed into law twelve years ago in 1997 to receive future funding.
SWSDA tosses reporter from meeting…
Shelburne County Today
18feb2009
Despite the recent ruling by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court that the South West Shore Development Authority (SWSDA) was a public agency according to the laws of the Province and despite protests by several member politicians, CEO Frank Anderson had the Shelburne RCMP escort SCT editor and publisher Timothy Gillespie from the Shelburne meeting of the agency in Shelburne early Wednesday morning.
Anderson told Gillespie that, despite the court ruling, he considered the meeting a “private” one and not open to the public or the media. In a November, 2008 decision, Supreme Court Justice Suzanne Hood determined that, because its membership is comprised almost exclusively of elected officials and the agency’s funding is almost exclusively from public funds, SWSDA is a “municipal body” and should not be exempt from legislation controlling their actions.
…
One SWSDA member reported that the board of directors decided at the meeting that the agency was obliged to conform to Freedom of Information requests as “municipal agency”, but determined that they were not subject to public meeting legislation. “In light of the court’s recent ruling,” said an authority on the governing legislation,” that is a patently absurd and dangerous conclusion. All of the municipalities which comprise SWSDA are now subject to almost certain legal action in the courts and to all of the costs and bad publicity that will entail.”
5jan2009: NDP calls for SWSDA audit… $1 million-plus unaccounted for…
Shelburne County MLA Sterling Belliveau called on the Office of the Auditor General on Monday for a full provincial independent audit of the South West Shore Regional Development Authority’s handling of the sale of the Sandy Point sound stage and the boys’ school.
“The residents of Shelburne have been calling for an audit for more than a year,” says Belliveau. “The questions being asked are not going to go away. Residents want, and deserve, to know that the money from these sales will be utilized within Shelburne County. It’s time for the Auditor General to step in and investigate this situation.”
…
Lockeport Mayor Darian Huskilson, former SWSDA executive member and outspoken critic of some of the business practices of SWSDA, told SCT that, any politics aside, there has been considerable public interest in “getting to the bottom of a murky situation.” Huskilson added, “the public has a right to have a full accounting of public monies.”
Court rules development authority is a public body by Michael Gorman/The Vanguard THE VANGUARD NovaNewsNow.com The South West Shore Development Authority (SWSDA) lost a legal battle last week that could have wide-reaching impacts on the information it is required to release. In a ruling from the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Justice Suzanne M. Hood ruled that SWSDA is a public body and, thus, is subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPOP) Act. The ruling is the result of a claim filed by Adelard A. Cayer, who was appealing a request for access to the travel expenses of Frank Anderson, the CEO for SWSDA. The Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia, a group dedicated to bringing openness and transparency to government, intervened in the case. FULL ARTICLE: <http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-278734-Court-rules-development-authority-is-a-public-body.html>
By Michael Gorman
Court rules FOI laws still apply Case involved development authority’s refusal to provide information By JEFFREY SIMPSON Staff Reporter Fri. Nov 28 – 5:54 AM Arm’s-length government agencies cannot prevent the public from prying into their business by claiming to be exempt from freedom of information laws, Nova Scotia Supreme Court decided this week. The ruling involved the South West Shore Development Authority, which had refused to release information that a Shelburne-area man had requested about how it was spending money. The authority argued it was outside the jurisdiction of freedom of information laws. The man, Adelard Cayer, took the authority to court. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed down its decision, saying that the authority is an agency of the municipal government, which appoints its members and supports its operations financially. And since municipalities are subject to freedom of information laws, so are the agencies they establish and fund. “If they’re using our money, we have a right to find enough information from them to decide whether or not they’re doing what we want them to do,” said Darce Fardy, who founded the Right to Know Coalition after retiring in 2006 as the province’s review officer for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. “This business of trying to do it in secret is just not on.” Full Article: <http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1092940.html>
26nov2008: In what may be a far-reaching decision for access to public records from government agencies, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court published an opinion today in a two-year legal battle to obtain the expense claims of Frank Anderson, CEO of the South West Shore Development Authority (SWSDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPOP) Act. The suit by Shelburne businessman Ed Cayer was filed after Anderson and his attorneys refused to abide by rulings by the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information Office and Cayer appealed to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court where the matter was heard by Justice Suzanne M. Hood. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, Anderson and SWSDA have continued to claim that SWSDA is not a “public body” and that SWSDA and Anderson are somehow exempt from the FIOPOP legislation. In her 38-page decision from a trial de novo, Justice Hood spelled out her reasoning for the decision, which included opinions that, despite attempts to amend its by-laws to the contrary, SWSDA is and was always a public body under the Nova Scotia Municipal Government Act (MGA) and, in that, fully subject to FIOPOP standards.. She cited four court cases, including a recent, similar case involving the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO) in which the judge determined that it was “contrary to the purpose of the (FOIPOP) Act and access to information legislation in general to permit… [the evasion of] the statutory duty to provide residents with access to information…”
Big loss for SWSDA chief on legal front… Appeals Court demands release of expense records… RDAs are public bodies says court…
Right to Know pleased with court decision By KELLY SHIERS Staff Reporter Thu. Nov 27 – 5:53 AM An advocacy group is heralding a Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision that the South West Shore Regional Development Authority [SWSDA] is a public body subject to the province’s Freedom of Information Act. “We’re very pleased,” said Darce Fardy
“It’s important because regional development authorities have great influence on what’s happening in their communities and they’re publicly funded. “To have them feel that they’re unaccountable to the public that they’re serving and using public funds to do it, that they’re not going to be open and accountable, . . . for me, I’m not a lawyer, I just said that doesn’t make sense.” The coalition became involved in the legal wrangling when the South West Shore Regional Development Authority turned down an individual’s request for records, citing, among its reasons, that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act doesn’t apply to it, Mr. Fardy said. When that person asked the court to review that finding, the Right to Know Coalition intervened. An authority spokesman could not be reached Wednesday evening. Inserted from <http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1092836.html>
Darce Fardy RTKCNS President – Image via Wikipedia
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=72c9c254-80f5-45d2-84f5-8c60a1e18f31)
Development (SWSDA) authority to prepare report The Vanguard Article online since February 11st 2008, 13:39 By Eric Bourque The public consultation sessions having been held, it was time to sort through the material and work on a summary of what was discussed, which is what Dave Warner of the South West Shore Development Authority was in the midst of doing when contacted last week. The first of the sessions was held at the Barrington Lions Club. Sessions followed in Yarmouth, at the Burridge Campus of the Nova Scotia Community College, and in Little Brook at the Clare Social Club. Inserted from <http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-182802-Development-authority-to-prepare-report.html>
THE VANGUARD
NovaNewsNow.com
The development authority’s annual three-part series of consultation meetings was held last month over two weekends in three counties.
The Clare and Shelburne County sessions drew about 40 participants each, basically on par with a year ago, while the Yarmouth turnout was down, this time consisting of around 60 people.
Referring to the Yarmouth session, Warner said it was still a good gathering, even if the participants were not as numerous as last year.
He notes that the session each year tends to draw a mix of people who are keen on having a good discussion.
The consultation sessions are part of an annual process the development authority goes through to hear what people have to say with regard to priorities for the region – issues to be addressed or projects to be pursued.
Warner said the authority also was hoping to hear from municipal units.
One of 13 regional development authorities in Nova Scotia, the South West Shore Development Authority used to confine its consultation process to Yarmouth and Shelburne counties, but the geographical scope was broadened with the addition of the Municipality of Clare, which joined SWSDA in 2005.
Previously, Clare had been affiliated with a development authority that covered the western Annapolis Valley region.
Accountability vital By DARCE FARDY Thu. Dec 20 – 6:38 AM The Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia is pleased with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court’s recent decision that the coalition has a legitimate role in a legal action concerning the South West Shore Regional Development Authority (SWSDA). The case was brought to court by an individual whose application for records from the SWSDA was turned down. While rejecting the application, the authority expressed its view that it is not subject to the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPOP). It was on this matter that the coalition asked the court for permission to intervene. SWSDA opposed our application to the court. The applicant had no objections. SWSDA argued that the coalition had no “direct interest” in the proceeding and its intervention would delay the appeal. Justice A. David MacAdam, in allowing our appeal, said the coalition will bring the perspective of a body “directly interested in the public interest issues it raises.” He described our coalition as “an organization which is genuinely interested in the issues” raised by the applicant’s appeal. The court decision recognizes the significance of freedom of information legislation, and the coalition’s advocacy role in the application of FOIPOP to agencies that deal with public resources. The coalition was represented by Brian Awad, who told the court the question of whether freedom of information laws apply to SWSDA is important because of the significance of economic development to the future of Nova Scotia, the key role the regional development authorities have assumed or been given in this regard, and the increasing frequency with which public projects or undertakings involve “quasi-public bodies or public/private partnerships.” This is the argument the coalition will carry forward when the court hears the case. The court’s ruling, in our view, will have far-reaching consequences for the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Beyond the courts, it is time for the legislature to have another look at the wording of the FOIPOP Act with a view to ensuring that any agency of government or a municipality that spends taxpayers’ money must be accountable to the taxpayer. The Right to Know Coalition is an advocacy group established in 2006 to encourage the use and development of freedom of information legislation in order to foster a better informed and more politically active electorate in Nova Scotia, and to improve the quality of public and private decision-making through advocacy and education. We believe that a lack of openness and accountability by “public bodies” contributes significantly to public apathy and alarmingly low voter turnouts. Darce Fardy is president, Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia. Inserted from <http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/999246.html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Date: 2007/11/28 Docket: S. H. No. 277885A Between: Adelard A. Cayer Appellant LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam Summary: The applicant, the Right-to-Know Coalition of Nova Scotia, applied pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 8 to intervene in an appeal under the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In the main proceeding, the Acting Freedom of Information Review Officer determined that the South West Shore Development Authority was a “municipal body” and was subject to the freedom of information provisions of the Municipal Government Act. The Development Authority declined to comply with this recommendation, leading to the appeal by Issue: Should the Court grant leave to the applicant to intervene in the appeal? Result: Rule 8 requires the applicant to demonstrate an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and to show that the intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the appeal. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion, the Court will consider the subject matter of the proceeding, the interest of the applicant, the potential for delay arising from the intervention, the potential for prejudice or injustice arising from the intervention and the contribution the applicant can make to the litigation. Rule 8 has been interpreted broadly, and does not require the applicant to demonstrate that its proprietary rights or legal interests are directly affected by the proceeding. Demonstrating a public interest in the subject matter of the proceeding may be a sufficient basis for intervention. In addition, it is well-established that Nova Scotia’s freedom of information laws require a generous interpretation in order to ensure public access to information. The applicant had demonstrated an interest in the issues raised by the appeal. The interests of the applicant and the appellant were not identical or virtually indistinguishable. The applicant is concerned with the scope of freedom of information legislation, which is a matter of public interest. The fact that Mr. Cayer and the Coalition took the same position on the issues upon which the Coalition sought to make submissions did not mean that they approached the appeal from identical perspectives. Other than referencing this application, the respondent did not provide any detail on any delay or prejudice that might arise from the Coalition’s intervention so as to outweigh the Coalition’s contribution to the proceeding.
Cayer v. South West Shore Development Authority [SWSDA], 2007 NSSC 346
Registry: Halifax
v.
South West Shore Development Authority Respondent
Heard: September 18, 2007 in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Subject: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, – Civil Procedure Rule 8, – Application to intervene.
Mr. Cayer.
The application to intervene was allowed.
